Stoeger X20 Wood .177 Break Barrel Air Rifle Review

It is not very often that I go and buy something that I haven't researched thoroughly, but sometimes, these things happen. A gal will go out window shopping and come back with bags and bags of new stuff, or a guy will go to the local Best Buy and come home with a GPS and a new PDA. Heck, my Dad pulled one on my Mom years ago, when he went out and bought a new vehicle and she was surprised to see this new butt-ugly gold minivan in the driveway.

I am not that bad, but I suppose I have inherited a bit of my Dad's occasional spontaneity in terms of shopping habits. Surprisingly, what I ended up buying was something that I would normally read a lot about. Good air rifles aren't exactly cheap and with Canadian firearm licensing laws, there's a bit of an administrative hassle in purchasing an air rifle, so you would think I would exhibit a bit of research when I bought my Stoeger X20 Wood .177 Break Barrel air rifle very, very recently.

I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed that the X20 looks very nice asthetically - frankly, this was the first drawing point for me - which is no surprise, since men tend to be visually-oriented; case in point: there is a Diana air rifle (50 or 60-something that is like, over $550.00), but it is the most butt-ugly thing you have ever seen - for that reason alone, I would not buy it. But the Steoger X20 that I bought has a hardwood montel-carlo style stock with checkering (also comes in camo as well as synthetic), has a modern look to it, has an onboard muzzle break, and the inclusion of a 3-9x40mm scope seems to make the price tag of $250.00 more palatable, especially during the cash-strapped Christmas period. Truth be told, my finances took a dive this year, as was the same with most people's pocketbooks, but with the cost of guns and ammo rising this Fall and the expectation that it will continue to rise with an Obama (yech!) administration come next year, it was a good time to buy it.

Having to break the news to my wife that I was planning on buying myself a Christmas present was, I assumed, the hard part. She is not big on guns, but tolerates them enough to respect my interests. To my surprise, she offered to come with me to the gun store to pick it up, our baby daughter in tow.

The fellow I deal with at the gun shop said that I came at the right time - there was only one wood one left. They had received about 15-20 the week before and they went like hotcakes. That, to me, was a good sign. Of course, he said, these are still relatively new offerings and Stoeger isn't really a known brand for airguns (unlike established brands like Gamo, Crosman, Daisy, Beeman, RWS/Diana, etc.) In fact, he hasn't even had a chance to check them out since they've gone so quickly. Since I had the day off work and had another hour before I had to pick my son up from school, I said to him, he can feel free to open the box and check out the look and feel of the gun if he wants - I'm in no rush.

OK, some specs on this gun. It is a .177 caliber break barrel, advertised velocity is 1000FPS with lead, 1200FPS with light alloy (ie. the Gamo PBA ammo). Obviously, due to its velocity, one would need a firearms licence to buy the X20 in Canada. The only Stoeger air rifle that shoots under 500FPS (no gun licence required) is the X5 series. Anyway, the X20 features fibre optic sights, a rear safety like my Hammerli 850 which I like (not a trigger-type safety), two-stage trigger, and the aforementioned muzzle break and wood. The weight is around 7lbs. I mentioned the scope already and the first thing I noticed about this scope is that it was not mounted like the Stoeger marketing material said. My buddy at the gun shop had to double check the marketing specs to confirm it came with a scope and then subsequently realized that the scope was included, but separately in a small box with the package (the scope was not padded in any way). The box itself was a standard air rifle box - flap opened and the packaging / insulation was nothing to write home about (unlike my Hammerli 850 which has perhaps the best packaging of any airgun/air rifle I have seen).

There obviously isn't much testing you can do in the store itself, and upon confirming that everything seemed to be in order, I bought the thing, with my wife standing beside me, looking at the mounted deer head in the gunshop as well as the the Remington marine magnum 12-gauge that I was racking when she walked in. My little daughter seemed mesmerized by all the rifles sitting in the racks, but even she had her fill of sitting in the gunshop with me, listening to my buddy and I talk all manner of firearms.

Took it home and mounted the scope, which did not take too much effort since it came with the rings and mounts and all. Also read through the manual, which is considerably thicker than it needed to be, since it has the same 10 or so pages in a number of other languages. With the scope mounted, I took the air rifle in my hands it was pretty heavy (remember, I'm only around 5' 5", 140lbs), and the rifle is about 7lbs without the scoope. Since I had some vacation days, I decided to use a half-day to run some errands, not the least of which was going to a local range to try out the X20.

Now, I can tell you a few things definitively. One is that I found it difficult to cock this rifle - probably my size and lack of upper body and arm strength no doubt, but as this was my first 1000FPS+ air rifle, maybe that had something to do with it. I also own a Gamo Viper Express air shotgun/.22 cal break barrel that shoots around 750FPS with .22 cal pellets, and that is nowhere near as hard to break as this one. The spring is either very strong, or I am not. Anyway, that surprised me a bit. Anyhow, I sort of sighted in the X20 and went to work testing it. I used standard Crosman .177 wadcutters as as Crosman .177 Premiers, and also Gamo Master Point .177 pellets.

I can also tell you that when I used the Crosman pellets, the X20 was considerably loud. Now, at the range, I am mandated to wear ear protection and I had on a pair of Browning ear protectors and slip over the head. Of course, being so near to Christmas, there wasn't anyone else at the range when I was there and so I thought I'd take off the muffs for a minute to see how loud the X20 was. Let's just say that I wish I hadn't have done that - it rung my ears and gave me a headache that didn't go away for a few hours. Now, it could have been my reduced hearing, but the Gamo pellets seem to be slightly less loud when fired. I know that for sure, since every Crosman pellet fired without the hearing protection gave me a sharp pain in the ears. This may have been due to the shape/manufacturing of the Crosmans, the fact that the X20 was dieseling (burning off excess oil/grease when shot), or just naturally loud. Probably should have cleaned it before shooting, but I didn't.

Accuracy. The range was around 50 yards or so. I won't get into measurements for my groupings, since I am hardly sniper-caliber, but let's just say I was overall somewhat pleased by the accuracy of the rifle, given the fact that I was giving my arms an extreme workout cocking this thing, I did OK. I did have to make some minor adjustments with the elevation, but other than that, it was a good experience.

I found that the trigger pull was a bit heavy - I am not sure and don't remember if the trigger is adjustable, but I did find that the trigger could be lighter.

I imagine that this rifle was designed for hunting rather than target shooting, given its power and weight. But for what I paid, I can't see anything that would have soured me on the rifle.

********
FEBRUARY 2009 UPDATE: Since my original review, I have read some more about the rifle and some other reviews as well. My original review stands as it is, even though I have since found out that while the rifle may have been designed by Italian Engineers (I believe Stoeger is owned by Benelli), the actual unit was made in China. Now, I know that Chinese airguns have a love 'em or hate 'em type of following, but I haven't really seen anything from a qualitative standpoint that would make me dislike this gun. Further, I have read others who have written about issues regarding mounting the scope but I did not have the same problems - perhaps Stoeger fixed the earlier problems their later releases. I have also heard that the X20 is pretty much a rebranded BAM (Chinese brand) XS-B19 since the parts diagram is almost identical, but without experiece with the B19, I can't comment further.

GM, Chrysler, Ford...Let Them Die

It continues to amaze me that "The Big Three" North American automakers (Ford, Chrysler, GM) continue to exist. I come from a family that has members that are fiercely loyal to at least two of the big three. My Dad, despite being Asian like me, has staunchly refused to buy an "import" car, despite all credible car reviewers and independent industry watchers who have unanimously concluded that as a whole, Asian and European car makers simply make better cars from a design, reliability and value retention perspective. Yet my Dad will only buy GM, for reasons he has not divulged to me, and my uncle has always bought Ford. I don't know why. Perhaps they have fallen for the old perception in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and to an extent, 80s, where anything Asian, particularly Japanese, was considered junk. Now, I am not here to argue the plausibility of that position, only to state that it is a safe assumption, based on sales and discriminate professional car reviewers, that import cars arek by and large, much more desirable these days and are considered better built.

So I shake my head at the latest meanderings of the big three CEOs who have decided to head over to Washington this week to meet with congress and beg for financial intervention from the U.S. government. Of course, they didn't help their case by all flying in in their individual private jets. Perhaps we all know where the real problem lies now.

Personally, I don't think that the U.S. government should give these car makers a cent. Then again, I am now wondering whether the financial bailout should have happened. There is something that is not right with me about rewarding bad decisions. And let's face it, with these car companies, there are a lot of bad decisions being made. I mean, I live close to Oshawa, Ontario, which has a huge GM plant. I am, for reasons I will not discuss here, aware of what goes on there, and frankly, GM is symptomatic of a company that has not moved into the 21st century. Then again, so is Ford and Chrysler. I mean, when the Asians and Europeans are making hybrids, and generally smaller and more fuel efficient cars, the big three release V8 engine-based cars and offer us the Magnum and Charger. With recently high gas prices (they have fallen very recently but that's beside the point), did these big three have any foresight in what they were engineering?

The big point of concern in letting GM, Chrysler, and Ford die off is that it will have a personal impact. Millions of jobs will be lost. But is that any different than any other industry? I work in the IT industry and the current push is for the old "doing more with less". And yes, it ultimately means less people, though most companies won't have the balls to actually admit that. Jobs are being offshored for cost savings, and locally, layoffs are happening left, right and center, and roles are being either consolidated, or eliminated altogether. This is all in the spirit of remaining competitive in the global economy. I've seen coworkers who have been let go and have not found a job that pays them what they made at our company. Thing is, in IT, things can be done cheaper all the time. And as the workforce ages, there is a certain amount of young blood that is needed to be injected. This year along, I have seen some pretty senior people get let go. Their replacements (if there was one) was a younger person. That is the way things are going now.

