Why I really (not kidding) favor gun control

When I say I favor gun control, I refer exactly to the kind of gun control the left and the right wants. The gun control as favored by Damnocrats and Reboobicans. I mean the kind of gun control that says citizens cannot have certain guns, or any gun for that matter.

I. Am. Not. Kidding.

I am also being fair. I ask you to do the same. As you read this, if you find fault with my logic and my attempt to be fair across the board, please point that out.

Here is the rock bottom, Lowest Common Denominator, flat point, be-all end-all, starting point and real crux of the matter. Either you are serious about stopping people from killing other people regardless of the ways, means and method or you have a different motive. You either want the violence to stop OR you have a different agenda and don't really care about people harming other people against their will.

If you've ever seen Penn & Teller's show Bullshit, then go ahead and assume I've chased this rabbit down the hole exactly they do and proven this point exactly as they do.

Preventing harm and death is the metric. Period. Everything is must follow.

BAN 'EM

Want a total gun ban? I'm down with that. Again, not kidding. 

Gimme yer restrictions list. I'll work with you to make it happen.

Bring it on. I'll sign the papers. I'll lobby any and every elected official in the nation to make this happen,

I continue to be as serious as a heart attack,

Let's make this happen.

BE FAIR

At the same time, I insist, require, demand and absolutely must have a ban of equity and proportion for any device that causes harm to a human being without that human's permission. What someone does to him or herself, none of your business, none of my business.

Band guns, yes. But put a proportional ban on everything else that brings harm to a human.

This is all about being fair. 

DEATHS

Let's talk about death.

Do you believe in body autonomy? As in your body, you decide. Wanna tat? Get as many as you like. Like to smoke? Fire 'em up. Fat? Have another pie. Exercise, eat right, drink in moderation and etc? Mo' power to ya. Do you have the right to bungee jump? Take the Polar Plunge? Race vehicles?

If you believe you have the right to decide what to do with yourself, good. We're on the same page. If you believe government or anyone else has the right to tell you what to do with your body, then good as well. Just don't expect me to agree with you. Further, I will resist you and your efforts with as much force or more as you bring against me.

Body autonomy. It either is or it ain't. And this is splodey heads No. 1.

The CDC lists the top 10 causes of death. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm  No. 10 on the list is suicide. Under the rules here, suicide is removed as a reason to ban or restrict anything. Your life is yours to do with as you wish. I do not have the right to force you to continue to live against your will. You do not have the right to force me to live against my will. Splodey head No. 2.

VIOLENT CRIME

For purposes of this blog, I say violent crime is murder and assault. Any crime in which a person is harmed. I am leaving out DUI-caused injuries and deaths. That should be included, but I already discussed why we should regulate guns the same exact way we regulate vehicles. http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2017/11/guns-regulated-like-vehicles-yes-please.html

The FBI specifically says using its report has to be done carefully:
Figures used in this Report were submitted voluntarily by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. Individuals using these tabulations are cautioned against drawing conclusions by making direct comparisons between cities. Comparisons lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. It is important to remember that crime is a social problem and, therefore, a concern of the entire community. In addition, the efforts of law enforcement are limited to factors within its control. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual agencies. Further information on this topic can be obtained in Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

This is the most recent complete report on the FBI website as of this posting. Well, this is what we have to work with. Mooooving on.

GUNS

Firearms accounted for 11,004 murders in 2016. 

Handguns account for the sizable majority of murders, 7,105. It is here we slam headlong into the first immovable object and splodey head No. 3. For sake of space, I'm leaving out the splodey head count from now on. It's gonna soar.

Stare Decisis. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stare_decisis.asp S. Decisis means the point of law is settled. Move on, nothing to see here. It's over, done and that's it so shuddup already. 

"Hang on. You just said–—"

I sure did. I am also using the logic of the gun grabbers, the left and the right here. If abortion is a settled issue, let it go. If other things the Supreme Court has decided are over and done, let it go. You cannot bring it up any more. Across the board. It's either settled or not, all of it. You cannot pick and chose which bear to poke and which sleeping dogs to leave snoozing. It's all or nothing.

Handguns, as decided in two cases by the Supreme Court, are legal. Citizens are allowed to possess same.

Aaight, so we say it can be debated again. Let's debate. Handgun ownership is back on the table as a right to be weighed. Handgun violence MUST be compared to other devices used to inflict unwanted violence on other human beings. We'll get back to this in a few paragraphs. Abortion rights also back on the table, BTW.

So what about the guns?

Rifles, a category that includes the misnamed "assault rifles" accounted for a measly 374 deaths. Well, measly unless someone who was killed by a rifle is important to you.

Shotgun? 202. Other guns, 186.

Knives accounted for 1,604 murders. Blunt objects (hammers are part of this subset as are clubs, sticks, poles, etc), 472. Personal weapons defined as your body and shoving someone, 656. The others are very low except for the "Other weapons or weapons not stated" at 903.

I could, but will not monkey wrench nor sand the gears by bringing up stolen and illegally obtained guns. Gun control folks get a free pass on that one.

DEATH BY OTHER MEANS

People don't need a weapon to kill someone.

I know I said I was leaving this one out. I changed my mind. Sue someone. "In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States." https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html Now some of these were the driver and certainly some of these were single-vehicle crashes in which only the driver was killed. 

Howsomever, in 2016, 34,439 people were killed overall in vehicle crashes. That is about three times the number of gun deaths. Again. some of these were single-vehicle and only the driver died. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812580

Far more telling is "[t]here were 37,461 traffic fatalities in the United States in 2016, of which 23,714 (63%) were occupants of passenger vehicles." https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812494 Ooo. People not driving were killed at more than double the number of people murdered with firearms.

