Women, Concealed Carried Weapon Permits, And Adhereing to Laws
My name is not Samantha, but I am almost 24 years old, and so cute that whenever I walk to the bank or post office, no less than 6 cars honk their horns or have men screaming at me: "Show us your tits!" Now, I may not be as cute as I think, but apparently having boobs is enough to warrant random acts of sexual harassment.
The problem is this: I will be attending USC this fall in a doctoral program, which will mean long nights at the campus correcting student papers and cramming for exams and writing brilliant theses for my dissertation. However, the area around USC is not the safest. My apartment is 3 miles away from school, and I chose my home based on the convenience of the public transportation system. I can hop on the DASH bus for a quarter and be to campus (or back home) in 10 minutes. But the bus stop is a few blocks from my apartment.
I have never been stupid enough to walk around at night by myself. But it seems like come this fall, I will have no choice. As a smallish woman, I know that even if I put myself through hours of self-defense training, there is no feasible way I could properly defend myself against a man with a gun.
I need an equalizer.
I have been never convicted of a crime, tried drugs or been drunk, not even tipsy (yeah, my undergrad experience could be seen as very dull by most). However, in Los Angeles County, Sheriff Lee Baca has made it impossible for the average law-abiding citizen to obtain a CCW permit unless they're a celebrity, executive, an attourney or a former FBI agent.
So how is a 5'4", 125 pound, average female grad student supposed to defend herself in a neighborhood that's probably less safe than Wisteria Lane (and face it, those people know each other before they murder one another, so how could I possibly stand a chance)?
Is it right to follow a stupid law or is it stupid to follow a stupid law?
(
13comments
)
-
at July 7, 2005 1:33 AM
said...
And I feel really stupid for asking this, but what's Wisteria Lane a reference to?
-
at July 7, 2005 1:33 AM
said...
Couldn't you go for something non-lethal yet still protective like one of those mace/pepper spray keychains or something? I guess I have a generally squeamish attitude toward guns.
On the law-abiding angle of things, would you only get in trouble for it if you ever used it? If the punishment is just a fine, then I guess you probably wouldn't care about having to pay it if you felt that it saved your life. But if you'd get jail time for carrying without a permit, I guess you'd still be alive, but you might not want to be when you became some fellow inmate's bitch.
-
at July 7, 2005 2:33 AM
said...
Well, to get a better sense of my feelings for guns and protection and the LA area this is one of the best essays/editorials/articles/creative non-fiction that I have ever read about the silliness of gun control. It's called Life in Los Angeles by Chip Elliott.
As for something non-lethal like pepper spray, you have to be a dang good shot for it to be effective. It has to be *in the face/eyes* and I wouldn't want to be that close to an man to be assaulted in such a fashion.
As for the trouble I would get it if it was used... Well, let's pretend I was assaulted and I shot the guy in the thigh. What are the odds that the dude *who was about to rob/rape/murder me* is going to go file a police report?
Plus, I was thinking what if I had a Smith & Wesson .38? How many other people in the greater LA area probably have the same gun? Thousands most likely. The reason that's important is because bullets can go in different kinds of guns, but different kinds of guns leave signatures on bullet casings. So let's say on the off chance that my assaulter went to the police and made a report, and for some reason he's not busted because he doesn't have a record of mugging/raping/murdering people just yet. They'd have to 1) Find the bullet casings at the scene. 2) Analyze them. 3) Match those analyzations against all of the registered guns in the county?
So if worse came to worse and I actually shot the mugger/rapist/murderer guy and he went to the police, and I was arrested... I could potentially be put in prison because carrying a concealed weapon is a felony. However, self-defense is not. And that's also covered in this handy dandy Hand Gun Safety Guide that the Dept of Justice in CA publishes every year.
So many states have a "Right to Carry" policy now. The concealed weapon laws vary from county to county in California. So one county over, they have a totally objective way of dealing out CCWs. Back in El Dorado County (where I'm from), they hand them out more readily than $5 glasses of lemonade. The Sheriff of LA County is just making the CCW so freaking hard to obtain because it's political and almost like a status symbol. It's another "good ol' boys club" in the heart of Southern California.
So the end of the worst case scenario would be: I would hire one damn good lawyer to defend me because I honestly think it's stupid to follow a stupid law.