Workers in the big three are generally being overpaid. Part of that is due to being in a unionized environment (something I don't believe the Japanese car makers are involved in - at least not in Canada). I mean, I know for a fact that at GM, there are people who have been there for 30 years, whose sole job is to put one little part in another part on an assembly line. And they make $105,000 Cdn. doing it. Did they think that they would be getting this easy money forever? Thankfully reality is catching up to these companies. But it's not just that - these CEOs are making $20-30 million a year (I think the GM one is, anyway). So they complain about being almost being bankrupt and having to potentially lay off people (at the bottom of the company hierarchy), yet these fat cats who have made dumb-ass decisions continue to draw disgustingly high and wholly undeserved salaries on the backs of their overpaid underlings. And you wonder why these companies are in trouble.

I say let GM, Chrysler and Ford die. Yes, people will lose jobs and the whole economy will go into the crapper a lot worse than it is now, but these companies will not stay dead, but will resurface and be rebranded to something better and more efficient. That is simply how the world of business works these days. There is no such thing as corporate status quo anymore. Companies continue to constantly change and evolve and if they don't (like the big three), then well...you see what happens...

The Shack by Wm. Paul Young - A Book Review

As a general rule, I tend to stringently avoid books in the mainstream Christian realm, which have gained either secular acceptance or are touted as something that is akin to an addendum to the Bible. Sometimes, my curiosity gets the better of me and I will reluctantly pop down a few bucks to buy a used or at worse, extremely cheap-priced copy of the book. It happened with the whole "Purpose Driven Life" phenomenon a number of years back, and I thoroughly regretted dropping even a dollar for that utterly theologically-devoid tome. I have since come across people who consider that book a treastise of great theology, and I simply conclude that they obviously have not had much formal theological training to appreciate substance. While it is beyond the scope of this review to comment on Purpose Driven Life, I will simply say that it re-inforces my long-held belief that if a Christian book is popular in the mainstream market, something has gone wrong. Fact is, the Bible has always had opposition from the secular world, but that is to be expected, just like how the Bible teaches that the Christian life is not easy and that Christians will (not may, but will) be persecuted.

Fast forward years later and once again, I hear of a massive promotion of the latest Christian cross-cultural book phenomenon, "The Shack." Heck, our church is in on the action, as is many churches, both promoting the book for study, reflection, or personal enjoyment. The book is selling at Costco, Chapters, and anywhere else that sells best-selling paperbacks and hardcovers. Christian media is discussing this book as a fresh, much welcome inclusion for any believer's library. And both Christians and non-Christians are commending the books on its inherent ability to make one think deeper about faith, if not actually promote life-changing behaviour. Based on all this, and the fact that I am an occasional sucker for hype, I thought I'd drop ten bucks or whatever it was to snatch a copy of the book, despite the fact that it is recommended by Eugene Peterson, who is, on my list of Christian writers, near the very bottom, in terms of theological consistency and doctrinal objectivity. I first gave it to my wife, who tends to devour books much more quickly than myself. Ensuring that she was not to give anything away, I asked her for her opinion of the book, and to my surprise, she rated it as so-so. So last Friday, I decided to crack open the book and check it out for myself.

Now, setting some context here, without going into painstaking detail. Two Thursdays ago, my wife and I experienced our second miscarriage. We have two beautiful little kids, but the loss of another child was both disappointing and devastating to us, particularly when the second miscarriage occurred exactly two years to the day the last one happened (October 30, 2006). I was a complete mess the first time, and didn't fare much better this time, especially given the fact that my wife experienced a lot of complications which required multiple hospital visits.

In all of this, I experienced raw pain and all of the frustration with not understanding why God allowed this to happen to us, all came to the surface once again. So I thought it was somewhat of a strange coincidence that the book that I had planned to read dealt with a father who lost a child as a result of a gruesome murder, and who is now angry and deliberately distant with God. Hey, I could relate, and since I had some time at night to reflect, on these things, I thought I'd give the book a whirl.

Well, I am not one to beat around the bush, so here is my candid opinion of the book, and I will deviate from the standard review format (noting positive elements first, followed by negative elements - I am deliberately not doing it this way because of structure and flow of how I want to present my opinion). The first 80 pages were fabulous. I thought it was well written (for a Christian book - what a shocker!) and the rising action and pace of the story kept me turning the pages, well into the night. I really felt the main character, Mack Philip's, pain, despite the fact that he lost a six-and-a-half-year-old girl to what turns out to be a serial killer. I was pleasantly surprised by the vividness of the descriptive language of scenery, people, etc., and was enjoying the plot. At around page 80, I thought to myself, "OK, I can see why this book is so highly regarded by a number of different Christian folks".

Then everything started going downhill. I have never read a book like this before, that starts with such a high degree of promise, only to descend to the depths of utter lameness and cheesy dialogue. Where to begin... First, I started recognizing that this book is really not that much of a far cry from Purpose Driven Life. In trying really hard not to given anything away, all I can say is that the book probably resonates with so many people, because it takes the ever-popular "safe" approach to sprituality, emphasizing only part of the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, while ignoring the other parts. Here's a quick illustration to demonstrate what I'm getting at here. Remember when Jesus caught that woman in adultery? The vast majority of people will conveniently quote Jesus' words "let who is without sin cast the first stone." Of course, these same people seemingly glide over the fact that Jesus, in addressing the woman, tells her "go and sin no more". These folks who promote such touchy-feely theology tend to focus more on the loving nature of God, without looking at the righteous side of God as well. And, furthermore, in many of these books, you will never hear any discussion of the nature of sin (it's important, since it's sin that separated us from God to begin with) or repentance (turning away from sin). Instead, what we get is a mish-mash of God as our beer drinking buddy, our friend who overlooks all our faults and will never point out our shortcomings, and a Jesus who just wants relationships, and will accept anyone's behaviour, even though He prescribes otherwise elsewhere in Scripture.

OK, so I'm being a bit vague here by not referring to the book, so I'll provide some specifics here, without revealing main plot points. First, I will come right out and say that this book is about as politically correct as they come. God is a big black woman (his words, not mine), the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman, and Jesus is some middle-eastern guy (at least that's closer than the other two). Now, this is addressed somewhat in the book through the lengthy discourses and conversations that the main character, Mack, has with each of these three characters (think of this book as the Christian version of the David Chilton best-seller "The Wealthy Barber" in which the characters impact financial advice, under the guise of a character conversation in a fictitious environment). The author, Wm. Paul Young, through the characters, indicate that this visible minority focus is supposed to dispel stereotypes, namely that God is an old white man. I personally have never held that view, but I'll play along, just for fun. The problem is, while Young goes out of his way to play up these characters (and a hispanic woman shows up much later as another character), he reinforces his own stereotypes of how each of these minority members act (ie. the smattering of awkwardly-timed ebonics from the black woman, supposedly in the role of God), the submissive, always bowing Asian woman, portrayed as the Holy Spirit, and the exotic beauty of the hispanic.

Now, one may think that this was what Young was trying to accomplish - to get people to stop thinking of God as a man. Problem is, God is not a woman either, so it would have been better to simply make God appear as a voice rather than assign a gender - now, Young later does gender-switch the black woman to be an old white man with a ponytail, but I don't get why he needs to specifically personnify God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. It certainly did not make it more believeable to me.

Some other observations: there are several points where men are slammed in the book, with the suggestion among the characters that women would be better to run our world, etc. There is the characterisation of the God (as a male) character and the Jesus (male) character kissing each other on the mouth, as a supposed sign of affection. And then there is the expected schpeel about the environment. If you didn't leave the book thinking that Young is trying to pander to special interests groups, then you are either part of those groups or you didn't pick up on those parts of the description.

While the above aspects already lower my opinion of the book, I have saved the best for last: my main beef with this book is that, theologically, it is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Now, I know what you are saying - I either have no imagination, or I am part of the structured religious establishment, for which Young indirectly chastises throughout the book. I don't agree with either assessment, since I write a lot of material, so certainly I must have some imagination in order to write excessive blog entries and other stuff, and while I am formally theologically trained, I believe I am one of those people who have taken a closer look at what I have been taught and systematically compare it to what the Bible says, under controlled conditions. Why is this important? Because without proper controls in Bible study, one can make the Bible say whatever they want. And hence, you get a book like this one, which obviously caters to people who are turned off by Christianity or who are angry at God. How attractive is the prospect that God can be whoever or whatever you want him to be? Don't believe me? It is striking that near the end when Mack gets ready to leave the shack, that the God character already packs his car up and Mack starts to think "God - my servant" (no, I am not taking that out of context - check the bottom of page 236 and the top of page 237).

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Airguns For Self-Defence? Don't Even Think About It

This past year, I worked with a new fella in my office, who I found out later, owned an airgun. This, I would consider unusual in the very liberal Toronto, and especially in a white-collar industry like IT, where opinions, just like the technology are considered and even expected, to be progressive. You can imagine how much I stick out like a sore thumb, and being an Asian gun enthusiast as well, which nowadays is pretty rare. There are less than a handful of people on my whole account (and customer site) who own any type of gun, much less holds a firearms licence. So it always intrigues me to meet people who have even a passing interest in guns.

This guy I worked with happened to own a similar airgun as one of the many that I own. He owned a Walther CP Sport. I have since sold mine, but I have a review on this blog, so check it out if you are interested in this gun. But anyway, it's a CO2-powered semi-automatic .177 caliber air pistol. It's also one of more weaker airguns out there, shooting at a maximum of 360FPS, which, I will concede, is not as weak as airsoft, but don't expect it to be a pest control gun.