BUT THE CHILLUN

This argument has been overused. "Think of the children." Please, do. Think of the inner-city kids and the minorities, not just the majority-ethnic kids who die in multi-death shootings. If you are not addressing the deaths of the inner-city kids who die in much higher proportions than other kids and who die in enormously greater proportions from shooters with handguns instead of rifles, I must ask why you are not speaking to this much greater problem.

"Gotta start somewhere." "Baby steps," you say.

No. The reality is you have a different agenda and do not care about the inner city kids. No? When was the last time you blew up in outrage over the near-constant shootings in Chicago?

If this situation was a patient in a trauma surgery wound, focusing on school shootings is putting stitches in an arm wound while a femoral artery is gushing. The operation was a success, but the patient died.

What are the leading causes of death in kids?

"With preventable deaths at an all-time high, NSC calls on parents to use National Safety Month to assess the greatest threats to young children’s safety." https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/top-five-ways-children-are-dying-accidentally

The top PREVENTABLE deaths for children are:

Suffocation

Car wrecks

Drowning

Fire

Choking

The CDC breaks it out even more. https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/child_injury_data.html Again, a major cause of chillun's death, wrecks. MedPage Today adds cancer and firearms as the top leading causes of deaths for kids. ADDS. As in includes these in the already listed category. As in here are 2 more things and we are not taking away from the other stuff listed. https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/77034

In 2016, 1,033 kids under 13 were killed by vehicles. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/children

"In 2016, there were 2,082 teen drivers of passenger vehicles involved in fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes." https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/teen-driving

3,100, or thereabout, kids were killed in 2016 because of vehicles. https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/teen-driving

Teens are muchly over-represented in vehicle fatalities and gun deaths.

I do words, not math. You'll have to crunch the numbers in this report. https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/motor-vehicle-deaths

"Nearly 1,300 children die … [from] gunshot wounds each year. Boys, older children, and minorities are disproportionately affected." https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/1/e20163486 That figure is in dispute.  "3,128 children and teens died from guns in the United States in 2016, one every 2 hours and 48 minutes." https://gracechapelministries.org/facts-about-gun-violence/ One outfit here is science-based with verified research. T'other has a clear agenda and no proof to back up its statement. Pick whichever you like. Then, go to the media bias chart and find the media outlets you trust to tell the truth. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba When you choose your outlets on the media chart, get back to me.

When it comes to children's deaths, by gun and by vehicle are tied. If you use the higher number. Good enough.

I add some of these deaths by gun are suicides. In the US, depending on the state, a 17 YOA is an adult. In all states, as best I know, an 18 YOA is an adult. I know some 16 YOAs who are more mature than some at 22 YOA. That in mind, suicides are removed from the equation. Now, gun deaths for kids is below the vehicle deaths for kids. You disagree? "In 2016, nearly 60 percent of all firearm deaths were suicides, according to the CDC. In that same year, more than 1,100 young people between the ages of 10 and 19 died by suicide by firearm." https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/01/teen-suicide-guns-in-america-mass-shootings-data/581335/ Body autonomy and all that. BTW, if you say kids are not capable of making that kinda decision, then they are also not capable of making life-altering decisions either.

Death by gun for kids is 2/3s that of death by vehicle for kids.

If you are serious about keeping kids from dying at the hands of another, here's your information. Use it. Or, don't. How you use this information, in any way, shape or form, tells the truth about what you really believe and what you really want.

I already know.

ANOTHER POINT

Here's another point to ponder. You are more likely to be injured in a wreck than with a gun. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm When you roll those numbers, remember to remove suicides. That makes the vehicle injuries really outpace firearms injuries.

The US has an estimated 393 million guns in private hands. An estimated 263.6 million vehicles are on the road. There are more than 100 million more guns out there than vehicles.

With that in mind, your chances of suffering from a vehicle are MUCH greater than your chances of suffering from a firearm.

You may bring up the fact that vehicles are used far more often every day than firearms. Granted. Doesn't change the metric in the slightest. The bottom line - stop people from killing and harming other people. Period. Frequency of use without harm and death is irrelevant.

We're interested in stopping the damage, period.

NOW WHAT

Now what indeed?

You have before you the stark reality.

Vehicles account for three times the number of deaths as guns. Drop vehicle deaths to eliminate the driver and the number of vehicle deaths is still twice the number of murders committed with guns. Drop suicides and — we've already discussed that.

You want to ban guns? Then first ban vehicles, which are proven twice as deadly as vehicles.

That sounds ridiculous? I'm just tryna piece together logic and reason and a way to reduce human-inflicted death on other humans.

Make a vehicle twice as hard to get as a gun. 

I'm good either way. I just want parity here. I just want to be fair.

Run that right down the line. Before you slap any restriction on gun ownership, compare the gun violence to violence done with anything else.

If you want to break this down by specific item, equally good. In that case, a knife should three times harder to buy than a rifle, based JUST on the number of murders committed with each. Some people only want certain categories of guns banned or restricted. Cool. Run that right down the line with everything else.

A vehicle should be ... damfino many times harder to get than a rifle. I do words, not math.

MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT

If you disagree with me, make your argument however you choose. Whatever manner you choose.
When you piece your argument together, every time you mention gun or a synonym, swap it for the other things you mention like vehicle, fork, rock, tree, etc. Every time you mention one of those other things, mark it out and put gun in the same place. Whatever causes death and harm, switch the terminology.

Again, the metric is harm and death. The rest is semantics.

Does the argument still hold up logically? Does it make sense? Are your points still based on reason and fact?

If not, go back and edit.