-
at July 7, 2005 2:35 AM
said...
Oooh, and Wisteria Lane is from Desperate Housewives.
-
at July 7, 2005 3:03 AM
said...
Wow. After reading the article you linked to, I'm suddenly horrified of L.A. I mean, I knew on some level that it was a big, dangerous city, but I now never want to set foot in it.
And a question about your "What if I shoot the guy in the thigh?" line of thought - What if you shoot the guy in the thigh and then he shoots you back just out of spite? It seems that a gun is most effective if you're not being confronted with another gun. Otherwise, it's just a contest of who will shoot first or with the deadliest accuracy. But I don't know anything about street crime - are most people mugged/raped/etc. at knifepoint rather than gunpoint?
-
at July 7, 2005 2:20 PM
said...
Well let's keep in mind that the article was about LA of 1978-1980-ish. It seems better right now, at least according to police websites the violent cime is down more than 20% from last year and the property crime is down 16% from last year. Plus, we will be living in one of the safer areas of downtown LA. But just because it's safer doesn't make it safe, know what I mean?
Which brings up another point. I grew up in the boonies, where people didn't have yards or lawns, they had property and shotguns. And I am sure I have recounted you of the many tales of our family's pets being shot--even on our own property with my little brother less than 10 feet away. But all in all, I guess El Dorado County was relatively safe. There were only 2 policeman on duty at any given time throughout the *entire* county, so it must have been quiet enough to not warrant a larger police force, right?
I tend to not believe that. Thinking back on that stuff, the police never came when my dad was in our yard with a gun threatening to shoot my mom if she didn't send out me and my siblings. When our dog was shot less than 10 feet away from my brother, the police told us there was nothing they could about it. I remember back when I was in 8th grade, my best friend was a Romanian boy, but his neighbors thought their family were Mexicans and so they harassed them and threatended their lives. Even the police beat them up.
When my life was being threatened in DC by that crazy neighbor, again the police did nothing.
All in all, I don't think the police are to be trusted. But that's beside the point. Most of the time, people have to take matters into their own hands. Whether that's retaliation by killing the neighbor's dog in return, or moving away on account of your wife, daughter and 3 sons being beat up by the very people who are supposed to protect you... then people do what they need to survive--even in relatively safe areas.
So no place is safe. Not really. Not LA. Not even El Dorado County. "Safe" in the suburban sense is a false sense of security. But individuals can be safe by being smart enough to learn how to protect and defend themselves.
People can be safe when they no longer want to be victims.
-
at July 11, 2005 2:03 PM
said...
Pepper spray and a noise maker are probably your best options. It's rare for a stranger to shoot a stranger. Most stranger-related male-to-female crime is either property theft or rape. If they want your property, give it to them. If it's rape, noise is a BIG deterrent. There are other techniques that are gross but effective.
It's a terrible world where we have to think about these things. Stay safe.
-
at July 12, 2005 4:42 PM
said...
This reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! Trilogy. Have you read it? One of the main characters in the books carries around two versions of his business card. Except that instead of his name they each have a phrase. One says, "There is no friend anywhere," and the other, "There is no enemy anywhere," and he decides which one to hand out based on what the person he's talking to needs to hear more.
I think you've got the safety equation mostly right, but mostly wrong at the same time. Its true that you aren't *really safe* anywhere. But if that's true then its opposite is also true. Safety is an illusion and it always has been. What is true? Crime has been steadily decreasing across the country since the early 90s, but people are still afraid, because they think that there is really such a thing as completely safe. They think death by serial killers or snipers or terrorist attacks is somehow worse than death by congestive heart failure or auto accidents or electrical fires. You are never safe: therefore you always are.
You've been through some challenging experiences in the past few years, to be sure. And I can't claim to understand or appreciate that. Also, just being female changes the equation and gives you new and scarier reasons to be cautious. And I would recommend caution. But if you allow yourself to be consumed by a desire for safety, it will ultimately take over your life. And you turn yourself into a full time victim.