My colleague, keeping his voice low, shared with me that he bought the airgun with the sole purpose of using it as a self-defence weapon. When I heard him say that I was shocked. I asked him how many guns he owns, and he said just that one. He said that he thought it was pretty powerful. I asked him if he had any idea what the impact of a .177 caliber pellet at 360FPS (maximum) would be? He didn't, so I gave him some perspective. The Canadian firearms classification starts with fired projectiles travelling at 500FPS or higher AND generating more than 4.2FPE (foot pounds energy). You cannot even humanely kill or even injure a squirrel with a 450FPS airgun (a small mouse, yes, but nothing larger). So don't expect to take down a home invader.

It has been said that part of the Canadian government's classification numbers may have to do with the penetrating effect of a projectile, given a certain velocity and transfer of energy. I have never heard this officially substantiated by the Canadian Firearms Centre, but it does make some sense, in terms of how to classify something as a firearm (ie. can it cause serious or lethal injury).

I gave him some more perspective - a CO2 semi-automatic may sound cool, with rapid fire and an eight-shot magazine, but as anyone who knows anything about airguns can attest, the faster you fire a CO2 gun, the more velocity you lose on subsequent shots - it's because of the cold gas that is released by the CO2 cartridge everytime you pull the trigger. A colder environment inside the gun makes a pellet go slower (another knock against CO2 guns being used in the wintertime). So that maximum 360FPS will turn out to be in the mid-200 to 250FPS, which will cause a slight bruise for someone running around naked, but will hardly penetrate thick clothing, much less skin. If nothing else, your home invader or bad guy will simply get irritated at the fact that you're trying to shoot him and now it gives him the licence to exact maximum injury on you, now that he knows you don't have a "real gun". My friend said that the replica nature of the CP Sport may be a deterrent enough. Personally, I wouldn't put my life on the line for a possibility.

Finally, I shared with him the fact that the most powerful airgun I own is the Gamo Viper Express .22 Caliber Air Shotgun / Rifle combo. This gun requires a firearms licence, and shoots either a very limited of #9 lead shot at around 1200FPS (maximum) or with an chamber adapter, shoots .22 caliber pellets at 850FPS (maximum). Remember, a heavier pellet like a .22 will impart much more energy on impact than its smaller counterpart, at the same velocity. All that being said, despite the fact that the Viper Express is a firearms-rated airgun, I would not recommend anyone to use it for self-defence. The power is just not there. Some self-defence experts would even contend that the lower-velocity rimfire type of firearms are inadquate for self-defence, despite the fact that they will shoot a .22 caliber bullet at generally over 1000FPS. In my view, where you can maybe come close is having something like a Ruger 10/22 with a Butler Creek 25-mag, full of CCI .22 LR Stingers. Those will shoot over 1600FPS, but their accuracy suffers. But problem with using anything rimfire is that likely you will need more than one shot, and that's going to be hard to explain to the cops why you shot the bad guy full of holes.

Some have said that having something is better than nothing, but I disagree. Having nothing at least poses no resistance to the perp, and unless he's hellbent on killing or raping you, it may be in your best interest to simply let him take whatever he wants. Now, I know home invasions don't always work that way, but imagine this - you are stumbling in the dark, reaching for your airgun, hoping that the CO2 still will carry at least 8 shots. Even if you get your shot off, you are looking at reduced stopping power for subsequent CO2 shots. That is the nature of a CO2 gun. You will need a lot more than one shot to stop the intruder, and so a CO2 airgun is a really poor choice, even a CO2 repeating air rifle that requires a firearms licence. In essence, with airguns you are stuck with several problems: 1) multiple shots are needed, but the effect of subsequent shots make it useless on a CO2 gun, 2) there is no no-CO2 repeating airgun, and 3) you definitely don't want to rely on something that is single-shot, spring-action or break-barrel.

Now, the one caveat here - an airgun can be used IF you are such a good shot that you can hit the bad guy in the eye every time. Most airguns will rupture an eyeball without much difficulty, but getting to the point where you can take out an eye is a pretty gruesome thought, and given the fact that the conditions in which you may actually have to do this are less than ideal (low light conditions, time of night and exhaustion issues, movement and space issues, not to mention the fact that you're likely crapping your pants at the time), it's probably more pie-in-the-sky thinking than anything else.

Have airguns ever been used successfully to ward off an attacker? Probably. In fact, I know of a case in South America where a guy was able to chase away a bad guy by shooting him with a relatively low-powered airgun. But remember, if you put all your eggs in one basket with exceptional-case scenarios such as this, you are not looking at the possibility that there are many criminals who aren't so easily chased away. Remember, the criminal mind does not think long-term. Some criminals will kill you for looking at them the wrong way. Don't assume that you'll be able to scare off or chase off most criminals. If they are indeed packing heat, then you pulling out an airgun has just authorized them to shoot you with a real gun in supposed self-defence. Do you want to take this chance?

I have heard of people who still believe airguns are worth using as self-defence and will alter their airguns so that they are multiple times more powerful. Personally, I think these people are playing with fire, since doing this is not only illegal, but can likely get your arrested, since if you alter an air pistol to shoot over 500FPS, you are now looking at a restricted or even a prohibited weapon, according to Canada's fiearms classifications. Very likely the gun will not even be classifiable, since it wasn't manufactured that way and registered with the Canadian government. But let's hypothesize that it was legal to do this (which it definitely is not, I want to emphasize). I still don't believe an airgun shooting a .22 CAL pellet at around 16.2 grains, at a velocity of 500-1000FPS is suitable. Remember, rimfire .22 bullets are around 32 or 40 grain, go at least 1000FPS in general, and I (and others) do not consider them to be viable for self-defence.

Then there are the obvious legal issues. Now, I have previously said that if you are planning to have anything for self-defence, that you had better be prepared to use it to STOP the bad guy, only in situations where you fear for your life or the life of a loved one. Never shoot to kill - your intention should not be pre-meditated killing. Shooting someone for stealing your TV is not excuseable. That being said, the ability to stop the bad guy is not so much determined by your skill level or shooting ability than by what you choose as your self-defence weapon. As I already mentioned, I do not believe airguns to be sufficient. In my humble opinion, the best home defence weapon (for reasons beyond the scope of this blog entry, though I write about this elsewhere on this blog) is a 12 or 20-gauge pump action shotgun, that you can quickly load with something like #3 buckshot, or lower. Be forewarned though - this is a very lethal combination and if you plan to use this, be prepared to accept responsibility for your actions.

In Canada, specifically, buying arms for self-defence is frowned upon, and discouraged. Reason is, unlike the U.S., there are stringent safe-storage laws in Canada. So a person who has any type of firearm in Canada is legally required to keep them unloaded, and locked up in a suitable gun cabinet or safe. The ammo also needs to be locked up separately. Now, think about this - given these legal requirements, how likely is it that you can have a fully functional ready-to-go self-defence arm? If you happen to be very fast and can get to all these individual components, unlocking / relocking and loading your arm all within the span of a couple of minutes, the Canadian government can charge you with unsafe storage, no matter what you say otherwise (their argument is that the laws make it virtually impossible to get to your gun for self-defence, so there's no way you should have been able to do it unless you weren't following safe storage laws). Moreover, if you end up shooting someone, even in a justified self-defence response, and they somehow manage to live, be prepared to be tried as a criminal and having your firearms confiscated as a result, even though you're the one who was violated. Sad, isn't it. Welcome to Canada.

Did Colin Powell Endorse Barack Obama Because He Is Black?

I find it a bit interesting, but hardly surprising that former Secretary of State Republican Colin Powell recently gave his endorsement o Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He has confirmed what I have thought all along.

In general, Black people, at least in the U.S., tend to stick together.

Don't believe me? I've been thinking this for a long time now, even before the primary season started. During the Democratic primaries, it proved my point - there are States that Obama won, primarily due to the overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - like 90% or higher) support of the Black electorate. Poor Hillary Clinton - sure, Bill was popular amongst Black voters, but what other alternatives were there? It's pretty much been White males ever since we could remember.

I suppose one can argue that Blacks generally vote Democrats, so it is coincidental that Obama, a half-Black man, is garnering all this support from the "Black community." Maybe. Plus the true test would have been to see what would have happened had, let's say, some serious Black, well known Republicans like Condoleeza Rice, or better yet, a person I highly hope is on the Republican ticket in the future, Alan Keyes, was on the current Republican ticket, and say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards (well, not anymore) would have been the Democratic nominee. I am willing to bet that Rice or Keyes would capture a lot of the traditional Democratic vote.

Come to this another way, consider the following - can you think of any Blacks who are vehemently supporting McCain? As you may know, I am Asian, and I tell you, I get lots of weird looks as I wear my McCain / Palin shirt, hat, button, or whatever else I decide to don outside the house. I think that people have this really bad impression (fueled by the pro-Obama media) that minorities are supposed to go to Obama. But of course, you're thinking with your feelings here and not with your head. It is the same stupidity that causes White people to reject a qualified Black candidate solely due to race. I know it happens. But Blacks are now doing the exact same thing in supporting Obama, but the difference is, they don't admit it.

When Oprah Winfrey came out to support Obama, was anyone surprised? Here is a very liberal celebrity who, despite her supposed diverse viewership, still has more of a resonating effect among 1) women and 2) Blacks. Men usually don't give a rat's ass about what Oprah things, and they shouldn't (which should be said of most celebrities).

Rush Limbaugh got in supposed hot water for making these suggestions recently. People don't like Rush because he speaks his mind and speaks the truth - which of course, make the relativistic general populace not comfortable. He is right - when was the last time Powell endorsed an inexperienced White Democrat for anything? I suppose one can make an argument that Powell is just trying to screw over the Republicans who embarrassed him by forcing him to go to the U.N. with bad intelligence to push for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Maybe this plays a factor, but I think that you can't overstate the race card. Powell is not exactly a young guy, and I'm sure as a Black Republican, has for many years felt out of place, or have felt the indignation of racial stigma and bigotry. I respect Powell for his military service as well as his contribution to the Republicans - but I think that he's letting the personal pride of seeing a "fellow brother" get elected get to him. A lot of people support Obama seemingly to be part of "history", that they can tell their grandchildren that they put the first Black president in office. A lot of the younger voters have fallen for the slick speeches and warm and fuzzy image of Obama, in today's media-frenzy environment where sound bytes and technological marvels dazzle - style over substance.