ONE LAST THING

Is all this stupid? Not my call. I'm just applying reason and logic.

If you find fault with my logic, tell me. If you find fault with my reasoning, tell me. I will, I promise, correct it and replace this blog with the corrected one. I'll even send you a copy of the revised version. 

If you have an emotion-based argument in either direction, you are welcome to tell me that as well. Don't expect a reply or any changes to the above.

When the truth hurts

When the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

While a few people have tried to debate the merits of that statement and what truth actually is, I stand firm on that declaration.

If the truth hurts, then you are the one who needs to either adapt to the truth or get used to the pain. I'd rather be hurt by the truth than comforted with a lie. I also admit there are times when a lie is the better option.

No?

True story. Grandma was dying. She knew it. We knew it. The doctors knew it. They told everybody. Congestive heart failure. She also broke a leg. As she slowly eased into whatever comes next, she got black spots on her foot.

Necrosis. Precursor to gangrene and amputation.

Grandma asked Ma if Ma knew what it was. Ma lied. "I don't know." S'far as I know, the rest of us lied to her as well.

She died in peace and intact without the worry of losing her leg.

Lies were the right decision.

But for some folks, a lie and only a lie will do even in the face of evidence so solid SCIENCE! moves it out of the "theory" category and into the "This is so settled it can never be questioned ever" category.

Enter Snopes. Me? I happen to like Snopes a lot. It is a go-to resource for me. Snopes itself, not the forums hosted by the organization. The forums are nothing more than letters to the editor and replies with no effort to fact check so much of it.

I have friends on the far right and the far left who all decry Snopes as a slanted organization, full of opinion, deceit and lies.

SHOW ME

Really? Show me. Show me an example of bias on Snopes' part, the part the Snopes crew runs and not the forums. Show me opinion. Aaight, I give you that one. When Snopes hands down a ruling on the veracity of a claim, that is opinion.

Show me deceit on the part of the Snopes research staff.

Show me lies on the part of the Snopes research staff.

I ain't gonna wait 'cause you can't.

FIND THIS

What you can find is a one in a million error. This is seized upon by the far wingers as a reason the site can't be trusted. What they reject outright is how Snopes was informed of the error and then corrected it. Apparently, these people are so close to perfect they have never made a mistake.

Be my role model, wudja?

What you can find is Snopes offering an "undetermined" opinion because the research staff could not find enough CREDIBLE evidence to issue a definite opinion one way or another. This is damning, according to the far wingers, because evidence is out there. Yes, Virginia, it is. It's right there in the filing cabinet with the proof of a Flat Earth, Elvis is alive and faking the moon landing.

What you can find is Snopes research. They get as close to the original source as possible. They fact check. They present their findings. This infuriates the far wingers who scream "FAKE NEWS!" as if their clamor is sufficient to drown out the truth.

Unfortunately, their yelling is doing exactly that.

AND IT MATTERS HOW

Another complaint against Snopes is how the two founders split and the resulting lawsuits, claims, counterclaims and insults hurled at each other with more venom than a box jellyfish. The far wingers say Snopes can't be trusted because of all that tar and feathering and mudslinging.

How, exactly, does this matter? The far wingers are quick to support people who commit acts more incredulous and outrageous than the former married partnership that created Snopes.

If such antics matter where Snopes is concerned, it should matter across the board.

Except it doesn't. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, "These are our miscreants. Those are their miscreants."

THE TRUTH

When Snopes presents the truth, not as the site wants it to be or as some of the readers want it to be, then it is laid bare for those willing to embrace truth.

I ain't gonna cut people out because they pooh-pooh Snopes. I certainly am going to give them the respect they deserve for ignoring the truth.

Come to the truth side. We have less pain.

Pullin' the trigger

Another way of putting this: we ain't responsible for your feelings.

Some folks on social media have dropped, blocked and banned me (Wooooo!) because I hurt their feelings and refused to back up.

This was not intentional. I posted something I found hilarious. These few folks got twisted knickers over the humor.

I am amused.

The offended I know about did give me a warning. "Either change or I am blocking you." They usually gave me a deadline. One person did not, just sent a pm explaining why she was giving me the boot and blocked me. I do regret E. blocking me because she often made me think. I miss that. I do not regret refusing to bow to her ultimatum. Given the opportunity, I'll even double down on what made her block me.

I suspect most of the folks who blocked me just had a splodey head and hit the ban and block so fast they nearly broke their keyboard.

Let's make this clear, m'kay. I don't need a deadline. I don't need a warning. If you tell me change or else, well then, bye Felicia.

Pull the trigger.

Back when I was posting political commentary, I know folks blocked me. Again, a few gave me a warning and a deadline. I've cut the politics back to less than a 10th of what it once was. Did that for me, no one else. I still post an occasional political piece and I am certain it causes splodey heads.

Still don't need a warning.

Pull the trigger.

I shall continue to be sadly amused.

Every time someone blocks me because they are offended, the forces of darkness and oppression advance. Seriously. Think about it.

If you block someone because you can't stand their version or humor or their political leanings, all you do is make your world a little more narrow, a little more closed, a little more insular. Your circle of acceptable concepts constricts.

You lose because you don't get that expression of thought and ideas. You lose because you reject with prejudice that which you disagree with. You lose because you enable repression.

It's a short walk from saying you refuse to listen to someone saying what they believe and say should be banned. It's a walk too many people are taking these days.

Someone is now asking if I have ever banned and blocked someone on social media. Yes, I have and probably will again. I do this to people who engage in ad hominem. I just ain't got time for that.

Ain't too proud

Many years ago we loaded up and went to Etlanna. We being Ma, Shag and myself. We went to visit her mother, Grandma, also known as Alma C and Grandma Morgan.