Because carrying a gun doesn't protect you from traffic, it doesn't protect you from lightning strikes, it doesn't protect you from salmonella, and it might not even really protect you from an assault on the street. Your attacker may have a weapon, in which case it becomes a test of reflexes. Or your attacker may not have a weapon but may find a way to get your from you, in which case the gun you've brought only managed to harm you. You may never face an attack, and then get pulled over for a traffic violation and taken to jail for months for possessing a concealed weapon without a permit, which means you've compromised your own safety by trying to protect it. On the other hand you could scare the attacker away. Or as you said you could shoot him and run away and maybe not get caught, and spend the rest of your life wondering if you had killed someone. Or end up in prison.
I don't know the neighborhoods at all, and so I can't really counsel you about what the right thing to do is. The best advice I can give is to be cautious and smart and trust your instincts when you're in difficult areas and you should be fine. If you do feel you absolutely need a weapon, be sure you know how to use it. I can't say this enough times. I don't know how much experience you have with shooting, but it's a hell of a lot harder than it looks, and nothing can take the place of good training. Join a club in your area, take a safety course, and get regular (monthly) practice firing. Look for something with a mechanical safety (i.e. not Glock), but that is easy for you to handle and fire (revolvers have the added safety component of double action, but tend to be harder to fire).
The problem with guns is that they can help to make you more safe in a few specific situations. But they make you less safe in every other situation (especially when carried illegally, whether the law is stupid or not). I'm not against them, but they require a lot of responsibility and caution. I doubt very much I've changed your mind at all, but if I've helped convince you to get regular training then that's a good thing. If you've got any questions you can of course hit me up on email.
Good luck. (And be careful.)
-
at July 12, 2005 9:56 PM
said...
Campus has a service that will escort you around. There are a number of alternatives.
-
at July 13, 2005 11:44 AM
said...
1) Harry said, "There are other techniques that are gross but effective." I am interested to know other techniques, even if they are gross. I always thought maybe if I shouted that I have HIV or AIDS, that might be a deterrent.
2) The campus does have escort that will shuttle you around--campus only. They won't take me home. At least that's what I was told, because I e-mailed the Department of Transportation at USC.
3) I have been posting to Penn & Teller's message boards and I have gotten some alternatives... they're not great, because the only good alternative would be to learn how to dodge bullets. Until that time, I am considering Mace and an E2D flashlight that produces 60 lumens (the sun produces 65). The flashlight is expensive ($117), and the replacement bulbs are $20 a piece, and the bulbs don't last long to boot.
4) You are not allowed to even buy a gun in California without passing a safety test, much similar to the kind of test you have to pass in order to obtain a driver's license. Also, I was already researching areas and classes I could take in order to learn how to better handle a firearm. (I can already shoot handguns and rifles, it's something you learn growing up in El Dorado County.) I would never dream of owning a weapon without knowing how to use it smoothly and efficently--and I wouldn't own one without keeping my knowledge and handling polished. It's just stupid and dangerous to own a gun and not know how to use it.
5) Another alternative I have been considering... someone on the P&T message board suggested looking into Krav Maga. Specificaly the variant known as KAPAP/LOTAR. Krav Maga was developed by the Israeli military and is a combination of various martial arts from around the world. KAPAP/LOTAR is basically the special forces variant. It not only teaches techniques for unarmed combat, but also teaches the use of knives, short and long sticks (good training for colapsable batons), and firearm retention. Krav Maga National Training Center is actually located in Los Angeles and they have a whole training program for women. It sounds really useful: http://www.kravmaga.com/women.asp
-
at July 13, 2005 8:03 PM
said...
Why not just throw a pocket knife on a belt. Besides, if you get trapped in a room by said weirdo, you can always pull a MacGuyver and use it to get out of a jam.
But seriously, you can own a knife up to 3" in blade length, carry it on you without a CCW. And with a little work from a grinding stone, or that Technological brain of a husband of yours, work it into an effective deterrent. An icepick has always been a classy, and easily concealable weapon, of choice. Or my personal favorite, the board with a friggin nail in it.
Nicoli Ivanovich
-
at July 13, 2005 10:15 PM
said...
You'd be surprised perhaps how many people think guns are "point and shoot" like a disposable camera. I really didn't figure you for the type, but I feel obliged to say it whenever possible.