I also think these younger voters, as with many young people today, reject anything that is considered "old", including people. They don't view McCain as experienced, simply as old.

Back to the point here - I have lost count of how many interviews with Black voters I have read, or heard or seen, in which they say with such pride how they look forward to putting a Black man in office. Hey, don't get me wrong - I can understand the pride, especially when only 40-50 years ago, segregation still ran rampant. But is that really a good reason to vote for someone?

Proof that it's more about race and celebrity status - a U.S. poll amongst random Black voters asked certain questions such as, "do you agree with Obama's opposition to embryonic stem cell research." General answer was yes, even though the question is deliberally wrong factually. It also asks, "do you agree with Obama's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate?" General answer is yes. I mean, do people even read these things? I suspect not, but they see "support Obama" and they vote yes.

Now, one may suggest that it's not all about race here, since lots of Whites are voting for Obama. Very true, but you can't compare here, since we're talking specifically about the Black electorate. I think it would be much better to simply come out and say that they are voting that way because of his race, much like some McCain supporters are supporting McCain because he is White. Neither position is based on any amount of intelligence, but let's call a spade a spade here. Blacks want a Black president and will vote accordingly.

I Don't Understand Why People Moderate Blog Comments. I Don't.

I recently was reading an article about a recent executed inmate in the U.S., Kevin Watts. This guy was convicted of shooting three Korean restaurant workers in the States point blank in the head while they were kneeing down, in a robbery that obviously became much worse. Then he raped one of the deceased's wife. He was convicted pretty easily and sentenced to death. He was executed this week.

There is a blogger website called "Death Penalty News". These people are your typical anti-capital punishment group, but they spend their time highlighting cases in which criminals get executed. Now, capital punishment is not the topic of discussion here, and I've already put in my two cents on this issue a little while back, but what really irked me about the "Death Pentalty News" website is the fact that while they allow comments, the comments are moderated (which is OK, I guess), but moreover, they succinctly state that any pro-death penalty comments will not be posted. I posted a blurb there that will never be published, but at least they got my two cents.

That is a pretty sad state of affairs when a person or group will only give one side of an issue. Even if you have your own belief system or philosophy, wouldn't it be better to allow no comments at all rather than just allow comments that are in line with their position?

You'll never get that here. I not only welcome divergent comments (and I've received a number of them here) from people who don't agree with me, but I don't moderate them either. I would expect that people would remain civil and use some degree of written word decorum. Makes sense, since I doubt anyone wants to read an expletive-laced tirade. A different viewpoint is always welcome, as long as it is seriously put forth. If I moderated blog entries by sheer philosophical or political position, what you are getting is only what I allow through, which makes the credibility of this whole blog suspect. Sure, I am very opinionated, and sure, you may not agree with me, but I support your right to voice an opinion, and I won't censor you as a result. I think by allowing free speech to flow here, it helps encourage discussion and debate and allows the different sides to put forth their positions. Plus, if you take the time to respond to any of my postings, then the least I can do is afford you the chance to be heard, whether you agree with me or not.

Stephen Harper Wins Another Minority.

Well, well, well...Prime Minister Harper won another minority government tonight, and a stronger one at that (at this point, it's around 143 seats for the Conservatives). They needed 155 to win a majority, but 143 is not bad at all, considering they had something like 124 or 127 previous.

My local Conservative Party candidate did not win - he, unfortunately, got trounced by a former Liberal cabinet minister, who doesn't even live in this area, but that is neither here nor there. Voters in this area are so fickle. I was one of two people within visible walking distance who had election lawn signs up - in fact, I had two on my property. My neighbour, who is obviously of a different political stripe than myself, mocked me (jokingly - or was it?) about me voting Conservative, and I tell you, it was hard to bite my tongue and merely give him the fake neighbourly smile I've given him for the past eight years.

The left wingers are chiding the election results, suggesting that they won, as they denied Harper a majority government. This, in part, is from the same Liberal party that had its worst showing since like 1984, and not too far removed from a loss in 1867, the year of confederation. Personally, I think this is both a hollow and a weak argument. Harper's Conservatives have been voted in twice, with the second minority much stronger. Doesn't sound like a weak leader to me. What cost Harper is the uneven distribution of representation by population, and I'm talking about the province of Quebec here, which happened to vote in large numbers for the separatist Bloc Quebecois (as an aside, I must say how pleasantly surprised I am to see visible minority members in the Bloc - and I also have to confess that I've always thought Gilles Duceppe was a great character for the federal scene. Don't agree with much of his viewpoints, but I love his sense of humour). Anyhow, this country is still a fairly fragmented country when it comes to regional politics. Case in point - Atlantic Canada voted almost all Liberal, Quebec is mostly Bloc, Toronto is all Liberal and NDP, Alberta is mostly Conservative and BC is 99% Conservative representation. Not sure about Saskatchewan or Manitoba and the territories, and I'm too lazy to find out.

So what's a minority mean for Harper? Well, it still means he can't push through things without getting some sort of support from at least one other party. For instance, his commitment to end the federal long gun registry will simply have to sit on the back burner for another few years - I can't forsee any other party supporting it. Another thing that a minority does is essentially force a checks and balances type of political co-operation. I think it provides good balance in that you don't get one party (and consequently one political stripe) dominating the making of laws, government spending and support of programs, etc. I know, it may be hard to hear that coming from someone who people view as narrow minded and a one-party guy. But look at what has happened elsewhere, namely in the U.S. With a Democratic House, Senate and President, government spending goes out of control. Similarly, I am not in favour of all branches of government being dominated by the Republicans. Does that mean that I am in favour of a politically pluralistic makeup of a government? Not entirely, but I think it's important at least to ensure that divergent voices are heard, so it doesn't run like a dictatorship.

Did you watch any of the Canadian leaders' debates? I watched the French one (kind of hard to understand the translation as the translators were talking over one another - each candidate had its own translator dubbing in his/her voice, to make it look more like an exchange rather than single statements from one single voice that translates for all the candidates) as well as the English one. I personally did not like that round table format. It made interrupting more easily accomplishable, as the candidates were obviously sitting more in a casual environment, and as such, all natural debate decorum went out the window. Steve Paikin was an effective moderator, but the close proximity in which the candidates sat made it much more easier to talk over the moderator.

I really question what Elizabeth May was doing there. Sure, the Greens had one seat in the House (which incidentally was not an elected seat - just an elected MP that switched parties). Some people will chastise me for my criticism of May, accusing me of being sexist. Not at all. May's gender had nothing to do with my belief that she shouldn't have been there. Her lack of party members elected had something to do with it, but let's be honest - she was so damn annoying. Contrast this to former federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough. She belonged in the debates as the NDP had more than a few seats and she at least had some debating skills. May came across as loud-mouthed and obnoxious. Did you see the one part where she was just reaming on Harper and Harper gave her that smiling look, you know, the one he gives people when he's about to choke them. But he showed tremendous restraint in not reacting to May; as a result, she looked like an idiot talking to herself.

I guess if I were to think long about this, I would probably not support the BQ being on the debate either. Sure, they have around 50 seats, which is noticeable, but as they are not a national party, I'm not sure why they would be in the debates - at least spare them from the English one, since they don't speak English for anything. Notice how the rest of the leaders inject French in their speeches and remarks, whereas the BQ never does? Sometimes I think Quebec has Canada by the balls way too often, and it's time the federal government stop catering to a special interests.

Of course, the biggest consequence tonight will be what will happen to that hapless fellow Stephane Dion? He ran a pretty poor election, which I don't really mind, since I don't vote Liberal, but honestly - he had all the issues wrong. His "Green Shift" carbon tax plan no one really cared about at the end, especially when the economy was the prime focus. He also didn't spend too much time explaining the exact details of the Green Shift plan to the electorate, and that brings me up to another point - his English is REALLY BAD. Chretien had an accent, but you could make out what he was saying. Dion, being in federal politics for so long - I'm surprised that his English is not much better. Hard to show that you are a leader when your communication and linguistic skills are not up to snuff.

Which leads me to my last point that I sincerely believe that this is not only the first kick at the can for Dion, but it will for sure be his last. The Liberals, at current count, have around 76 seats - that's down from 95. The Conservatives and NDP picked up a number of seats, while the BQ stayed the same. The Liberals lost quite a few seats. And even if it wasn't Dion's fault entirely (I believe it was, for a large part), he is the current leader and so he needs to take the first arrows. My guess is that he'll resign in a few days, and then the vultures will gather around and prepare for the second iteration of the modern day Liberal convention. All I can say is...anyone but Michael Ignatieff. That guy is one of those "as slimy as they come" politicians. Dude hasn't live in Canada for 40 years, and now is back...and for what - trying to become Prime Minister? I'd much rather see Gerard Kennedy, and to a lesser extent, Bob Rae. Anyone but Ignatieff. But like I said, I don't really care, since I don't vote nor support the Grits anyways.

Do you have any thoughts on the election? Please share them here.

Situational Ethics Revisited

Years ago, I read a book by well known ethicist Joseph Fletcher, entitled "Situation Ethics" (or is it "Situational Ethics"? I don't remember). In it, he suggests that ethics systems can and will be influenced by their sitaution. To simplify, your ethics system will adjust depending on circumstances. What you may do in one instance, you may not do in another. In essence, any moral response is contingent on environmental factors.