As we pulled out of the drive, I looked back to see her standing there crying.

I so get that now.

I read a swords and sorcery novel years ago in which young princesses from various kingdoms were taken to a central meeting place to pair off with young princes. The ladies left, knowing they would never see their childhood home, friends or family ever again.

Ow.

World Lit Only By Fire describes the medieval world in stark, blunt and painfully accurate terms. Men conscripted to fight the wars of their sovereigns left home. Most of them, if they survived the war, never made it back to their families. No maps. Few roads. Getting back home was a major challenge.

Dayum.

Not too long ago, I covered a story for the paper. A young soldier came home from the front, unexpectedly. The police department where he worked tricked his Dad into coming to the PD to "sign some papers" about the young man's police officer training which he could not do as he was overseas.

After the dad got over the shock, he just hugged his taller son crying and saying "You're back" over and over.

Doncha know it.

Tonight, Susan visited.

As we parted company I told her I missed her. Been over a month since I saw her. I added I also knew where she was if I really needed to see her. She lives about 20 minutes away south and works about 20 minutes away north. "It's not like you did what I did and moved to the other side of the country," I said. (I came back.)

As she drove off to go home ... I ain't too proud. The tears nearly came.

If you are a parent, you grok. If you are not a parent, you may think you get it. You don't. You can't. You do not have the frame of reference necessary to grok this. You can't even really understand it.

I am not complaining, merely pointing out a truth.

We raise our kids. We expect them to grow up and leave. Then, they do.

arg.

Sometimes reality sucks.

Just can't win

Bear with me. I have to get past some opening comments to get to the point. (and what else is new, the readers say sarcastically).

Unless you've lived under a rock for the past few months - if you have I really want to know how that is working out and is there a rock I can live under too? - the name Greta Thunberg rings at least some bells.

For some of you, those bells are as potent as a nuclear explosion.

I am not going to explain the who, what, why, how, when of Greta Thunberg.

What we have here is a case of Just. Can't. Win. especially for policy makers, the rich and the currently most despised demographic on the planet, old guys of recent European descent.

Can't win. It is impossible. Here's why. Let's group 'em.

1) Those who choose to take on Thunberg as a spokesman for that generation. They accord Thunberg the same respect, disrespect and hold Thunberg to the same standards they hold everyone. Well, the same standards they apply to anyone attempting to influence, create or direct policy. In short, this group treats Thunberg like a fellow politician.

This group can't win because Thunberg is "just a kid," say the support squads. The entire argument hinges on the "kid" part.

Group 1 is considered to be the worst of the bully crowd.

Just can't win.

2) Those who dismiss Thunberg as just a kid. They say Thunberg is spouting rhetoric fed by adults. Bring out the adults and have them quit hiding behind a kid.

This group can't win because the support squads say kids can have original ideas, ideas worth listening to. Being dismissive is arrogance and another form of bullying. "Kid" is the basis again.

Just can't win.

3) Those who nod and agree. Whether or not this crowd is serious and agrees with Thunberg is irrelevant.

This group can't win because they are seen as pandering and humoring Thunberg. No matter what is later said or done, the supporters say it is not serious because Group 3 is the problem and can't understand what Thunberg is saying. This is based on demographics.

Just can't win.

4) Other attacks from other quarters are met with the same derision. No matter how Thunberg is refuted, the supporters are going to haul out an emotion-based line of counter-attack and start assailing the character of those opposed or at least questioning Thunberg.

NOT UNIQUE

This is not unique at all. Attacking the person instead of the argument, ad hominem is the order and rule of the day.

It is rare to find an online discussion that does not degenerate into name-calling in a few posts.

I like to think my FB page is a safe haven for debates. I have dropped and blocked people for ad hominem and I will again. When it happens on someone else's page, I leave the discussion. I've even blocked people based on comments on another person's page.

As for Thunberg, whatever the reason she chose to speak, she did. She became a quite public figure. Since then, from what I have seen, she's maintained that public persona. The attacks and defense will continue as long as she does.

Any time Thunberg gets tired of it, all she has to do is walk away.

She just can't win.

To live is to be violent

To be alive is to be violent.

No way around it. Being alive means you are fighting a war with other living beings that will destroy you unless you destroy them first.

The human body, each and every day, destroys untold numbers of bacteria, microbes and microorganisms that are wholly animals. The act of driving a vehicle kills insects and often bigger and more complex animals.

We shall not get into the habitat destruction and animals that died and die in order to create space for human infrastructure.

Eyeball this.

SOCIETY IS BASED ON VIOLENCE

As the speaker in the vid says, society's fundament, bedrock, founding principle is violence. Society is a group of people who agree to commit violent acts if their will is not carried out.

No? Prove me wrong.

Even the act of banishment or making someone an outcast is violence. Rejection is violence.

Calling it a "social contract" merely wraps the titanium mail glove in a thin veneer of velvet. Having someone else carry out that violence because you are too much of a coward to do it yourself only puts a pretty bow across the knuckles of the fist that breaks the jaw of the nonconformist.

Yes, I said coward and I meant it.

DEDICATION

Your commitment to anything is directly proportional to your willingness to kill another human being to enforce it and to die to protect it. How strong is your dedication?

Suicide bombers certainly must rank at or near the top of dedication.

Some will inject here that some religions eschew violence. Jainism comes to mind. It falls well short of the goal it claims to strive for. See above, RE: the act of living incurs violence. See the STUDY IN VIOLENCE bit below to examine the Jainism principles of only eating leaves and nuts. Further, Jainists today, those living in a modern society, commit violence simply by existing in a place where they must drive vehicles, drink treated water and so forth. Further, as Jainism also bespeaks microorganisms, every Janist's body is waging a constant and continual war against the microbes that would end the Jainist's life.

