The always-emotional issue of guns brings lot of emotions, few facts and logic

A friend of mine, well-meaning and good-natured as she is, has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to logic on certain topics.  One of those topics is guns.  She's a European, and cannot fathom some of the freedoms we Americans enjoy.

In the wake of the recent LA Sheriff's deputies who were ambushed by a POS who walked up to their squad car and shot both of them while they were seated in the car, I pointed out to her husband a few facts that he was glossing over in his blatant anti-American spiel about how the rest of the world doesn't have this problem (instead they just have higher rates of violent crime as criminals prey on victims, knowing there's a low risk of getting perforated by lead by a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing).

That's when his wife, my friend of almost 30 years, rushed to his defense:

FWIW, I think that you (US of A) are paying a very high price in order to uphold your right to protect your "lives", "liberties" and "pursuits of happiness"; there are plenty of lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness that have been extinguished, who don't have these rights, thanks to the fact that pretty much every Tom, Dick and Harry has the right to own and use a firearm (and doesn't wait / think before shooting - or perhaps does, but fear drives them and they shoot anyway ... let's just shoot first and ask questions later).

There have been countless killed (who had a carry permit - even security), where when on site, the Police didn't assess the situation correctly, shot and killed an innocent person (actually performing their duties in protecting other citizens).

And I also believe, that it reeks of white privilege.

There are plenty of PoC who cannot enjoy their "freedom", for example in Ghetto areas / in areas, where gangs are rampant, because guns are so easily accessible (be that legally or illegally. The fact is, they are easily accessible). Where there are poorer members of society, other minorities etc. etc. for fear of their lives, going onto the streets.

That children in schools have to endure active shooter drills!!!

It is the minorities that suffer : the ones, who cannot even protect themselves from this 'scuse my French - shit!

Not to mention the number of accidents involving children!

"A government should fear its citizenry, it keeps them more honest."

Well, it doesn't seem to be working; your government is far from honest! And doesn't seem to fear its citizenry one little bit. In fact, your President is trying to incite and instigate conflict through his rhetoric. And he is succeeding!

One issue with the 2nd Amendment is : the weapons that were around at the time that it was written were very different, to the weapons that are around, available, being used today. I honestly do not believe, that the way that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted today, is the way that it was intended by the founders - not to mention, that it was meant to arm the militia / national guard and not every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Your nation has become one of such fear, that the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence have a huge black cloud hanging over them : you are not free, not really. And having all the weapons in the world is not going to change that.

But then again, those who benefit from white privilege probably don't see it.

That being said, the situation with weapons all over the US has taken on such dimensions, even if you were to - by law - legally reduce what weapons people have and who and how many, it wouldn't be possible to enforce.

Either way, one life mistakenly taken is one life too many ... and there have been far too many, to really justify blindly arguing for this 2nd Amendment right. And believe me, while it clearly seems to be fully justifiable to many Americans (and there are plenty, who don't - again, minorities, PoC, ....), do you even care, how the rest of the world sees you?

Let's unpack this, a piece at a time.

FWIW, I think that you (US of A) are paying a very high price in order to uphold your right to protect your "lives", "liberties" and "pursuits of happiness";

Her opinion, ill-informed as it is, remains hers.  She may have a point about the high price, but every freedom does have a high price, whether it was paid in the past or we continue to pay it.  The United States was borne out of a fucking bloody revolution!

there are plenty of lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness that have been extinguished, who don't have these rights, thanks to the fact that pretty much every Tom, Dick and Harry has the right to own and use a firearm (and doesn't wait / think before shooting - or perhaps does, but fear drives them and they shoot anyway ... let's just shoot first and ask questions later).

For starters, not every TDH has a right to own and use a firearm:  If you have a felony conviction, you're not allowed to possess a firearm.  It's an abridgment of our rights that we accept to ensure that firearms remain, for the most part, in the hands of law-abiding citizens.  But let's say for the sake of argument that a law-abiding citizen exercises his/her right to extinguish someone's life.  Don't they call that homicide?  Mustn't you, unless there are extenuating circumstances that you, at the risk of your own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (legal fees will gobble up a substantial chunk of your money), be prepared to prove in a court of law?

I would love for my friend to show numbers on how many concealed-carry (CC) permit holders accidentally shoot someone innocent, rather than engage in what-ifs.  But statistics aren't sexy or emotional enough.  And my friend makes fear out to be something to be eschewed.  Fear is what has guided humankind, and our primate progenitors, to avoid being killed and possibly eaten since the dawn of time.  There's an old saying that, had I used it in responding to my friend's diatribe, would have sent her into convulsions:  "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

There have been countless killed (who had a carry permit - even security), where when on site, the Police didn't assess the situation correctly, shot and killed an innocent person (actually performing their duties in protecting other citizens).

And those police rightly lose their jobs, pensions, and often their own liberty for failing at their job.  A badge does not give a license to kill.  Is it a perfect system?  No, but I feel better knowing that, when a meth-head is trying to bust my front door down at 3 a.m., the police officers who respond will be bringing guns in case they can't talk him down from murdering everyone inside.

And I also believe, that it reeks of white privilege.

Fast becoming a classic debate tactic when you're too lazy to make a compelling argument.  Yes, I'm white.  The person who said this, by comparison of skin tone, makes me look like I'm from South America.  If white privilege is expecting people to not behave like animals, then I'll gladly wear the label as a badge of honor.  Is it still white privilege if I expect the system to hold those CC permit holders and sworn peace officers to the same standard?