At the time of the reading, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I guess at the time, as a new Christian, I had an idealized version of how things can and should be. I thought it ridiculous that an ethics system can have, as its foundation, a worldview that does not show tangible consistency. It was, in my view at the time, a flawed system, one which really turns decisions into a truly subjective exercise and is devoid of any consistent belief system. Ultimately, I saw it cross with my theological understanding which espouses moral and ethical absolutes.

Fast forward to 2008, and my viewpoint hasn't changed...much. I still think an ethics system that can be easily swayed can show a lack of moral integrity and personal conviction in the adherent. I mean, essentially, this relegates ethical dilemmas to the realm of fashion, where one week something is "in" and the next week it is "out". Plus, moreover, I'm not entirely sure that having an ever-changing ethic system is in line with Scriptural principles. I know, I am over-simplifying, but hopefully you see my point, even a little bit.

Here's where I started to break away from my previous hard-wired stance on this topic. I think there is some truth to the old adage, "unless you have been in someone's shoes..." What really prompted me to look into this further was an article I read in the newspaper a while back, about a guy who lost his job and in trying to make ends meet for his kids, he decided to start robbing banks. Not sure if it was an armed robbery or the traditional "stick 'em up" types, complete with pantyhose on the head and a Brooklyn accent. Regardless, when I first read this, my first emotional response was that I felt sorry for this guy - not sorry as in patronizing sorry, but sorry in terms of empathetic sorry. Then I thought, "should I be feeling this way?" I mean, there are many people down on their luck who don't resort to robbing banks. Do I think this guy is a bad guy? I don't know - I would have thought that he was a scumbag 15 years ago, but now I am a father of two and I put myself in that position. What would I do? I can tell you that I don't think that I would not rob a bank, but would I be tempted to perhaps do other things which may not be so extreme in terms of criminality? Would I break away from my long-held conviction and practice of not offering cash to a merchant to save on tax? I don't know. Would I not report all my side income? I don't know. It's hard to say. Now, here's the rub: is any of this right? My response would be, "probably not."

Why the change in heart, as minor as it may be? Well, I think I am starting to look at things from a more wider spectrum. That is, I try not do judge a word or action in a vacuum. So in the wider scheme of things, I consider the following: why is the person doing or saying what he/she is doing or saying? In other words, I examine motive, something which I dismissed before. I think it is a factor in play. Now, here's where I can speak definitively for myself. Some actions or behaviour in nature, is inherently wrong. For instance, lying is wrong. However, would you fault a person who lies to a criminal in order to save the life of their family? Probably not. I wouldn't think twice. Does that mean that I demonstrated a coveted virtue? Probably not, but consider the following example in the Bible: Rahab deliberately lies in order to save the Israelites. Nowhere do I see that action condemned in the Bible - in fact, isn't Rahab mentioned in the Hebrews 11 "Hall of Fame" of the faith? Does that make lying OK? Of course not, but it certainly doesn't make it a cut and dry issue as I thought it once was.

Do I believe in white lies? No. I don't believe there are such a thing as an innocent lie. Now, this is based on my understanding of what sin is, and while I have never really read a truly good explanation of what sin is (usually, people will outline the effects or outcroppings of sin, not sin itself), I think that in reading the Bible all these years, I have come up with a fairly concise explanation: sin is separation from God, sure, but I would classify sin as any instance, whether in thought or speech or deed, where one puts the focus on themselves rather than God. Guess you can say it is driven out of selfish motive. That definition, I think, works given the fact that if you look at any sin, there is a commonality in the preservation or satisfaction of self. Look at lust, look at covetousness, look at lying, look at idolatry, murder, stealing, etc.

However, where I think motive comes into play is in an action which may historically have a self-driven motive, but in the situational cases they do not. A parent who has decided that without the ability to procure the proper legal means to pay for food for their kids, decides to do a Robin Hood approach (and even then, how many people have historically vilified Robin Hood?) and steal from the rich. The intention is not self-focussed. The action is still wrong, but are there degrees of wrong now?

I know, this is a slippery slope argument. In the above example, can you say that the stealing was justified if there were other means or avenues of options available that the individual just was not aware of? And what is considered a need compared to a want - there's a fine line sometimes. What if the parental thief goes from stealing food to stealing clothes and then starts to differentiate between basic clothes and brand name clothes. Is it the same thing to judge a person who steals bread and milk to feed their kids, as opposed to a parent who steals lobster and filet mignon?

(STOPPING THIS POST IN ORDER TO WATCH PALIN/BIDEN DEBATE...WILL RESUME LATER)

The Proposed $700 Billion U.S. Economic Bailout

Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down the Bush

administration-proposed, and subsquently signifiantly altered, economic bailout package that was worth up to $700 billion dollars. That is a lot of money and if it makes you uncomfortable, it should. It is a lot of money.

After the bill's failure, the markets went for a huge tumble. The Dow fell in what was described as historic drops. I saw it in my own retirement investment portfolio (RRSP) and how it lost significant value over the span of a day. In looking at mutual fund and stock prices, I doubt anyone's portolio performed any differently than mine. Everything took a dive.

I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I really wonder whether this bailout package is the right thing for the U.S. Bush alluded to it in a prime-time address late last week (I believe) where he says normally he wouldn't consider bailing out those who make mistakes, and I see his point about what would happen if nothing was done, but maybe that's just what needs to be done - let's face it, the American economy is in a recession, and the signs of this have been evident for many years. My wife and I were talking recently and I think she said that it seemed like after 9/11, U.S. investments have been on a continuing spiral. I have picked up more U.S. funds in my portfolio in recent years thinking that it can't get any worse than the price for which I bought my units, but nope, the prices continue to slide.

I tend to agree with those who argue that this sends the wrong message to these companies who for years have been making risky, if not bad business decisions, taking chances on risky investments on a volatile housing market and paying their CEOs exorbitants amounts of money. To bail them out does seem to excuse these decisions, but I do realize it's not just the institutions' leaders that are affected - these firms have thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who would be unemployed, and that, surely cannot help the economy.

Some have said that why should the average Joe have to chip in for the mistakes of Wall street? This is true, and I can empathize with this point, since this $700 billion is taxpayer money. I think that by not doing this, though, it's going to come back to hurt them in other ways such as being refused credit or lending for things like loans and mortgages. With no money to go around, who's going to lend it?

However, while I put the blame on these institutions for not properly vetting their potential borrowers due to greed, I also fault borrowers in general who borrow more than they can afford or take risks in taking on more credit than they can afford. But isn't this the way the culture is right now - we have these stupid payday loan companies who will be happy to lend you money at a ridiculous interest rate to help you cover things until you get your paycheque. People should realize that if you're going to one of these places, you have a bigger problem than needing a quick loan.

To me, the bailout, while stablizing the economy for the short-term, does not really address the long-term issue of pure greed, both from the lender, as well as the borrower. The bill was revamped and passed a Senate vote yesterday, but still needs to go to the house. I hope it's defeated again.

Chris Reid...Speak It, Bro.

So I was dropping my car off at the dealership last night, and happened to glance over at the Toronto Star (which essentially is the liberal metro paper in Toronto). I don't necessarily agree with everything the Star says, but I have always enjoyed the layout and the amount of information packed in the Star. It is by and large a better read (from a reading perspective) than the more conservative Toronto Sun, which even though it may share more of my socially conservative views, is in a more tabloid format with only grade-six vocabulary and enough ads to shake a stick at (I hate ads), not to mention one of the main drawing points, the "Sunshine Girl". My Dad reads the Sun, but I don't care for it at all. Anyway, since I was waiting for my shuttle, I thought I'd check out the latest Star. Right on the front page was an article about a local Toronto Conservative Party candidate, who has stepped down amid what the Star deems as "controversial" comments regarding concealed handgun carry. Now, the context, as the Star states, is that candidate Chris Reid has indicated in his blog, that Canadians should be able to conceal carry handguns for personal self-defence. What is wrong with that? Well, I suppose expressing an opinion in Toronto is a God-given right...only when that opinion is in step with the general liberal and left-wing mindset. To express anything else is to be met with a fury of politically correct outage.

I wrote Chris an encouraging response on his blog, showing my support. But more than that, I think this year has really shown me the clear liberal bias in almost every media outlet available. Never before have I see such a blatant unwillingness to reign in personal opinion and separate it from objective journalistic reporting. I suppose those who have seen Campbell Brown's CNN interview with Tucker Bounds will no doubt see this at its worst (if she ain't in the tank for Obama, I'll be happy to endorse my next paycheque to anyone who can prove otherwise). It's fine to have your own personal preference, but as a journalist, I think it's necessary to keep it in check and simply regurgitate the facts, and leave the op-ed stuff to the...well, op-ed people, and the talk show hosts, whose jobs it is to dissect these issues from a particular political bent.

Anyway, as I was reading the reporting on Chris Reid's views (Chris is gay, and whatever you or I may think of that, that's beside the issue, in my opinion - but I only mention it to show that I don't discount views necessarily because of who the speaker is), I couldn't help but think to myself that these gun control types really have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Today, I see the sad news item about yet another school shooting, this time in Finland. Multiple casualities were reported. Now, I know the media will once again go on its rampage, insisting the all guns be banned. I have already written a bit about all this, and will try not to rehash it, but if you are reading this and believe that banning guns is the solution, think for a moment about these points:

One, why is it that these public shootings always seem to be at a school, or a public shopping mall or a church or whatever? Because these places are either legislated or generally accepted to be gun-free zones. If I was a potential mass killer, where would I go to inflict the most carnage - at a shooting range or a gun show, or at a school or shopping centre? I would think twice about the shooting range or gun show, since I know that most people there would be armed and would not hesitate to take me down if I start threatening lives. Whereas at a school, you know that many of these educational institutions have a zero tolerance policy for guns and anything else that is not the flowerly "make love not war" or "tolerance" mantras that you have come to envision associated with these places. My son's school forbids even water pistols or army fatigues for kids (no one says anything to me when I wear my army pants and my Remington hat there). You know that the teachers, as good people as some of them may be, take orders from the school board, who generally are controlled by a liberal-bias government. For them, guns are bad, and they won't even engage in a healthy debate on this.

