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.

Great Speech By Sarah Palin At the RNC Tonight - RNC Day 3

You know, left wingers are so fickle sometimes. On some of the political boards that I frequent (some of whom are not overly conservative-friendly), a number of people criticized Republican VP Nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech tonight. I thought it was a fantastic speech, showed that she had the balls to fight with the big boys and that she was not going to be a pushover. Yet, these bleeding heart left-wingers are saying that she played dirty by bashing Obama, Biden, and the Democrats during the speech.

For Pete's sake, did they watch their own convention? Obama, Biden and company were not only spewing out snide remarks about the Republicans, but they ridiculed John McCain as well. So it's OK for the Democrats to insult and rant about their opponents, but when the Republicans address their criticisms and push back, it's now below the belt? Biden's "scrappiness" is generally considered a positive for him, yet if Palin provides the same level (if not more) of being aggressive, it is now wrong? Give me a break. For all the liberal whining about double standards for men and women, let me tell you that they should practice what they preach for a change.

Palin showed in her speech tonight that she wasn't afraid to scrap, and while I will admit, Obama and Biden have been muted in their comments on Palin, I suspect it was because they wanted to tread carefully for fear of sexism, to handle the initial response to her delicately because she is a woman. I seriously believe had she been a man, they would have torn into her at the outset. But Palin is not afraid to call a spade a spade, which may not win her friends, but like everything else, honesty and integrity will earn respect. That doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, but it means that they know where you stand and that you are consistent.

Critics will say that Palin did not provide much detail about her plan and provide solution specifics - that is true. I don't know if she has a good grasp of McCain's vision, after only 5 days or so of being chosen as his running mate, but whether she did or not is beside the point - I think even if I had McCain's plan committed to memory, I think it would not be proper for the VP candidate to spell out the plan - after all, that sort of takes the limelight away from the presidential candidate, who happens to be making his speech the following night.

Calling her McCain's attack dog is demeaning - it implies she can't think for yourself, and you know, for her to be mayor and governor, those aren't exactly jobs that allow for decision delegation. As I said earlier, she is exactly what McCain needs, to balance out his more quieter demeanor. I think that Palin's presence and her personality will fire up people who think and vote conservatively, but are afraid to let their voice known. I think McCain made an exception choice in choosing her over, say, Mitt Romney. Case in point - my wife, who was watching the speeches with me, indicated that of all the speeches, she absolutely detested Romney's (well, the Hawaii governor's speech was the worst in terms of monotone delivery and lack of excitement and frequent unnecessary pauses). My wife thought Romney sounded too slick and was the caricature of a slimy politician. I don't think that she's that off there. Romney (who was one of the folks on McCain's shortlist for VP) - could you imagine him as the VP candidate - no one would believe anything he was saying - in fact, folks in the crowd were not even paying attention.

I thought Palin's speech really brought out the fact that she was just like everyone else, with her own set of challenges and joys and disappointments. I think she did a good job in introducing herself to the masses, but not spending the whole time in doing so. She highlighted her experience and wasted no time in punching back at the criticisms leveled toward her so-called "lack of experience" that the media and left-wingers seem to be happy dishing out.

Now, speaking of which, my thoughts on the rest of the speeches...or least what I caught starting at around 8:30PM EST.

Carly Fiorina - well, didn't think much of the speech. Didn't draw me at all. Being the former CEO of any company doesn't impress me much - knowing that they got millions of dollars of severance on termination doesn't sit well with me. So I don't have much to say about former eBay CEO Meg Whitman's speech either (I am hating eBay more and more every day and the direction it's going, away from auctions). Mitt Romney's speech I could have done without - he said nothing substantive, and that freaking grin on his face annoyed both my wife and I.

I absolutely loved Mike Huckabee's speech. But that shouldn't be a surprise seeing that I supported him (financially) during the primaries. So for those who say that it's silly for me to comment on any of this being that I am from Canada, is hogwash. I can still contribute to their campaigns and being on several U.S. political forums, I can certainly "spread the word" as a foot soldier for the campaign. Anyway, Huckabee's speech, as usual, was full of animation, tons of humour, and ended with a very positive and moving story about military service and freedoms. Possibly one of the best speeches of the night.

Rudy Giuliani's speech - I'd say that was a good attack speech, but it did come out as a bit more negative and scare tactics. But you know, it's like if someone was insulting your wife or friend or family member - unless you had no balls, you certainly wouldn't take it lying down. I know I won't - and if I say something that ends up hurting someone's feelings - oh well. We need more people to tell it like it is, and less wussies who try to employ every sensitivity tactic in the sun. Not sure if the U.S. electorate would appreciate negativity like that. But I thought several parts were brilliant and funny at the same time, while speaking truth. But all that being said, I think you can be aggressive, but there are times when overdoing sarcasm may not exactly aid your argument. I suspect that the Giuliani speech was one of those times. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Lieberman yesterday as well as others have all come to the defence of Palin, against the liberal media and Democrats who have been trying to bash her for the past few days. Good to see them standing side-by-side with their colleagues.

Worst speech of the night was by Linda Lingle (I think that was her name), governor of Hawaii. Yikes, what a bad speech - I thought she was the set up person for Palin - thank goodness she wasn't. Her speech about Palin was monotone, and paused way too frequently to expect applause - and the crowd was seemingly getting tired of the forced applause from this monotonous speaker who was very robotic in her delivery. I heard later that they had to cut out the video intro for Palin due to time, and this, I think, was a major mistake, since video intros are generally received well, invoke an emotional response and right then and there the candidate walks out. Give them credit - the Democrats executed this exceptionally well with the Biden and Obama intros. I only hope that they do one for McCain. But they should have considered Lingle's speaking style, what time of night she would have to speak, and then probably put her on a different day - maybe she was set to go on Monday's lineup, which was (rightfully) shortened due to Hurricane Gustav.

Tomorrow's speech by McCain will, I think, be the most important speech he will ever make.

P.S. I gotta say, the CNN coverage is OK, but man, they are so in Obama's camp, it's not funny. I mean, really, they screen their boards to only put through comments that either praise the Democrats or slam the Republicans. And their polling is biased as well - look at other news site polls - it shows Obama and McCain at a dead heat right now - CNN shows Obama with a sizeable lead - like, if you take your impressionable internet savvy generation and use them as a benchmark, after shoving Obamamania 24x7 on them, I guess that is what the polls will look like. I'm really disappointed how biased CNN really is. But it kinda sucks, since as we don't have cable, the online stream from CNN is really the only way we can watch the convention.