Mention violence in the United States, you will never fail to hear the masses say ‘It is easy to get hold of guns in America!’ I cannot deny that there is some truth to what they perceive about obtaining handguns. At the same time I must say that this perception merely applies to criminals in the United States. For any decent residents in the United States who already possess a handgun and about to obtain one can agree with me that obtaining a permit to legally possess a handgun is easier said than done.
Allow me to say that the process is tedious and stringent. Adding to the process are handgun laws and regulations where the penalty of not adhering to them is hefty and could extend to incarceration and fines if not both. Since I reside in the United States, I had the opportunity to read the law pertaining to firearms by the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. It was dry but insightful as I never knew that criminal possession of a handgun is considered a class D felony. Criminal possession means not carrying the permit when one has possession of a handgun. Furthermore, a permit is only valid in the state where the permit was issued. To carry and use the handgun in another state would require a permit from the respective state.
Acquainted although not yet familiar with these laws and a little apprehensive for fear of being incarcerated for having a slight tendency of being forgetful (I have the reputation of not carrying legal documents when I am suppose to), I called up a friend of mine to register me for the National Rifle Association (NRA) Safety and Use of Pistols and Revolvers course, a pre-requisite to obtaining a handgun permit.
The course consists of two three hours in-classroom and a one day on-range instruction. The two day in-classroom instruction was informal where experienced NRA Certified instructors taught students crucial safety rules when handling a handgun. By the end of the first day, I had the basic safety rules drummed into my head. They are:
1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
It was easy remembering them as the instructors narrated mishaps as a result of being careless and not following these three fundamental gun handling rules. On top of that, range instructors will fail students who do not follow these safety rules.
On the second day, students were acquainted with the laws and regulations governing handguns and were stressed upon to adhere to them. Additionally, students had the opportunity to load and unload different models of pistols and revolvers using dummy bullets. While I followed the three rules religiously although the handguns were loaded with dummy bullets, I had a few fellow course mates pointing the handgun right at me (that’s right, keep that up and someone will surely get hurt).
The final day we had a chance to handle handguns with real bullets at the shooting range. I was fortunate enough to try out a range of pistols and revolvers and had my friend take me to the shooting range the day before to fire a few rounds to obtain more experience (He owns approximately 30 different guns…..phew).
Honestly, I am bad shot. Being a right handed person and left eye dominant shooter, it created problems for me. One possible solution is to train my right eye for aiming and shooting. The hurdle now is the 2 months wait for my appointment with the police officer to have my fingerprints taken and application submitted. The application includes the certificate for successfully completing and passing the course, a copy of my US driver’s license, letters of character reference, photo and bank cheques. Yes, I have to pay processing fees to three separate parties i.e. Commissioner of Public Safety, local police department and the Department of Public Safety.
This of course is not the end of the story.
What comes after the submission is a possible 6 to 8 weeks wait for the application results. At this juncture, the application can either be accepted or denied. Successful application will result in the issuance of a town handgun permit. With that permit, one can make their way to the Department of Public Safety to apply for the state handgun permit which will take another 2 to 4 weeks.
Such long wait but well worth it I must admit. Once having obtained the state permit, I will be on my way to buying my first handgun for target shooting. My second handgun that I intend to obtain will be primarily use for self protection. Two handguns for starters should be sufficient for beginners. After all, good handguns and the bullets do not come cheap. I could literally see my greenbacks flying out from my checking account even at this moment…..sigh.
Nevertheless, for those out there who still thinks that obtaining handguns are easy through legitimate means, you may want to reconsider this perception. Also, for those who are interested in seeing what a bad shot I am, feel free to access the URL below.
http://rhys31.multiply.com/photos/album/9/Target_Shooting
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
My Take on Handguns
Thursday, August 09, 2007
To Challenge Religion: Your beliefs
Religion has always been a sore subject for me. Many times I have logged heads with family and friends on this issue. It came to a point where I could only express what I believed in, hope for others to open their eyes and to ask questions. Since then, I have ceased to discuss religion at length for fear of tension and friction. Reading an article on msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/page/4/) however, compelled me to express myself once again about religion and how most humans have lost reasoning for themselves. It is as though they have reverted to a learning process of "Monkey see, monkey do".
Most religion advocates life and does not condone destroying lives. The Catholic position begins with the statement that human life must be respected and protected. With this belief, the official Church teaching forbids direct abortion and birth control for it is at the moment of conception that the tiny being is a human life and thus must be respected and protected. By itself, this belief is positive but a tad short from being realistic and practical in today’s life.
Medical science has developed emergency contraception (EC) also known as ‘morning after pills’ to help prevent unwanted conception hence prescription as such is most useful to women who fall prey to rapists. The concern is that these women were denied EC and some even as far as referrals because some physicians chose to uphold the Church’s teaching that forbids birth control.
What then is the right answer for women who find themselves in such circumstance?
Based on this belief, perhaps the fitting answer is to let God decide if the unwanted pregnancy should take place. If the pregnancy does take place, the mother will give birth to the child. At this juncture, she will either send the child for adoption or keep the child but be reminded of the inhumane incident that took place each time she looks at the child’s face. In the midst of upholding this belief, the rest of world should also forget about the financial situation of the mother or her conscience when one day and God forbid her child should question his or her origins. One with a logical mind can clearly comprehend that upholding the belief and not weighing potential issues does not benefit any women in this particular situation. In this instance, the physician who denied her the EC and referral was clearly judging and not thinking.