Remember last year, there was a rash of shootings in the U.S. in churches? What ended up happening? The gunman was eventually subdued through the timely assistance of a woman parishoner who happened to have a concealed carry licence and her firearm on hand. Had she not had her gun, there would have been mass carnage at that church and the gunman would have simply moved on to the next church.

Second, as I said before and I'll say it more briefly this time, gun control laws target the wrong people. I find it hard to believe that anyone can successfully argue that criminals will obey gun control laws, since by definition, criminals do not obey laws. Legislating a handgun ban would only hurt the legitimate gun owners, who are law abiding and have taken courses, passed rigorous written and practical examinations, have passed extensive background checks, and have paid the appropriate fees to be licensed. These are not exactly the types of folks who will put their reputation at risk in using their firearms unwisely. Instead, it is the criminal who has no intention to follow any laws, who will undoubtedly procure a stolen firearm (from the U.S. most likely) and use it to commit a crime. Banning handguns or firearms in general will not do anything here. Case in point - look at places like the U.K., who have banned guns for oh...more than a decade now. Guess what? Their crime has not gone down - in fact, it has gone up, but more than that, the kicker is that their gun crime has gone up by over 100%. Yet, supposedly there are no guns there. Same trend has happened in Australia. Even in the U.S. there are supposed "gun free zones" like Washington D.C. Yet, the the gun crime rate in Washington D.C. is at epidemic levels. What does that say about the effectiveness of legislating gun control laws?

Now, Mr. Reid's comments were based, as reported in the Star, on the horrific beheading incident on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this summer. Now, here's where Reid and my opinions will differ. I don't believe that having concealed handguns on that bus would have made a difference. Based on the tight quarters and the amount of people packed into those same quarters, it would have been difficult at best, and dangerous at worst, to take down a crazed assailant at the back of a bus, wielding a machete, who likely killed his victim pretty quickly, while scores of people are trying to exit the bus from back to front.

Do I support full concealed carry? Generally, yes, I do, and this is despite the fact that I do not own a handgun (but I am a firearm owner). I do believe in using firearms for self-defence for the home. Do I think that that guns will deter crime? I definitely do, and regardless of what your own personal views are on this one, I'd encourage you to at least examine John Lott's book, "More Guns Less Crime", which as an academic, economist and statistician, he takes the reader on a very long, detailed and comprehensive journey on crime stats as it relates to concealed carry laws, utilizing countless variables regressions, timeframes and geographies. It is published by the University of Chicago Press, and I'd encourage you to get the second edition, which has more current stats (which only buttress the original findings) and in which Lott responds to his critics convincingly. If after reading that book, you still believe that having concealed handguns will not deter crime, please shoot me an email and tell me why.

David Miller and Dalton McGunity's Continuing Call for a Handgun Ban

Lately, there have been a rash of gun related crime in Toronto, most notably in several schools, as well as the high profile murder last Tuesday of a fellow who was shot right on the 401 (a major 8+ lane highway in Toronto) and dumped onto the highway in the middle of the day, in front of shocked drivers. Of course, with it now being election season (again), politicians are positioning themselves as trying vet their own political agendas, under the guise of trying to find solutions to crime. The latest account of this is with Toronto mayor David Miller (NDP) and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal), both of whom have renewed calls for a handgun ban not only in Toronto, but nationally.

On the surface, to those who aren't well read on crime and guns, and who are generally not in favour of firearm possession, it sounds like they are getting tough on crime, right? But let's look at their position a little deeper here.

Let's face it, few want to publicly admit this, so I will be happy to do it. First, let's look at these crimes - make no bones about it, you will see a very clear commonality here, that few are wanting to admit. These crimes, for the most part, are perpetrated by young black men, and the victims are often young black men. The crimes have occurred in relatively heavier-populated black areas. You can't debate this with me - just pull up the news and check out the location of the shootings. Second, there is a gang component tied into a number of these shootings. Third, from the few arrests that have been made, it is discovered that the handguns used are by and large stolen and smuggled from the U.S. David Miller actually has the gonads to flat-face lie to the public and say that 60-70% of guns from crimes are either legally obtained or stolen from legal owners here in Canada. A police officer was interviewed this afternoon, who was on an anti-gang squad in Toronto, and he vehemently maintained that the percentage is more like 3 - 6%, and confirmed what we all know - that guns used in crimes are almost always stolen and smuggled from the U.S.

Why am I mentioning all this? Because of the fact that if the municipal or provincial jurisdiction were able to successfully enact a handgun ban, nothing would change. Crime would not go down. Why? Because the criminals don't give a rat's ass about following the law. Does anyone seriously think that a law outlawing all handgun possession would cause any criminal element to think twice about using handguns and / or register their stolen handguns? Think about this - it is illegal to rape or murder someone. It is illegal to steal someone's car. Yet these things happen every day, because criminals do not observe or respect the laws in place - that is the nature of the criminal mind.

If nothing else, such a handgun ban would target and penalize the law-abiding handgun owner, who took the time and expense to fill out an application for a licence, take the mandatory course, pay the fees, subject themselves to an exhaustive criminal check and waiting period, after providing written approval by one's spouse and several references. And to top it off, in Canada, owning a handgun is very restrictive as is. There are maybe a handful of people in CANADA who have a conceal carry licence. For the average Joe who wants to get a handgun licence (Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, or RPAL), they would then need to apply for a Authorization to Transport (ATT) licence, who only allows them to transport the handgun from their residence to an approved shooting range. That's it.

And, if you look at the typical profile of a gun owner, it is not a young black male from a broken home with little to no education. The vast majority of gun owners, whether it be handgun or long gun, are older folks with no criminal records, and who use the guns for sport shooting, hunting, or target shooting. They store their guns responsibly and obey all laws regarding the safe transport and use of their firearms. Those are the people who would be targeted with such a proposed ban, not the criminals.

You can draw a parallel to prohibition in the 1920s. How did that turn out when all alcohol was banned? People still managed to find alcohol illegal and a whole underground criminal element came into being in order to smuggle alcohol.

This is a complex issue, so I don't presume to have all the answers. Some people have said that the answer is for young black men to keep it in their pants and not father child after child with different black women who can't keep their legs shut and subsequently are faced with the daunting task of raising a child without a father present, and in trying to work long hours just to provide for the child, ends up not being able to spend the quality time with him, and as such the child joins a gang, and on and on it goes. This argument is fine, but it's not realistic - you can't change the problematic element in the community by idealistic wishful thinking. Sure, these young men who father these children should take responsibility for their actions, but who among us is going to enforce this or even teach it?

For me, I think that a possible solution is to increase the penalties for gun crimes. Some say that this would flood the system, but better these people in jails than on the street. With the Canadian revolving door justice system, no one spends an inordinate amount of time in the penal system - with good behaviour and a good lawyer, you'd be lucky if you even served half your sentence. By making the laws tougher, it at least removes more criminals off our street. And if they are 15 or 16, treat them as adults - they know what they are doing.

I've always endorsed the death penalty for murder, and for those who talk about crowding in jails with convicted murderers, this is one way you can cost-effectively deal with the situation. Sure, the bleeding hearts will say that it is cruel, but so is the murderous act that they did. Too bad, so sad.

All Men Succumb to Sexual Temptation - *WARNING - EXPLICIT CONTENT*

Over the years, there are a few things that I have learned which have really stayed with me over time. One is that most people, when confronted to share some intimately private thoughts about their personal shortcomings, will tend to either lie, or express some sense of false humility. Related to this, it is my firm belief that when it comes to financial or sexual matters, most people will tend to avoid or run away from the topic rather than fully engage it. This was clearly evident in a recent (well, last 9 months) discussion in which I was engaged in a online discussion forum devoted to financial talk. The topic came up about debt, and very surprisingly, despite what hard statistics will reveal, that most people carry some consumer debt, 98% of the folks on there said they had no debt (we're talking consumer debt, not mortages, etc.). The ones who were honest said that they had substantial debt. Now, we're not talking about a specific segment of the population here - this forum encompassed folks from all different walks of life, age groups, racial background and economic class. Yet very few people admitted they have debt. Why is this?

I thought about it further and think I have the answer - because of what admitting such a thing would invite - namely, a fear that others may look down on a person as a result of carrying debt. I mean, just like how an overweight person may not readily admit to hitting the buffet circuit, a person who is struggling financially may not be so apt to confess this. Particularly for guys, it may be construed as a sign of weakness or lack of control. So people keep their mouths shut or blatantly lie about it.

It's not all that different than sexual matters. Now, I know some things should be kept private and / or between husband and wife. But I've been in groups of men where we were asked point blank if we struggle with sexual temptation / sexual sin/lust and some of its offshoots like masturbation. None of us, including myself raised our hands. Now, maybe because it was in the midst of other Christian men, who tend to want to keep up a certain wholesome image. The masturbating husband and father who goes to church every week is simply not an image that others want to envision. But despite the fact that almost every male that I have ever spoken with has indicated that masturbation is one of those topics that they struggle with, this admittance will only be done in the confines of two men, no more. I mean, when I was in Bible school, I had countless (and I mean countless) personal conversations with a number of people about sexual temptation. It exists, even though no one wants to discuss it. And with good reason - you don't know whether baring your struggles would eventually make the rounds amongst your social group, or in some cases when in the presence of strangers (like a Promise Keepers' meeting), become juicy gossip and discussion fodder for when they get home.

So that brings me to today's topic, which I am sure will have men all over nodding in agreement, but I doubt I would get any public acknowledgements here. Let me set up the topic for you. I will speak in vague terms in order to protect the identity of those who I don't wish to be identified. Names, not even substitute ones, will be used.