"Jains accept that keeping a human body alive will necessarily occasion violence to other life-forms on a nearly constant basis, and that the preservation of a complex, conscious life‐form takes precedence over the preservation of a simple one‐sense organism." https://voices.uchicago.edu/religionculture/2017/11/22/attending-to-insects/

Wicca? See above and below as with Jainism.

From a human perspective, the world's Great Religions, most of 'em anyway, have violence as the basis for belief. For that matter, every religion I know of includes some forms of violence. Someone will now loudly decry this statement and tell me I do not know what I am talking about.

M'kay - In the Great Religion of Your Choice, what happens to unbelievers? Again, in most of the Great Religions.

Non-believers and those who reject the Holy Word are sent to that religion's version of hell. Sounds pretty freekin' violent to me. Having a way out, salvation, good deeds, etc, does not erase the violence inherent in the system.

Most Great Religion's saints, even those who will not physically fight back and will die rather than fight back or recant, still guilty of violence against others. They support a system that sends the heretics, pagans and etc to hell. They support a system that says "Do this or violence."

That which you endorse and support, you are also guilty of. Including a degree of separation, see the Jainism essay above, is a human rationalization designed to excuse an inherent flaw in the logic.

Aside: The problem here is attributing human motives to a divine being which is beyond human comprehension. I admit I ain't got a good handle on this one. A human trying to understand the Divinity is like a dog understanding calculus. It doesn't happen. It could be that under the God code, this something different, something we can't understand. Regardless, I only have human understanding and I am applying that. This may be a mistake. Certainly in some of the Great Religions, that line of thinking is a mistake. This is also a topic for another post another day.

A STUDY IN VIOLENCE

Your very existence right now is a study in violence.

Even vegans cannot get around this. No?

Plants learn.

Plants REALLY learn.

Even PETA admits plants can feel. Is this sentience? Damfino, but I tend toward saying yes.

Tearing apart a live plant to consume it is violence against a living entity.

If not, how do you explain the communicated defensive reaction of many plants?

Gonna eat only shed, dead leaves? What about the microorganisms of decay within the leaves? Gonna eat only fruits and nuts? I ask the same question.

THE MINIMUM

Violence is necessary. Just do the minimum needed.

The speaker in the opening video says be true to your tribe and let the rest hang. I'm good with that.

Yes, I am.

My tribe is humanity. My tribe needs that which is necessary for a healthy existence for humanity, Commit the minimum amount of violence to make this happen.

Some people are going to reject my notion of tribe. That's OK too, as long as they do not inflict what I see as unnecessary violence on my tribe. I reserve the right to respond with superior levels of violence in that case.

Some violence is necessary. I, you, we may not like it, but it is reality.

Reality will not conform itself to your expectations.

Understand violence is necessary. Then, commit yourself to the very minimum needed.

License for violence

Agent 007 in the James Bond novels and movies is granted a "license to kill" by the British government.

That is fiction.

Except it is not.

 Government routinely grants people a license to kill other people. Some people accept this. Others do not.

Those who accept it couch it under the phrase "Social Contract" as if murder, theft, rape and other crimes against people suddenly become acceptable when the government approves it.

The people who protected Anne Frank were breaking the law.

The people who killed Anne Frank were obeying the "social contract."

Slavery was and is a "social contract."

"Social contract" is nothing more than an excuse. It is a way to make someone feel good about grinding a fellow human being into dust.

Just because a group of people decide something is legal does not make it right.

Some things is just too painful

In my line of work, I read a lot.

I get to read some really good stuff. Cody, I hope, will be sending some of the things he painstakingly types out. Cody has CP and typing takes him a while.

Then, some others.

First, there is bad writing. It may be grammatically flawless, but it is as comprehensible as some of the stuff I write. In other words, no one can understand it, but the person who wrote it. It's either written like a sociology textbook, poorly worded and stilted or runs a stream of consciousness that is bigger than the Amazon.

Second, there is bad grammar and punctuation.

Before I go any further, yes, I am a grammar nazi. When I start seeing misspellings, misuse and twisted syntax the writer believes is correct, I just can't take it. I quit reading. In some cases, I've taken to posting the following reply.

"No matter wear you go, their your."

I also add here that as a wordsmith of journeyman class, I feel free to twist, warp, fold, spindle and staple the language to my own devisings. I understand this causes some other grammar nazis to have a coronary. However, I know what I am doing and it is done for effect.

The bad grammar and punctuation ... When it is pervasive, constant, regular, I can't even. For that matter, I can't odd either.

Sitting on my desk is a book written by a friend.

I can't read it. I tried. Three times. The third time, I grabbed a pencil and started editing. Just editing for grammar, punctuation, verb-noun agreement. Did not go into the continuity,

15 errors page 1. 1st paragraph on the next page, 10 errors.

Just. Cannot. Do. It.

I will interview the writer since the writer is a local person. Inevitably, the question will come: "What do you think of my book?"

I ain't a diplomat. Folks who know me also know I say what I think. But in this case, I gotta be diplomatic. I'm working on this reply.

"You wrote a book. Few people ever manage to do this. Be proud of what you have here and I hope you sell many copies."

Whattaya think?

It ain't a laser

Recently watched a video of a guy shooting an elephant.

Your opinion of shooting elephants, unless you understand their biology, is irrelevant.