One would also sense that perhaps there are exceptions to the rule. Perhaps that is not the case.
A married woman 14 weeks pregnant had her water broken needed an abortion to prevent serious infection that could lead to infertility or death. The nearest hospital under Catholic administration denied care for this woman by requesting her physician to wait for an onset of an infection before carrying out the necessary procedure. Her physician fearing for the patient sent her to a secular hospital 80 miles away for the procedure. In another instant, a woman with ectopic pregnancy had a choice of an invasive procedure to remove the embryo implanted in her fallopian tube or a less risky method that administer methotrexate, a drug used for cancer to dissolve the pregnancy that spares the tube. The directive from the Catholic hospital was to perform the invasive procedure as the latter is a “direct abortion” as oppose to the former that is a lifesaving method that indirectly kills the embryo. Like any logical individual, the patient checked into another ER.
As a reader who stumbled upon this article, I tried to understand the need for doctors to be respected for their beliefs. While there is a need to provide healthcare to patients, one cannot deny out of respect for doctors that they are certainly faced with an ethical dilemma. Some procedures pointed out by them are indeed in conflict with their moral ideology and they should have the right like any individual to freedom of religion.
I like many others advocate the freedom of speech, belief and religion. The matter at hand is not the issue of freedom but to what extent one should exercise their belief? What is the boundary? Have humans lost the reasoning for themselves that they uphold teachings that are shaped by institutions, leaders of religion consisting of everyday people like you and I without questioning the basis of these beliefs?
Perhaps to some, it is much easier to abide by what others tell them to trust even to the extent of exercising moral judgment on others as long as the belief is deemed inspiration from a higher power. Conceivably, it is more difficult to deliberate and contemplate of what is true and not. By challenging one's belief for the purpose of seeking the truth is liken to having the security blanket being pulled from the bottom of one's feet and being placed out of the comfort zone.
The question is how many are willing to extract themselves out of the comfort zone for a period of time to seek the truth? Would you be comfortable?
Most religion advocates life and does not condone destroying lives. The Catholic position begins with the statement that human life must be respected and protected. With this belief, the official Church teaching forbids direct abortion and birth control for it is at the moment of conception that the tiny being is a human life and thus must be respected and protected. By itself, this belief is positive but a tad short from being realistic and practical in today’s life.
Medical science has developed emergency contraception (EC) also known as ‘morning after pills’ to help prevent unwanted conception hence prescription as such is most useful to women who fall prey to rapists. The concern is that these women were denied EC and some even as far as referrals because some physicians chose to uphold the Church’s teaching that forbids birth control.
What then is the right answer for women who find themselves in such circumstance?
Based on this belief, perhaps the fitting answer is to let God decide if the unwanted pregnancy should take place. If the pregnancy does take place, the mother will give birth to the child. At this juncture, she will either send the child for adoption or keep the child but be reminded of the inhumane incident that took place each time she looks at the child’s face. In the midst of upholding this belief, the rest of world should also forget about the financial situation of the mother or her conscience when one day and God forbid her child should question his or her origins. One with a logical mind can clearly comprehend that upholding the belief and not weighing potential issues does not benefit any women in this particular situation. In this instance, the physician who denied her the EC and referral was clearly judging and not thinking.
One would also sense that perhaps there are exceptions to the rule. Perhaps that is not the case.
A married woman 14 weeks pregnant had her water broken needed an abortion to prevent serious infection that could lead to infertility or death. The nearest hospital under Catholic administration denied care for this woman by requesting her physician to wait for an onset of an infection before carrying out the necessary procedure. Her physician fearing for the patient sent her to a secular hospital 80 miles away for the procedure. In another instant, a woman with ectopic pregnancy had a choice of an invasive procedure to remove the embryo implanted in her fallopian tube or a less risky method that administer methotrexate, a drug used for cancer to dissolve the pregnancy that spares the tube. The directive from the Catholic hospital was to perform the invasive procedure as the latter is a “direct abortion” as oppose to the former that is a lifesaving method that indirectly kills the embryo. Like any logical individual, the patient checked into another ER.
As a reader who stumbled upon this article, I tried to understand the need for doctors to be respected for their beliefs. While there is a need to provide healthcare to patients, one cannot deny out of respect for doctors that they are certainly faced with an ethical dilemma. Some procedures pointed out by them are indeed in conflict with their moral ideology and they should have the right like any individual to freedom of religion.
I like many others advocate the freedom of speech, belief and religion. The matter at hand is not the issue of freedom but to what extent one should exercise their belief? What is the boundary? Have humans lost the reasoning for themselves that they uphold teachings that are shaped by institutions, leaders of religion consisting of everyday people like you and I without questioning the basis of these beliefs?
Perhaps to some, it is much easier to abide by what others tell them to trust even to the extent of exercising moral judgment on others as long as the belief is deemed inspiration from a higher power. Conceivably, it is more difficult to deliberate and contemplate of what is true and not. By challenging one's belief for the purpose of seeking the truth is liken to having the security blanket being pulled from the bottom of one's feet and being placed out of the comfort zone.
The question is how many are willing to extract themselves out of the comfort zone for a period of time to seek the truth? Would you be comfortable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)