soonah
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
"It's better than St Paul", an Interview with Mike
I am appalled at the assumptions and generalizations in this entry. While it seems that the author is exhorting us to recognize those without homes as human (a laudable plea), her sweeping generalizations undermine her exhortation and demonstrate that perhaps it is she herself that needs to heed her own advice.— August 19, 2009 1:51 p.m.
So many San Diegans carry guns
Sorry for the double post- 2nd (and last) part, I promise! 3. Creating a climate of acceptance for guns (and by extension changing societal attitudes in hopes of reversing any infringements on the 2nd amendment). This reason could have been lumped into the 2nd point, but I think they are distinct. However, my comment on it is the same. If one is attempting to create a climate of acceptance for guns and change societal attitudes in hopes of reversing the infringements on the 2nd amendment- then it's important to look at the efficacy of the approach. Does open carry change societal attitudes and create a climate of gun acceptance? It might... changing attitudes is a long term project and this would be hard to measure in any immediate way. Even granting that it might change attitudes, I doubt that open carry is the BEST approach, at least not without some education and serious debate to go along with it- primarily because many (if not most) folks respond emotionally the sight of a gun. 4. An exercise of freedom and liberty (both of which, many seem to think are becoming extinct). This reason is the hardest to rebut simply because "freedom" and "liberty" draw on emotion and it's difficult to argue against/invalidate an emotion. I would just say that "freedom" and "liberty" are not meant to be used in a vacuum. It is always "freedom from X" or "liberty to Y". Without identifying the "from X" or "to Y", freedom and liberty are simply political rallying cries; appealing but empty. So...without knowing what freedoms open carry gives or how open carry affords a liberty from something, I can't adequately respond to this one. Having said that, because of the emotional nature of "freedom" and "liberty", this is the most compelling argument. And if advocates of open carry want to rally folks to their cause, then the construction of an argument based upon this point needs to be fleshed out.er, my comment on it is the same. If one is attempting to create a climate of acceptance for guns and change societal attitudes in hopes of reversing the infringements on the 2nd amendment- then it's important to look at the efficacy of the approach. Does open carry change societal attitudes and create a climate of gun acceptance? It might... changing attitudes is a long term project and this would be hard to measure in any immediate way. Even granting that it might change attitudes, I doubt that open carry is the BEST approach, at least not without some education and serious debate to go along with it- primarily because many (if not most) folks respond emotionally the sight of a gun.— July 25, 2009 8:10 a.m.
So many San Diegans carry guns
Let me first say that while I come off as a liberal democrat (which is fairly accurate), I am not opposed to guns nor do I wish to repeal the 2nd amendment. I'm just not convinced that open carry is the best means to achieve what it’s advocates want. Here are what seem to be the top four reasons for open carry and some concerns: 1. Personal safety and protection. One example in support of this is that the police response time is usually too long to actually protect or serve. It's not clear how open carry actually protects anyone since the weapon is unloaded. It seems that it can only serve as a deterrent. Now, in some situations, a deterrent may be enough (though I do wonder if a gun is the only deterrent that would work in those situations). However, in situations where a LOADED gun is necessary to protect self and loved ones, it's not clear that one would have the time to load the weapon, aim and shoot in time to protect oneself. Of course the possible scenarios are endless and there may be time to load, aim and shoot. (In addition, I am unfamiliar with guns so I may be overestimating the time it takes to load a weapon.) However, it's not immediately obvious that open carrying is the best form of personal safety and protection. If personal safety/protection is the goal, it seems that concealed carry permit (which I'm assuming allows loaded weapons?). 2. Exercising your legal rights in CA (and by extension highlighting the erosion of the 2nd amendment). The issue here is twofold: 1) if one open carry's (sp?) simply because one is legally permitted to, then it's little more than grandstanding (and I'm assuming that is not the intent of open carry practitioners); and 2) if one open carry's to make a larger point, then one has to ask herself if open carrying makes that point. What open carry does achieve is strong, emotional reactions from both sides of the 2nd amendment debate. It's not clear that it achieves anything more than that. Now, if perhaps when one open carried or had an event, she always made sure to educate folks on what and why she was doing so- it might help. (And perhaps the open carry events do this- again, I plead ignorance.) But simply seeing someone with a gun on her hip is not going to change perceptions/feelings re: the 2nd amendment.— July 25, 2009 8:09 a.m.