Anyway, the hunter was saying that people can and do kill the world's largest land mammal with a .375 H&H. In some parts of Africa, this the minimum gun needed to hunt dangerous game. One of my reloading manuals describes the King of the Midbores as ideal for most everything big & deadly, "but marginal on a bull elephant with attitude problems."

The same manual goes on to describe the 500 NE as the "ultimate in life insurance."

The tusker hunt vid did point out shot placement is very important, critical even.

He then added, every shot is not gonna be ideal. Every shot is not gonna be perfect. Every animal will not present a perfect broadside or a perfect head-on shot opportunity.

What he did not say is: Not every shot is gonna slam the X out of the bullseye either. Fliers happen. Flinch happens. Wind happens. Lots of things happen that can turn an otherwise perfect shot into just a little bit off.

A projectile firearm ain't a laser. A good gun with good ammo in the hands of a good shooter can be expected to deliver a payload in the expected every nearly all the time.

Nearly all the time ain't every time.

KNOCKDOWN POWER

Lots of gun experts say there is no such thing as knockdown power.

High grade fertilizer.

Knockdown power exists. Call it by another name, cool, but it exists. The pachyderm vid said hunters must chase Jumbo with solids, non-expanding bullets. Expanding bullets do not penetrate enough to deliver a quick kill. Gotta have a bullet that punches through lots of bone.

Where I come from, South Georgia, delivering a quick kill is the very definition of knockdown power.

Further, if you do not believe in knockdown power, I invite you to watch this video. If you start to argue and must use the words "yeah, well" or "yeah, but" then you have no valid point to dispute my claim.

ENOUGH GUN

The hunter said it is foolish to chase any animal with the minimum round needed to kill the critter. Use enough gun.

Amen,

Use enough gun to overcome that slightly off shot. Use enough gun to cover a flier. Use enough gun to deliver a quick kill with less-than-ideal placement.

Get you some knockdown power. A .22 long rifle is perfect on grey squirrels, the minimum needed for foxes and irresponsible on anything larger. A .223 has and will kill deer. It is right on the threshold of minimum. I will not let anyone hunt deer on my properties with a .223. I ain't real happy about using .243 or the 6mm family either. Get enough gun and come back.

Use enough gun.

Trophies

This may not make sense to anyone but me.

It's something I have to do. Only a few Writers have ever managed to put It down and walk away while still among the living. I ain't one, yet anyway. Either a Writer or one capable of putting It down. G'head and pick which best fits. Regardless, I have to do this.

I ain't looking for sympathy (albeit it is appreciated), empathy (likewise) or other expressions (and thank you if you do). I'm just putting down on electronic paper a thought, a blog, a column, a missive that's been running through my grey matter for the past few weeks.

Pain.

It changes people. The pancreatic cancer that eventually killed my Dad changed him and not for the better. I'm watching pain change my Mom. Dad's way is not her way. Not saying Mom is changing for the better, but she is changing. How, you ask? I don't feel the need to explain that here. Dad changed. She's changing. Nuf said, s'far as I'm concerned.

Past few weeks, the pain in my life started affecting me. Ah poot. Correction. The pain in my life has affected me for about as long as I've been able to react to it. You too. We cannot remember our earliest days. But pain was there as a teacher. We learned to avoid things that caused pain.

Some of us have also learned that certain pains are stimulating. We chase that sensation. Pepperheads know of what I write. A few years ago I sat down with Lori at Buffalo Wings and had mango-habanero coated chicken chunks. I ate and actually applauded there in the restaurant. In short, I was wired on natural endorphins, stoned of my own making. Others pursue different pains for different reasons.

Pain, for whatever reason.

Yesterday, I ordered a half plastic pipe with ropes attached to help me put on socks. I cannot put on socks when I get up in the morning. Spend a while moving around, stretching joints and muscles, then I can. But first thing, nope. The pain in my hips and legs is too great to overcome first thing for something as mundane as socks. That's one way this has changed me.

As the day goes on and I move, the pain lessens. I can move more freely. I can put on my own socks. Arthritis is insidious that way. It hurts to move, but moving makes the pain less.

I have back pains. Shoulder pains. Knee pains, Occasionally ankle pains, but those pass quickly. Some days my hips hurt too.

I ain't complaining, for reasons I shall explain in a moment and I am complaining because this stuff hurts. It affects how I can do things. It stops me from doing stuff and forces me to do other stuff. I do not like it. Ain't much I can do except move until the joints stop hurting. CBD does help, but only to a point. I'm certain pain pills would help too, but that's a road I'm not yet willing to travel.

As I just said I ain't complaining (and yet I am too). I am not complaining because each twinge, each ache, each pop in the joint is a trophy.

I have not lost my mind ... probably.

I say these are trophies. Some are the much-maligned participation trophies. Some are winner, championship trophies.

Regardless, each pain is a signal honor. It says I was there, did that and came out the other side. It that respect it is a participation trophy.

In another way, it is a trophy showing actual accomplishment. I was there. I did things. I was out and moving. I got up and invested myself.

I lived.

These pains I have, they are reminders of the things I did. I did things others may dream of. I did things other people cringe to think about. I did things that hurt then, took a few decades off and now hurt again. I hiked mountains. I swam in water that has flesh-eating bacteria in it. I swam next to sharks, stingrays and was attacked by jellyfish. I've hunted across this great nation and fed I don't know how many people with the meat I brought back. I farmed, feeding thousands of people and farmed to provide lumber and paper. I've dug in archeological sites. I've saved, literally saved, the lives of at least two people. I've preached funerals and weddings. I've carried world-class weightlifters because they got bear-caught and I've been bear-caught. I've been bitten by snakes. I've outrun sheriff's department deputies and been caught by them. I've been shot, three times.