Years ago, I had a male acquaintance with whom I thoroughly enjoyed conversing, despite the fact that politically, philosophically and spirtually, we were on opposite sides of the spectrum. He oftentimes made snide comments about my opinions, but regardless, we got along well and enjoyed each other's company. Anyway, one time, our conversation ventured into uncharted territory and I shared with him a story that happened to me that my wife also knows about (she wasn't my wife at the time). I used to do shift work over a decade ago at a dead-end job that was not exactly run with an "employee first" mentality. Oftentimes I would show up after a bus ride there, to be told that there was no work for me that day or night and that I can go home (gee, thanks!) without pay (damn you!) One night, on my way home, I was taking the Sheppard 85 bus from Scarborough to North York, here in Toronto, and since the bus was relatively empty, I sat at the back where there is more room and space. At the next stop, a uh...how shall I say this, very voluptuous and scantily clad young lady came aboard the bus and proceeded to sit near the back on the side-row of seats. I sensed her looking over at me, via my peripheral vision but I was too busy looking out at the greasy and likely germ-infested window. But you know how it is - when you sense someone staring at you, you eventually stare back, if nothing else to try to stare them down. But I know that she was scantily clad so I really made a concerted effort not to look at her (and of course, being a former porn addict, there was a part of me which really wanted to). Anyway, I did eventually return her stare (I swear, I just stared at her face), if only to give her a "what do you want?" type of look. Remember, I was told after going in mid-evening that there was no work for me - so a side of me was a bit agitated (well, pissed is the exact nomenclature here) so I was in no mood to be stared at. Anyway, to my surprised, when I returned her stare, she looked me in the face and said, "Hi". I said hi, but didn't make much conversation, and then she proceeded to ask me if I wanted to be pleasured - actually, there's no point in beating around the bush here - she asked me if I wanted to be blown. I thought she was kidding, or drunk, or something else (I do think she was on something whether it be alcohol or some other chemical). She said, "come on" and for the first time in my life, I have to say, I had some serious mixed emotions. Remember, I was around 23 at the time, so it's not like I was a 40-something-declining-sex-drive type of guy. Sure, I was dating my girlfriend at the time, but we both decided to wait to get married to have sex (which we did). But obviously, in this sexually charged age, deciding to wait does in fact build up a lot of sexual tension. Anyone who would tell you otherwise is lying to you.

Anyway, while I'm sure many out there would claim to be repulsed by such a solicitation, I was actually quite flattered, even if she was on drugs or drunk. Did I give into her request? Thankfully I didn't. But I'd be lying if I said that it was an instantly easy decision. Was I tempted? Damn right I was.

I relayed the above story to my colleague (who is not a Christian), since he was similar to me in age and in a number of other ways. I mentioned the story more to illustrate a point that I was making (I forgot what the exact topic was), but he took my experience and said to me, "You know, if I was in your shoes, and know that my wife would never find out about it, I would have probably taken her up on her offer." I was shocked at his total candidness as well as his honesty. That is not to say that I admired his answer. I obviously don't. But it is refreshing to hear people at least being honest with themselves, if not with others.

Years later, I had the good fortune to meet up with another colleague of mine (who is not a Christian), this one much older than I was, and he was from a small town. I mention this detail to help illustrate that these types of things are not "city" issues, as some Christians would have you believe. Yeah, I know it's hard to fathom it, but there are gays in small towns and sexual problems and financial difficulty knows no geography. Anyway, I was driving this colleague from our downtown office to my local office, and somehow, we got on the topic of what we used to be like when we were younger. Well, I had a very close and confiding relationship with my colleague, since we used to tell each other things about company operations that we would get fired for if people knew that we knew the information we knew. In this context, I shared with him my past struggles with porn and the vigilance I need to exercise (still do!) in dealing with constant temptation (still happens). I shared with him how I tend to avoid beaches in the sumemrtime and avoid going to the mall where scantily clad girls tend to hang out. I also avoid watching certain Hollywood movies that are probably not the best for me to watch. He then shared with me how he struggled with the same thing and we got really personal with the details. Anyhow, since then, I have been thinking about this topic and over the years, I have met many men, who have more or less confirmed to me that they have all come across situations where they could have easily cheated on their spouse - whether they did or not I never asked, since I really don't want to know (I know, it's kind of cowardly of me).

Back in 1995, I got to know a fellow who was a member of a Christian band. It was an exciting time in my life, to have had the opportunity to write for a major Christian music magazine as well as the commensurate massive discounts I was offered on almost virtually any Christian or alternative Christian recording - I still have must of my collection from then and enjoy the music fondly. Anyway, with this fellow from the band, he seldom discussed anything personal, but of course with one-on-one conversations, things eventually come out, and he stated to me that he is a sex maniac. The girlfriend he had at the time he told me all about, including the 300+ times they had sex, some graphic details about her genitalia, and surprisingly, his admission that he would be willing to date someone as young as 12 (he was 22 at the time). But he said that he kept all that private because you just don't talk about such things.

You may wonder what my point is - ok, fine, men struggle with temptation - some Christians (and some non-Christians) will call it for what it is, but seldom discuss it. Some non-Christians (and some Christians) will not care and will be happy to immerse themselves in a hedonistic lifestyle. But regardless of background or faith, it is my firm belief after talking with many men (not just the two that I have detailed above) over the years about this topic, that any man can be seduced at any time. To put it more bluntly - I believe that given the right circumstances, any man, in a moment of weakness or vulnerability, have the great potential to cheat on their wife or girlfriend. The reason why I am making this a topic of discussion is that I recently have encountered a couple of folks who strongly disagree with me on this one - they say that there are men who are faithful to their wives all their lives (I don't doubt this part) and who rarely struggle with sexual temptation (I strongly doubt this part). If the masturbation numbers are accurate, it would be inconsistent to have so many men, regardless of relational status, masturbate (which is always accompanied by some fantasy), yet not struggle with temptation. I think these men must be graduates of the same school of denial that produced so many closet child-molesting priests, under the guise of forced chastity. Of course, required chastity has for me, become such a ridiculous concept that I don't give it much credence (but this is from the same guy who does not believe that singleness is hardly a gift that should be coveted).

Part of the problem here is that no one wants to admit that they are vulnerable. Sure, men probably enjoy the occasional cry, if nothing else to entice their female mate to see a more human side to them, but we're not talking emotional vulnerability here - we're talking crossing the line between a committed covenant and breaking the most important trust a human being can place on you. In our heads, we easily look at a scenario and logically process the pros and cons. I don't necessarily think that declining an invitation to participate in extra-marital infidelity necessarily is instinctive for most men. I would argue that it is not, but instead, what keeps men from giving in to temptation is a careful weighing of risk vs. reward, or to put it another way, whether the consequences are worth the risk. For some married, men, I think the answer is no. I mean, aside from having a faithful wife at home, you also have kids to think about, and to a lesser degree, a reputation and other relationships (ie. to in-laws, etc.). Of course, there is also the risk of getting caught, getting a disease, fathering a child, getting murdered (if the fling is with another married person). For probably those reasons, men keep it in their pants.

But I would argue that if you were to take away a number of those factors, all men can be seduced by a woman. Now, I don't want to create the impression that men cannot be trusted - that is not the point I'm trying to make - however, I think that the men who claim to have temptation free lives should probably re-evaluate their level of honesty to themselves. Particularly Christians who seemingly have a pre-disposition to not talk publicly about anything sexual. Considering the fact that the divorce rate amongst Christians is almost akin to the secular divorce rate, I don't think Christian men are immune to any problem. We just seem to be able to hide it better.

Christians Are Consumers Too and Don't Like to be Hosed Either

Well, well, well...I just heard that a long-established Christian bookstore in the area will be closing down due to going bankrupt. I suppose you would think that as a believer, I would be saddened by this. In a way, I am, but only in a very small way. It was a family-friendly store with decent staff and a good selection of popular books (emphasis on popular). I have not been a regular shopper there for years, once I found out that they were more than willing to commit highway robbery with the exorbitant prices that they charge. I mean, who, really, did they think they were fooling? Of course, if you didn't know better, you'd be happy to pay for the products that they have there, but with the advances in online ordering, the ability to network with people and buy second hand, it's hard to understand why they continually jacked up the prices of their books far beyond reasonable.

Case in point - I was looking for N.T. Wright's Gospel study set - a series of six books that was like a combination devotional / Bible study / commentary. My buddy, who is an Anglican guy, knows of a bookstore that sold the set for something like $90.00 Cdn. + tax. Of course, this place was located downtown, so I wasn't crazy about riding the subway, and was even less enthusiastic about driving there, with the cost of gas and all. My friend could have picked it up for me the next time he was downtown, since he goes to theology school in the area, but I didn't know when the next time he would do this would be. So I held off on the purchase. A couple of other Christian bookstores in Toronto had the set and it was selling for around $100.00 + tax.

At the aforementioned Christian bookstore which has now gone under, they were listing it for $124.99 + tax. Now, you may say, who cares - what's $24.99 + tax? Well, consider this...I ended up buying the set brand new, at a gigantic Canadian retail book chain for...are you ready for this? $54.99 + tax. Yes, it was brand new and even in the sealed distributor's box. Now that is insane, considering the fact that the publishers are still making money off this.

This Christian bookstore was also known for using their own pricing stickers, covering the MSRP. I guess that's OK if the price is lower, but when it is 10-20% higher, I have a wee bit problem with that. Now, you may argue that Christian industry is at a bit of a disadvantage, since the cost of doing business is likely more since whether it is Christian books, music or anything else, they don't have huge companies financially backing them and they don't sell their products en masse. I can appreciate that, and for that reason, I don't mind paying the bit extra to support the industry. But when a store or company is consistently gouging the Christian consumer - well, Christians have brains too - and free will - and choice. For me, I chose to take my meager spending dollars and go elsewhere, even if it means that I end up buying from a non-Christian source.

