Checksum Arcanius

On the bumper of my truck today, I found the most curious sticker: “Gun Control means using both hands.” Strangely appropriate considering my recent posts. But I didn’t put it there, and I was at a loss for who would have put it there. I called around some and after getting testimony from my dad, and my cousin, I narrowed in on my uncle as the primary suspect. It wasn’t until I later talked to my borther that I got the full story. It seems that he and my uncle were walking around Seattle when they came upon a little hole-in-the-wall store selling all sorts of provocative political slogans. They found one that suited my temperment, then attached it to my bumper. I’m not sure which is more extraordinary – that they were doing this before I even posted the infamous gun control post, or that the first thing I saw that had changed outside after writing that post was this bumper sticker. Let me tell you what a strange that is.

In other news, my team lost 20-16 when we were offed of the soccer field by the soccer teams that showed up. I played barefoot to honor Brian, an that adversely affected my performance. And while its good to have Jacob’s throw and fire back, he also tends to incite everyone a little. I don’t generally have a problem with it (except for the one incident, but thats another story), but Talor, who has never had a problem up to this point, stormed off today, and Ben, usually a cool cat, almost did the same. I’m not sure quite how he does it, but its like theres a mean streak in there just waiting to come out. Its a bit scary – I don’t want another incident, but I’m not willing to let this great tradition of ultimate we’ve built up be ruined by one incitor either.

First, read Bernie’s comment on my last post.

Excerpt from his link: Firearm ownership in the home is associated with an increased risk of unintentional firearm fatalities among children. …No, really?

Bear in mind, Bernie et al., that I advocate libertarianism primarily at the national level. I think the states should adopt a variety of presumably widely differing laws on all sorts of issues, ranging from gun restrictions and regulation to abortion to business taxes et cetera.

Bear in mind that the powers granted and restricted in the Constitution of the United States of America apply, in almost all cases only to the federal government. For example, I do not believe it is against the US constitution for California (for example), to outlaw guns entirely. It would be an interesting experiment (and I predict a terribly catastrophic one), but whichever way it goes, even if I am wrong in my prediction, we would have learned some new, useful information which it is currently impossible to learn because all the the states are so homogenized by the pervasive federal government.

Yes, it is sad that children die from unintentional and intentional gun violence. But if you want to throw statistics around, check out these automotive death statistics. Why in the world don’t we outlaw cars before guns. After all, Americans own millions are cars, and I’d venture a guess that more people own cars than own guns (such as myself). Yet here is just one comparison (I leave the rest to you):

Automotive: 972 deaths of children 7 and under (2003)
Guns: more than 180 children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries (1995)

Hmmmm… The simple truth is, far, far, far more people, including children, die from cars than guns, yet we hapily go on allowing cars to drive around (although we pile so many regulations on them that the least expensive cars are still out of the price range of the poorest families, further exacerbating their inability to lift themselves out of their plight), because, so far, their usefulness far outweighs the damage they cause. Now, some might argue that guns aren’t useful, therefore it does make sense to outlaw them where it doesn’t make sense to outlaw cars. But those people are projecting their opinions of usefulness onto others, and they are wrong. I, for one, consider guns to be extremely useful. True, not as useful as cars (which are a cornerstone of our modern society), but certainly more useful than the accidental – and purposeful illegal – deaths they cause each year.

And, since it is so easy to twist statistics whichever way one pleases, I thought I’d use the statistics from Bernie’s link to paint a very different picture.
Given:
223 million firearms owned by americans
1680 accidental deaths and injuries of children 14 and under with firearms

That means that 0.0007% of guns are accidently discharged and hurt of child. That kind of statistic makes guns seem like a pretty safe thing to have around. Who wants to bet that kids have a higher probability of falling down stairs and getting hurt or killed than they do of accidentally shooting themselves or a friend with a gun?Anyone want to do the research?

Drive safely. Peace.

“I’m George W. Bush and You can trust ME to run your life.”
“I’m John Kerry and You can trust ME to run your life.”
“I’m Raplh Nader and You can trust ME to run your life.”
“I’m Michael Badnarik and I trust YOU to run your own life.”