Lots and lots more. Some of which I'm trying to get into a book. Maybe I'll finish it.

In short, I experienced.

I lived.

These pains I carry, they are reminders that I got up and lived. I went out and tested myself. Pain is a reminder that I lived and am still alive.
I look at other people my age and older and I envy them when they do not have pains. I envy their lack of arthritis. I hope they never get it.

Then, I wonder if they lived. Did they get out of their comfort zone and step into a world that promises and delivers a life that can't be described in words? Will they some day slide quietly into the next realm, whatever that may be? Or will they, like me, go crashing through that barrier shouting "WHAT A RIDE!"

Done told you it is a legal fiction & some other points

Point 1 -

Lawyers get mad when I say stare decisis is a legal fiction.

Stare D., for those who do not know, is Latin. Translated into English with complete meaning, it means: The law is settled. The matter is decided. It is over, done and finished. This is the way it is. Now go away with your idle prattle about changing it or I shall taunt you again.

It's also high-grade fertilizer.

A lie, in other words.

Since its creation, the Supreme Court has reversed itself more than 200 times. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/supreme-court-cases-overturned-history-constitution-trnd/index.html

The latest was this week. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/732852170/supreme-court-affirms-police-can-draw-blood-from-unconscious-drivers

This is empirical evidence. Proof. Fact as solid as a collapsed star.

Stare decisis is a lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

This painful truth has abortion rights activists panicking. We gun advocates are over here like-



Point 2 -

This case revolved around a DUI. Unlike some other crimes - yes, DUI is a crime in my view - evidence for this one literally disappears. Over time, a human body processes alcohol and it leaves the system.

DUI is a crime because it impairs a person's ability to drive. It's all fine & dandy to say a drunk driver committed no crime if he made it to his destination safely. Folks who believe that will not say the same thing when they are crippled by a drunk driver. They won't say it when one of their children is killed by a drunk driver.

Got no problem with someone getting drunk and staying where they are, walking or getting a ride with someone.

Point 3 - 

The driver had a state-issued driver's license. By getting this official recognition from the state and maintaining that permit, he literally signed a contract with the state. This contract held him to certain standards and put accountability requirements on him and on the state.

On this, Neil Gorsuch and I agree, I think. "We took this case to decide whether Wisconsin drivers impliedly consent to blood alcohol tests thanks to a state statute," Gorsuch wrote. "That law says that anyone driving in Wisconsin agrees — by the very act of driving — to testing under certain circumstances. But the Court today declines to answer the question presented. Instead, it upholds Wisconsin's law on an entirely different ground—citing the exigent circumstances doctrine."  Mebbe we disagree and he rejects the idea of the contract. Eh. The whole decision is in the NPR report.

Ya don't agree with the terms of the contract, ya don't sign the contract. Simple enough.

Point 4 -

The dude's BAC was .222%. He was unconscious when he got to the ER. A blood draw, under the circumstances, is usual, needed, expected and standard. Docs needed to know what they were dealing with. Was he just drunk? Was he OD'ing on some other drugs?

This one is for the gun nuts amongst us

Just got through reading an extended thread on using the .45-70 Government for the Big 5 in Africa.

Opinions, as you will expect, are hot, sharp and divided into the two usual categories:

Shot placement

Knockdown & stopping power

Get this. Stopping power, knockdown power are relative terms. Afore you jump my case about my use of said terms, make sure we are talking the same thing. You'll get my definition as you read through this.

SO WRONG

The shot placement crowd is wrong, so wrong. In the case of the Big 5 and other dangerous game, possibly dead wrong. As in the critter they try to kill turns and kills them.

Shot placement is important, yes indeedy! But shot placement is not even in the same league as knockdown or stopping power depending on how you wanna phrase it.

The "shot placement" crowd will eventually admit as much if you back 'em into a corner. Immediately upon admitting this and realizing what they said, they will start making excuses.

Har.

In case you didn't get the idea, I am firmly, absolutely and without question on the side of knockdown and stopping power.

As the late Col. Jeff Cooper said, "Use enough gun."

STOPPING MATTERS

Stopping and knockdown power matter. How hard you hit something matters. How much force you bring down with that hit matters.
Disagree?

Drive a rail spike through a trestle with 12-ounce hammer and get back to me.

You can hit that spike dead square on the sweet spot repeatedly. How far is the spike going into the wood?

Take that same spike, same trestle and get an off-center hit with a 10-pound sledge, Now tell me how far that spike penetrates.

"Baker, yer being ridiculous now."

No, I'm being realistic.

SIZE MATTERS

Elephants and other big game are poached in Africa with the 7.62x39. Successfully poached, as in the critters die. From videos I've seen of elephant culls using the AK platform, the elephants can die pretty quickly too. The "however" in this one is, the shooter, more accurately shooters, dump a banana mag into the elephant. Two shooters, two mags.

This is the rough equivalent of using a framing hammer to drive a rail spike. It's doable, but you need a LOT of hits.

I have personally dropped a 1,500 pound animal dead in its tracks with a .22 rimfire. Yup. Got witnesses.

Does that mean I'm going to hunt half-ton animals with a bullet that has the approximate knockdown power of a framing hammer in the hands of an experienced carpenter? Rhetorical question.

Professional hunters and professional DG guides pack big rifles with big bullets. These are the experts. They are in the field, not armchair quarterbacking. Listen to them.

KNOCKIN' EM DOWN

Lemme put this another way.

You can hunt prairie dogs with a .50 BMG. You can also hunt 'em with a .17 HMR. By far the most popular doggin' rounds are in the .22 centerfire group, .223, .222, .22-250, .222 Swift, etc. A body shot ANYWHERE on a p-dog with one of these rounds at under 500 yards and you get the Red Mist. Shot placement is simply not the vital part of this equation.