Any self-defense course would help give you valuable methods to protect yourself, and increase your confidence. The most important thing is that its a place you feel comfortable with. If the Israeli system works for you great, but really the teacher is more important than the art. Krav Maga might work well for you if it works regularly with women, though, as you might avoid a lot of the macho assholes that tend to frequent martial arts classes. Just make sure you like and trust your teacher.
-
at July 14, 2005 4:45 AM
said...
More on the gross stuff in a moment. A caution on the martial arts - and this comes from someone who has taught "pure" form and street-fighting, and who has tournament fighting experience - they give you a false sense of security unless you devote a very significant amount of time to real sparring, which most clubs don't practice (both for liability reasons and because the instructors don't actually know how to fight, as opposed to doing pretty moves in a mirror).
The reason real sparring is needed is because in a fight everything is like a whirlwind, unless your mind has had enough experience managing your body in a fight to, in effect, slow everything down so you can react.
The best analogy is to that of a baseball player. Most of us can barely see a ball coming at us at 70mph, let alone hit it. But a baseball player who has years of experience swinging at fastballs can actually see the seams on the pitch, and judge what kind of pitch it is.
Fighting is the same thing. To those without fighting experience, the slowest, most pathetic haymaker in the world looks like a bullet.
So good on the martial arts, I advocate them, but don't rely on them as your defense, at least not until you've had a year or more of full-speed sparring. And if the club doesn't have sparring, don't waste your money.
Okay, now the gross stuff, and I apologize, and I hate to even talk about it because it makes me furious that we have to abase ourselves this way in the face of hateful people.
Let's say you've set off your noisemaker, but he gets hold of it and figures out how to shut it off, and he's persistent. Unless you can cripple or outrun him, violence will only invite violence. So you curl up in a ball, making yourself heavy, and do your best to piss and defecate. At the same time you stick your finger down your throat and vomit, and be sure it gets all over you.
It's a popular and stupid belief propagated by people with a political agenda that rape is purely about violence. There is for many rapists a sexual element, and they can be turned off. No erection, likely no rape (at least not in the classic definition).
This also affects dress. Again, people with a political agenda want to believe that how a woman is dressed and how she carries herself don't matter. To understand that a woman wearing a mini-skirt in a deserted area has a heightened risk of rape compared to a woman looking dumpy in sweats is not to say that women who have been raped were "asking" for it.
In terms of how you carry yourself, if you walk confidently and are aware of your surroundings, that in itself is defense. Most attacks are not preplanned, they are opportunistic, and a woman who looks like maybe she's going to a) see you coming, and b) make this very difficult to accomplish, is not as inviting a target as a woman who isn't paying attention and looks insecure and timid.
But look, the odds are low of anything happening at all. It's good to have a sense of what you would do, but don't obsess over it.
Destroy All Humans
Destroy All Humans Also
Originally uploaded by sexyphlegm.For our third wedding anniversary, Z and I went and saw War of the Worlds. Now, there are inconsistencies in the film, but the overall effect is actually genuinely scary. For the second time Steven Spielburg showcases the dark side of humanity, where people are like living zombies (it makes for a very chaotic and frightening cinematic situation). Given that War of the Worlds is about aliens taking over the planet, Destroy All Humans had the easiest marketing strategy ever: release the game around the same time as the movie.
If you've been watching TV lately, you've probably seen a commercial for the PS2 game, Destroy All Humans. I admit I am a sucker for their marketing design, as I harbor an affection for all things of 1940s-1950s persuasion. Destroy All Humans is a lot of fun to watch and a lot more fun to play. The dialouge is tongue-in-cheek funny, the graphics are pretty darn good for a PlayStation 2, and the sound and voice acting are definitely entertaining. Plus, it's just plain satisfying blowing up buildings and reading peoples thoughts and hypnotizing people into doing the chicken dance.
But with all of this fictional massacre-ing of the human race that I have ingested over the last week, a profound sense of understanding that I will not get a "continue" like in Destroy All Humans or a happy ending like in War of the Worlds (oh yeah, big surprise, it's a Spielburg flick).
Why will I not get these things? Because I am going to die.
My brother was playing Destroy All Humans. Crypto 142 died, spawning Crypto 143 (they're clones of each other because they lack genitalia, which is why they're harvesting human DNA, well that's beside the point...), and I suddenly realized: Oh my god, I am not going to have a do-over, or a continue. I am going to die.