“The reason we can’t find a relationship between the Constitution and the government is that there is none.” — Michael Badnarik

Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target

etc…

Well, life is going to be crazy again this week. We have an aunt, uncle, and cousin with us right now, and part of my job is to help entertain them. Tomorrow we are climbing Mount Si. Meet me at my house at 2:30 if you are interested in coming. Then of course tomorrow is also the hack session, at Larry’s, starting at six. At the hack session, we should start getting the robot to move around and resist turning using the gyro. We’ll also be working on hooking up the encoders. I hope I’ll be able to squeeze the hike in and not be too late. Thursday is the last Thursday game I’ll be playing at Robinswood for a while, since I recieved an invitation from Bob to join a UW intramural team that plays on Thursdays and that sounds divine. Its already started, but I’ll still be at Robinswood this Thursday, because its Brian’s last day this summer. Jacob came to the game today (which my team lost by two) for the first time in a while, and it was good to see him again, especially his cross-field throws and wild jumping catches. A group of kids on a mission trip from Montana, Texas, and Tennessee joing us for the last 20 minutes, and helped us pull from 6 down to within two, but as time expired, we couldn’t convert the last point and were unable to force overtime. The extended family leaves Saturday morning, and I’m debating going to Greg’s cabin Friday night as originally planned or Saturday after frisbee, so that I can do a Friday night activity with the fam-fam. The weekend hack session could potentially be on Sunday then, around noon, an then of course there’s soccer at 60 acres park at 6. Then on top of that I have work, and things are speeding up again, but my configuration program seems to be coming along at a pretty good clip itself.

Sorry for the dearth of posts, but I didn’t find much internet access on my recent trip to Utah for a family reunion. Otherwise the trip was most excellent. For the first time, I really started to like this whole family reunion thing somewhat. Before, its been more as something that I just did because it was being done, but this time I enjoyed myself quite a bit and have found that a lot of my family is pretty cool in their own way.

Aside from the whole mother-bought-a-bed-900-miles-away-from-home thing, the trip went pretty smoothly until she managed to get noticed by a cop traveling somewhere bewtween 78 (her story) and 83 (his sotry) miles per hour. On a not-so-side note, a future post may be the first to be password protected.

I’ll catch up more later.

Later today, I leave for Utah for a family reunion. We are going down in two cars, because we will be picking up another three while down there, and returning to spend the next week here together with aunt, uncle, and cousin.

Wednesday’s hack session went well, culminating with Prometheus, the skeletal frame of the TRC’s first FIRST robot, turning its wheels in response to the position of a potentiometer. It was pretty exciting to get this far, because now we have gotten to the point where external inputs can affect external outputs. The rest is just building on this basic formula.

Bernie Zimmermann seems to be the catalyst for a lot of my recent material on here. Bernie recently got a speeding ticket from the gestapo… I mean, the Washington State Patrol. (Not sorry right now, but by way of explanation, maybe it’s just that I forgot to do my drugs the last couple of days that I’ve been a little more on edge recently.) For those of you afraid of going to Bernie’s site, and for my own nefarious archival reasons, I transplant the conversation here. My apologies to Bernie for stealing so much of his material, but I hope he understands.

RCW46.61.4W

Originally posted on July 19, 2004 12:07 AM in Miscellaneous

I went to Vancouver, BC today, and what do I have a show for it? One sunburnt arm, a pocket full of Canadian change, and a $183.00 speeding ticket issued to me by the good ol’ Washington State Patrol. Yes, smokey caught the bandit. According to the ticket, I was in violation of RCW46.61.4W with a vehicle speed of 81+ in a 60. That beats my previous record by 1 mile per hour. At least I’m making progress.

Comments

July 19, 2004 7:16 PM
Arcanius
http://arcanius.silverfir.net

Don’t take this the wrong way, Bernie – I hate to see anyone get speeding tickets from this nanny state of ours. I just got back from seeing ‘I, Robot,’ and a line from there fits here I think: “Somehow, ‘I told you so’ just doesn’t cut it.”

You weren’t driving out of control. You weren’t endangering anyone any more than the guy driving 50 on his cell phone. But you passed an arbitrary limit and some cop decided to make you, a law abiding citizen, a productive worker, and a contributor to society pay simply because he has the power to.

As long as we give police the authority to screw over ordinary citizens like this, we will never really be at peace with them. Its always a game of cat and mouse, and you lost this round, and the $183.00 is just the beginning. Your insurance rates go up, you get doubly paranoid about speeding, which wastes your and my time (because I have to drive behind you), even more money goes to the most inefficient institution ever concieved (namely, government), and nobody feels good.

I hereby call for an end to all arbitrary speed limits in the state of Washington. Who’s with me?

July 20, 2004 9:57 AM
Bernie Zimmermann
http://www.bernzilla.com/

I don’t know if I want to overthrow any state laws just because I got a ticket ;)

I knowingly broke the law, and it just so happens that I got caught doing it. The speed limit was 60, and I’m fairly certain I could have gone 75 and gotten away with it since, as you put it, I wasn’t endangering anyone. I chose to go 80 though, attracting attention to myself, and I got a ticket. The only thing that really upsets me about it is that the fine is so high. My only other ticket I’ve gotten was for the same violation (80 in a 60) and it was something like $88. I think this latest fine was a bit excessive, so I’ll most likely be going to a mitigation hearing to try and get it reduced.