Nor is shot placement the most important part of any hunting equation.

Knockdown power or stopping power is the most important part. See Col. Cooper quote above.

You need to use enough bullet to cleanly and humanely dispatch the critter you hunt.

ENOUGH GUN

Yanno WHY law enforcement does not pack .22s as their primary firearm? A .22 is just as lethal as a 9mm, .40, .45 acp. Yes, it is, if you believe shot placement is the most important part of the equation.

Law enforcement believes stopping power is critical because in the heat of a shootout, taking time to drop a pill into the dead center of a perp's forehead is not going to happen. LE is taught to shoot center mass, the largest part of the target. LE knows it needs ENOUGH bullet, ENOUGH knockdown power, ENOUGH stopping power to get the perp off his feet as fast as possible.

A .22 in the torso is lethal, given time. A .45 in the torso is lethal a whole lot faster.

Stopping power. Knockdown power.

ONE MORE TIME

Aaight, let's put this another way One. More. Time.

Two elephants were killed with a .22 rimfire (look it up). So the venerable .22 is certainly capable of taking down Jumbo. If you get the shot EXACTLY right.

Take that same elephant. Shoot it with a 20mm Lahti. Shot placement is suddenly not nearly as critical. A lower leg shot will cripple the critter, probably not deliver an instant kill. Any body shot, death in minutes.

Go a step further. Shoot said pachyderm with a Sidewinder missile. Now you have elephant parts scattered across the landscape no matter the impact site.

That is knockdown power. That is stopping power.

It matters more than shot placement.

If shot placement is the most critical part of the equation, we'd hunt everything with a .22.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/10150193181531156/

Making the money matter

The SF novel, I forget which, was a utopian setting. (Aside - I realize "utopia" should have the "an" declarative instead of "a" but it reads better to me the way I have it. If you object, then do so and get yer own blog.)

In this mythical place, people earned credits for doing work. Credits were then swapped for stuff. Think cash, but you never got to hold any of it.

One of the things that made this a utopia was the pay scale. Pay was based on need. How important was the job? The more important job, the more it paid. In this fictional reality, being a garbageman was a pretty high-payin' job. Tending the roses paid next to nothing.

Think about that.

Now apply some mental molars to this idea –

Any and every job should pay what you are willing to accept for doing the job.

Hrm. Confusing. Lemme try again.

What is the minimum amount you'd take to do the job? That is the pay.

Mo betta.

The "you" part of that is critical. You. As in the singular person. As in the individual. NOT the government handing down an edict. NOT a forced decision. NOT a kinder, gentler machine gun in hand to make sure you do it.

You decide.

Shades of Ayn Rand someone will say. Could be, could be.

Shades of Karl Marx someone else will say,  Could be, could be.

Certainly, there are smatterings of many economic systems there.

YOU PICK YOU PAY

So what would you accept as the minimum salary for a job?

Under my idea, you pay whatever you'd take to do the same work. I cannot think of anything more fair than that. That's my utopian idea anyway.

Let's continue to run this You Pick You Pay thought experiment. Whether or not you can do the jobs below is irrelevant. I wanna know what you require as the pay to do 'em. Saying "There ain't enough money in the world" is an acceptable answer.

How much pay do you need to be a:

Garbage man?

A waiter/waitress?

Truck driver?

Farmer?

Police officer?

Member of Congress?

Convenience store clerk?

Butcher?

Mechanic?

That's a good place to start. I'm sure you can come up hundreds of other jobs. The question remains, what is the minimum you'd take to do the jobs?

Bout dat "ain't enough money" comment. If you said that about any job, then in my utopia, you never get to have those services. Not enough money to a police officer? Then you never get to call law enforcement for help. Not enough money to be an elected official? Then you lose access, privileges and protections created by the law. Yes, you anarchist, you are also freed from being under the law. That sounds like a good idea to many until someone bigger, meaner, tougher and better armed comes up, takes everything you have and turns you a bone-broken heap. On yer own, you are.

THE CLUE-X-FOUR

So now lemme come upside yo haid with a Clue-X-Four.

Why ain't you paying these people what YOU require to do the job?

"I don't control how much they get paid."

Now there is the cop-out. There is the lie. There is the rejection of reality. Don't think so, Cleopatra? (Cause you is the Queen of De Nile.) Lemme prove it to you.

S'called tips. Who do you tip and how much?

Oooooooo.

"But I –"

Shup.

"But not tip –"

Shup.

"–"

Done said shup three times. Do it.

You can tip anyone. You CHOOSE not to. You CHOOSE to underpay those folks? You can tip and bring the pay up to the level you'd accept. You CHOOSE not to.

Why? Are those people less than you? Are you more important than them? Is your value to this world greater than theirs?

"But I can't –"

Don't make me get out the duct tape.

YES YOU CAN

Yes, Little Engine That Could, you can. You can tip. I am not aware of any law in any state that prevents you from tipping anyone.

You choose not to. Why?

I tip all kindsa folks, if I can get to 'em. It's not always cash either. I've delivered water to linemen. Beer to the guys on the garbage truck. If I can catch the cook in a restaurant, I slip some George Ws his way.

The difference it makes is AMAZING.

I tip folks when I believe their service to me is greater than what they are paid to do the job.

I do understand that some businesses have signs that say "No tipping allowed." I give those signs and policies all the attention they deserve. None. I have yet to be called out for tipping someone.

The contrarian in me does HOPE someone tries to tell me I cannot tip. That's gonna be interesting.

In the meantime, you do control how much people make. The question is, will you own up to it or not?