I am going to cease to exist someday. It's hard to wrap my brain around that understanding. I don't know what it'll be like to no longer... be. And frankly it's a terrifying thought.
Ah, the weird revelations alien action games will induce in a person who thinks entirely too much.
(
0comments
)
$100 = Pleh
So it looks like I am not going to see my Google earnings for a very long time...
Get this:
"We'll send your check or EFT payment within approximately 30 days of the end of the month in which your account balance reaches US$100, unless a payment hold exists or unless otherwise agreed to in writing (including electronic mail).
"For example, if you earn $40 in January and $70 in February, we'll send payment to you by the end of March.
"If your account balance is less than US$100 at the end of the month, we'll roll your earnings over to the following month, until the payment threshold is reached. Balances include the combined earnings of AdSense for content and AdSense for search pages."
Argh!
So much for my measly twenty bucks! When I signed up they said they paid when it exceeded $10! I'm so depressed and disillusioned.
Pleh!
(
1comments
)
-
at July 1, 2005 5:47 PM
said...
When I signed up just recently, they said that they only paid when you hit $100, so I sort of wondered why you would get paid every $10, but I figured maybe you got in under a better deal. It seems like they should have to tell you when they change their terms like that.
To Kill With Office Supplies
I watched the movie
Daredevil for the first time this afternoon. First of all, it stars three of the most annoying actors ever: Ben Affleck (the man who goes from one Jennifer to another in what I suspect was a ploy to cover his ass when he accidentally shouted her name during intercourse, and need I remind you of the
Gigli incident?), Colin Farrell (the most over-rated actor who tries way too hard to be Hollywood's "bad boy") and Jennifer Garner (who is annoying for primarily two reasons: 1. She should only be filmed from certain angles or else her face is square yet bulgy making her look like she has a bad case of mumps and 2. I'm really tired of the masculine female heroine and she perpetuates that stereotype).
So the main bad guy could be debated in this movie, it's either Kingpin or Bullseye (Colin Farrell), so for the sake of argument, I'm going to say Bullseye is the main baddie. Bullseye is perhaps the least intriguing, most insipid villain I've ever had the displeasure of watching on film. And this is not just due to my Colin Farrell repulsion, although I'm sure that has
something to do with it. Bullseye acts like a pre-pubescent boy on the verge of his very first boner: socially awkward and overly fascinated by tiny objects.
We're first introduced to Bullseye in a bar where he is thusly heckled by a fat, old white guy. Of course the fat, old white guy dies, but can you guess how he dies? Bullseye malevolently pulls out a paperclip. A paperclip? Oh dear god, he's going to kill with office supplies! He straightens the paper clip and then tosses them across the room where they land in fat, old white guy's throat.
But it doesn't end there. Bullseye is on a plane and a chatty old lady is knitting and talking and obviously won't shut up. Can you guess her fate? Death by legume. I kid you not. Bullseye flicks an airplane peanut and it bounces off the seat and chokes the chatty old lady. I bet you can't guess the awesome one-liner that follows. "Can I have more peanuts please?" Yeah, I totally believe that a guy like Bullseye is going to say please. But he doesn't just say "please" he says it in his irritating Irish accent like, "plaze" (rhymes with blaze except with a 'p').
But enough about Bullseye.
Why can't Matt Murdoch (Ben Affleck) comb his hair? I realize he's blind, but my ex-step-dad's father was blind (and he was even blinded by acid like Matt Murdoch in the comics), but he was always nicely groomed. And James is blind, but he always looks handsome and not in a disheveled way--the way they were going for handsome with Ben Affleck--but we could attribute James's stylish and well-groomed manners to his wife Nikki, because she ain't blind. And Daredevil didn't have a wife to complain about his uncombed, white-boy afro hair, so maybe that's believable.
I keep talking about believability. But what I really want to do when I'm watching an action movie, especially one based out of the Marvel universe, is suspend my disbelief. I want to be enveloped by a world where it's feasible that Daredevil does backflips and climbs walls like Spider-Man. But that never happened. The only thing they did well was explain how Daredevil "saw" through a sonar-like sight. But then they used it way too much and it was no longer subtle and elegant.
The sad thing is that Daredevil is a great superhero, but no one would ever guess that based on this movie.
(
0comments
)