There’s a big difference between me cruising along at 80 miles per hour in a rush to get home and someone cruising along at 80 miles per hour after having spent their evening at some bar getting drunk. If it takes pulling a few Bernies over to catch those guys, then so be it.

July 20, 2004 11:35 PM
Arcanius
http://arcanius.silverfir.net

Bernie, if you haven’t used a deferred hearing in the last 7 years, then you can use one now. This means that you pay $100 now, and if you don’t get another ticket in a year, this one goes away – it doesn’t even make it on to your record… but, if you do get another one, you pay the full price of the new ticket and the old ticket and both go onto your record… but it worked for me, so I suggest you give that a shot. But you have to either go for a contested or mitigated hearing to swing that one.

Now, back to your other point. I am sad to see so many people like you so willing to give up their freedoms for percieved security. Benjamin Franklin said it best – “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” What we must do is find a way to provide security without destroying liberty.

Now you might argue that driving fast isn’t an “essential liberty,” but I say that if you are not endangering someone other than yourself or other consenting adults, then the state should shut up and let you do your thing. Certainly, there is a point where recklessness is reached – but this point is defined not by some sign on the side of the road, but on the amount of traffic, weather conditions, road design, and so on. So let the law say that reckless driving that endangers other is illegal, then enforce it universally. Then we ensure security and protect liberty.

As to your “If it takes pulling a few Bernies over to catch those guys, then so be it,” pardon my german, but it sounds to me an awful lot like “If it takes killing a few Jews to fix our economy, then so be it.” Sure, a $183 dollar ticket isn’t exactly the Holocaust, but when do we draw the line? No one in power today in our country or in our state seems even remotely interested in making government less pervasive and less powerful. They just grow government in their particular favorite direction.

How about we allow you to be pulled over for driving in a manner which concerns an officer. But if you are found to be of sound mind, under no influence of drugs or alcohol, and genrerally no threat to anyone else on the road, you go on yur merry way. This way, the drunk guy still gets caught, and average citizens don’t go around hating cops. Secuirty is improved and liberty is not lost. Everyone is happy – excpet of course, the drunk guy – but he had his happy hour.

July 21, 2004 12:28 AM

Arcanius
http://arcanius.silverfir.net

One more thought to throw in here, since I’m on a roll tonight. Bernie, you said “The speed limit was 60, and I’m fairly certain I could have gone 75…”

You just said that you could get away breaking the law, without flinching. Well, of course, nearly everyone speeds all the time. Which shows just how ridiculously ill-concieved the whole speed limit idea is in the first place. It has a variety of negative effects which I feel strongly outweigh the little good it arguable does:

1. Arbitrary spped limits create disrespect for laws and, ultimately, the rule of law. Having a law which is univerally broken cheapens what law is supposed to be about. In order to maintain the rule of law – where no person is held higher than the law – we must all be beholden to the law. By creating laws which only a few people are beholden too every once in a while, we effectively say that laws are meant to be broken, when you an get away with it.
2. Arbitrary speed limits make enemies of average citizens and the police. Nobody likes having a cop around when they’re driving because it cramps their style. Everyone slows to five under the limit, just to make sure, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief when the cop exits the freeway. Police prey on the side of raods for unsuspected innocents and many motorists try to signal each other when an enemy is ahead. Its very much like a guerilla war against the slightly-faster-than-average driver.
3. Aribtrary speed limits make traffic worse. When all four lanes of the highway are going the same speed, congestion always results. A more fluid highway system, such as those often seen in Europe, with a left lane that goes considerably faster than the lanes to the right, congestion would be lessened and, ultimately, there would be fewer frustrated and dangerous drivers and fewer collisions.
4. More generally, an abundance of laws, such as we have, means that no one can keep track of all the statutes they are supposed to live under, and people in percieved positions of authority tyranize law-abiding citizens. For example, did you know, before reading all of this, that RCW46.61.4W even existed? Well, certainly, you knew that speeded was “illegal” (when a cop’s around that cares, at least), but do you have any idea what RCW46.61.3 says? Or any of the other hundreds of thousands of laws that you are subject to? Any bureaucrat having a bad day, including a cop who has on hand a few obscure RCW’s, can screw you and I over, and we have no clue. Rule of law is further sacrificed. Fortunately, most people, including cops, are generally good people that don’t tend to do this, but I have had a cop threaten to put me in jail over a hit in run that didn’t happen, and I was only 15, and I would have had no clue what to do if he really did that.
5. Having cops chasing around a bunch of people that have never committed a real crime ever is a pointless waste of manpower that should be used to deal with the real criminals and real problems.

But the big one in that list is that we are, by upholding speed limit laws, helping to destroy the rule of law, the very fabric that our democratic good society is based on. And arbitrary speed limits are by no means alone in this desecration of law, they are just convienient to use for making this poitn because nearly everyone has had expereince with them.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ” –Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

While it is still possible to make things better, let us try.