I used to be a record reviewer in the Christian music scene, writing regular reviews for one of the largest Christian alternative music magazines on the market (give you a hint, it was based in Texas and was started by the founder of a cheesy Blonde Vinyl band that sang about sex-related themes). Anyway, as part of my deal, I got my Christian CDs brand new, for VERY cheap from the Canadian distributor (and they couriered them all to my residence or my parents' residence, depending on where I was). Now, consider this for back in 1994: Christian CDs were selling at most stores for $18.99 Cdn. + tax, which was a rip anyway. The average secular CD was selling for around $15.00 at the time at most places, and a lot more at the secular version of the ultimate store of highway robbery, HMV. Now, CDs at this Christian store would sell at $18.99, but that was considered a once-a-year-sale type of price. The average price of a regular CD was $22.99 + tax. Yup. To put it into perspective, I got mine directly from the distributor for $3.00 + tax each. I must have purchased over 400 CDs during my stint as a record reviewer. But the distributor told me that they were selling to be at cost, which surely must make you shake your head at the $22.99 + tax price tag.

Years ago, I made the mistake of going against my brain and buying a Christian book mainly due to its sheer popularity. I don't mind telling you that I seriously regret purchasing Rick Warren's cheese-bucket tome, "The Purpose Driven Life". If you haven't read it, you ain't missing much. Anyhow, this store was selling it for $18.99 or so. The suggested retail price was a few bucks less, and I ended up getting it at CostCo for a mere $9.99. Now, you may not know this, but this Christian bookstore was not only a retail outlet, but also a supplier/distributor. Guess what - Costco bought their Warren books from this store and sold it for considerably less than what this store listed it for - that makes you really wonder what the cost of the book was to Costco. Obviously this store sold to Costco for far less than to the average book buyer. I wonder why. Did they think Christians would be stupid and not shop around? Needless to say, you can't really cut it any other way than to state that it is pure greed that enveloped their selling practices. And of course, like the Bible says, you reap what you sow and certainly this company is now on the reaping side of the equation, after all these years.

Now, a casual reader of this MAY conclude that I am being very hard on Christian businesses. Nothing can be further from the truth. Do you know that when I choose to do business with someone - whether it's proper or not, I do give preferential treatment towards Christian businesses, even realizing that I may have to pay slightly more (which is OK with me). When I needed to get a new roof for my house back in 2001, I solicited different companies and in the end, I chose a company based out in Durham Region called Excel Roofing. The owner/proprietor is a Christian and runs his company in a way that honours God. Now, his staff may not be all Christians, but he has a certain value system in how he does business. The roof cost a bit more than what other companies were quoting me, but I though it was a reasonable amount, and let me tell you - they did one heck of a job on my roof. I know people since then who have had their roofs done by different companies and have had problems, but this Christian guy's company did an amazing job on my roof. Seven years later, all the shingles look the same as they did, nothing is loose or curling (unlike my next door neighbour's roof which was done a year ago and already has curling shingles). My dentist is a Christian, and I specifically continue to go to him and recommended my wife and son to go to him. I have to drive quite a bit to get to him, but I'm happy with his service, and know that he will do a good job, as he always does.

I do a little information technology work on the side, and I run my own business the same way - so far, I am batting 100% with satisfied customers. I don't think I'm doing anything different, other than simply treating my customers with respect, and doing what I said I would do and keeping my word, and conducting myself beyond approach in my speech and behaviour. Yeah, it sucks sometimes that I overrun my estimate, but I eat that cost, since I gave the customer my quote and I honour that. I actually have a new client that I am seeing tomorrow night and she heard via word of mouth about my business and abilities. Just like anything else - if you do things above board, your business will be OK. If you start getting greedy - well, we all know what will eventually happen.

I certainly am not out to discourage Christians from making a buck. If a Christian can turn a good reasonable profit without knowingly hosing people in the process, that's great. But what I can't stand are the stores like this one who seem to think that Christians (who by stereotypical nature are doormats) will pay anything for Christian literature and music. Well, the ruse is up and just like in the typical marketplace, if you are going to be ripping people off, word will get around, and your business will dry up.

However, significantly more is not.

Gamo Viper Express Air Shotgun / Rifle Review

This may be a bit counter-intuitive, in reviewing a product that some stores are seemingly pulling off their shelves, and given rumours that Gamo may completely discontinue this product, but for the benefit of those who have access to purchase this very unique product, I will share with you my thoughts on the Gamo Viper Express Air Shotgun / Rifle Combo.

First, you may ask, what the heck is an air shotgun. And what does combo mean? Yeah, I had a similar sentiment when I was first introduced to the Viper Express. What I can tell you in unequivocal terms, is that this is not a "real" shotgun. In other words, don't buy this to go duck hunting. Or shoot skeet or trap. There's not enough power, despite Gamo's claim to the contrary. Plus, the shells all use #9 shot, which is like, the smallest and weakest shot you can buy. Add to that that it is air-propelled rather than gunpowder propelled, and you get the point.

The reason why this gun is so attractive is because of its uniqueness, not because of any superior functionality or raw power. I don't want to say that it's not powerful, since it does shoot the #9 shot at 1200FPS (according to Gamo - I haven't put this over a chrony yet) and 850FPS using a .22 caliber pellet. It also does require a firearms licence to purchase (at least in Canada) but compared to a "real" shotgun, there's no contest. I'd say that this gun is good for target shooting and also for pest control, though we're not talking raccoons here, but smaller rodents.

A little about the gun - it's mainly a shotgun that is break-barrel. The functionality of this is quite simple, and is not much different than many other break barrels. With not a whole lot of cocking effort, the shooter would break the barrel (bend it down until it clicks and engages), load in your shotgun shell (which is extremely small - maybe the size of the standard drywall screw plug), pull the barrel back up so it locks in place, release the safety, and then point and shoot (just like a real shotgun, there are no sights - just the bead near the end of the barrel). Once shot, the shell has to be manually removed by breaking the barrel.

It is also a rifle, because the Viper Express comes with a chamber adapter that is the same size as the shotgun shell, but is brass and it allows a .22 caliber pellet to fit into it. Loading and shooting is the same except that there is no shell to remove.

The gun is about 37-40" or so in length, including the barrel (I don't have the specs in front of me so my number may be a bit off). It is not that heavy. Most of the gun is made of a grey plastic compound. There are checkered grips on the gun, for the shooter to be able to hold it comfortably. In fact, the colour and the rubber grips are pretty much the only thing that distinguishes the Viper Express from the Viper Shadow (which is about $50.00 cheaper, but also looks considerably cheaper). Both models feature a vented rib barrel, which looks cool, but serves absolutely no purpose, since there's no way the barrel will ever get hot enough to vent fumes or gas. Also, while the external diameter of the barrel does make it look like a real shotgun barrel (at least from the side), looking from the front, you'll see that obviously the opening is much smaller than the side profile would suggest.

The safety is in front of the trigger and is easy to use. It comes also with mounting rail slats so you can choose to attach any number of optional optics to it, if you wish.

Because it is a break barrel, you obviously do not have to worry about noise - if you've ever heard a shotgun blast before (a real one), it's pretty loud. You'll get more of a "doink" or "chunk" sound coming from this for the #9 shot, and a slighly more prounced "thunk" when using pellets.

Now, some pros and cons.

PROS:

1. Good construction. I remember handling this the first time I saw this in the gunstore and I thought, "feels great". Not too heavy, not too light. Rubber checkering on grip areas are well thought out and feel excellent to the shooter - it just feels solid.

2. Innovative product. Sure, it may not be able to be best-in-class for either air shotgun or air rifle, the fact that Gamo took the risk in producing a combo gun, should be applauded.

3. Great alternative to a "real shotgun". Sometimes you just need a gun that you don't have to aim and sight in. Perhaps you are in an area where you will be in severe crap if the neighbours hear anything resembling a firearm going off, but you need to take care of some pest control or want to hunt some small game (like smaller birds, squirrels, etc.). This is a good choice that will likely not result in the cops being called.

CONS:

1. In order to facilitate the ability to shoot shot out of this gun, the barrel is, to no one's surprise, smoothbore. However, the decision to make this a combo gun is a poor one, based on the smoothbore. Without a rifled barrel, your .22 caliber pellet ain't going to shoot very straight, or achieve much accuracy. Maybe close distances are fine, but that sort of defeats the whole purpose of a rifle, doesn't it? Anyhow, even though I have the chamber adapter, I never use it - just keep it as a shotgun.

2. The air shotgun ammo is expensive and cannot be found anywhere...and from what I can gather, it only comes from Gamo. I made the decision, even before I bought the Viper Express, to stock up on the shells, since I knew I'd be buying it at some point. At around $7-$8 for a box of 25 or so, that's not a great deal. Now, I know what you'll tell me - I can go out and buy a box of 25 Winchester AA 20 ga. shells for the same price, but remember, you are getting very little shot here in a much smaller package. And while it is technically possible to be able to reload the plastic shells, it is not like the usefulness of spent 12 or 20 ga. shells that can easily be reloaded and re-crimped. Plus, if Gamo ever discontinues the ammo, you're now stuck with this as a crappy .22 caliber inaccurate rifle.

3. It is either discontinued, about to be discontinued, or is not selling well. As a result, you'd be hard pressed to find too many gun shops that carry this.

All that being said, I am pleased to have purchased this. It is a unique product that will turn heads, but also has some limited use as a pest control gun (I use it as neither - for me, it's more of a novelty, albeit an expensive one). I would have perhaps put some wood into it, so it doesn't look 100% synthetic, or design it so that it has interchangeable barrels - this would make this a more attractive option as a rifle.