There are plenty of PoC who cannot enjoy their "freedom", for example in Ghetto areas / in areas, where gangs are rampant, because guns are so easily accessible (be that legally or illegally.  The fact is, they are easily accessible). Where there are poorer members of society, other minorities etc. etc. for fear of their lives, going onto the streets

Talk to the corrupt left-wing politicians whom have controlled those areas for decades.  One of the first things they tried?  Strict gun control.  Now those who live in those ghettos do not have the option of legally protecting themselves from an organized criminal element that has the means to obtain weapons illegally.  Since such criminal elements likely already would have criminal records, the mere possession of the firearms is a felony.

Say you're a shop owner in a rough neighborhood, and a couple of poor, disadvantages youths want to help themselves to the contents of your cash register?  Money that you earned with blood, sweat, and tears?  What do you do?  Roll over and let them help themselves to your money?  Or discourage further criminal activity by brandishing a weapon?  Even if they leave empty-handed with no holes in them, if you're a good citizen, you still file a police report.  And then in many cases, you surrender the weapon that local municipal ordinances prevent you from legally having in your possession in your place of business.  Now what do you do when they come back and help themselves to more than your money?  Maybe you've got a wife and/or children?  What despicable acts do they perform before deciding whether to kill you in retaliation? 

That children in schools have to endure active shooter drills!!!

Must have missed the part where school shootings only happen in the United States.

Oh. Wait.  Hmm.  Seems like training for such events is just good preparation for the unthinkable.  Or we could just bury our heads in the sand like my fact-challenged friend and pretend that not having guns makes us all more safe.

It is the minorities that suffer : the ones, who cannot even protect themselves from this 'scuse my French - shit!

Which is why I, along with most conservatives, fully support law-abiding minorities being armed.  Like the old saying goes, "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal!"  A firearm gives the petite woman, the minority shop owner, and literally anybody whom wouldn't last 2 seconds in a physical confrontation with a tall, muscle-bound hoodlum a chance to protect themselves, with lethal force, if necessary.

Not to mention the number of accidents involving children!

So some morons leave their guns accessible to kids, despite the majority of gun owners being responsible stewards of their weapons, and my friend thinks that justifies taking everyone's firearms away!  This page shows little correlation between gun controls and accidental discharges. 

"A government should fear its citizenry, it keeps them more honest."

Well, it doesn't seem to be working; your government is far from honest! And doesn't seem to fear its citizenry one little bit. In fact, your President is trying to incite and instigate conflict through his rhetoric. And he is succeeding!

Did I mention she has trouble staying on-topic?

Note what I said in the quote:  "more honest".  She tries to draw a parallel between allegations that Trump is inciting and instigating conflict and not fearing its citizenry.  It's an axiom of the Trump-haters that the man incites violence.  But the Charlottesville protests that turned deadly?  Trump's quote about "fine people on both sides" has been taken wildly out of context.  And the recent riots in the wake of George Floyd's death while in MPD custody?  Those weren't right-wing militant white supremacists that burned businesses, whom we're constantly told is Trump's base.

One issue with the 2nd Amendment is : the weapons that were around at the time that it was written were very different, to the weapons that are around, available, being used today. I honestly do not believe, that the way that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted today, is the way that it was intended by the founders - not to mention, that it was meant to arm the militia / national guard and not every Tom, Dick and Harry.

I hear the same arguments over and over again.  Let's start with the technology argument.  The Founding Fathers did not write the Bill of Rights in a vacuum.  They had just participated in the American Revolutionary War.  The British army had muskets and cannons.  Considering the advancements in firearm technology in the three centuries prior to the Revolutionary War, and the advances made during the War, why would it be reasonable to assume the Founding Fathers envisioned a limit to the advances of the firearm that, once crossed, would cause the Second Amendment to expire?

As I had told my friend's husband in an earlier post, the National Firearms Act of 1934 had in fact placed a limit on what firearms technology is widely available to the general public.  Automatic weapons to this day are tightly controlled by the ATF.  Like all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, these restrictions are reasonable.  To imply otherwise is to betray the fact that my friend filled the factual voids in her arguments with emotions and guesses, likely influenced by TV and movies.

And let me turn it around.  The First Amendment was written when the printing press was the most advanced form of communication available.  Now, we have social media, where an innocent person's reputation can be destroyed in seconds with a few keystrokes:

Another, Kyle Quinn, was more than 1,000 miles away from Charlottesville at the time of the protest—a case of mistaken identity that brought a wave of threats and accusations of racism so large that Quinn felt unsafe in his home.

Now you may argue that loss of reputation does not equate to loss of life.  But accusations, especially unfounded ones, do deprive one of their pursuit of happiness.  Is it possible to calculate how many job interviews are denied to Kyle Quinn?  How many relationships are shattered by people who believe the accusations?

The list goes on.  Some have opted for suicide to escape the onslaught of social media bullying.  Others are murdered due to things said on social media, a media where anonymity breeds overconfidence and lack of empathy.  As bodies pile up due to our freedom of speech, do we revisit whether it's time to restrict it, to keep people safe?  Aren't these the deaths a high price to pay for basically saying whatever we want to others with few or no repercussions?

Your nation has become one of such fear, that the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence have a huge black cloud hanging over them : you are not free, not really.

Ah, gaslighting.  "You're all just afraid" she's basically saying.

No, ma'am.  It's not fear.  It's the realization that the government cannot protect me 24/7.  One need only look at the response of most of the world's governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic currently going on.  People staying home, working from home.  Children doing distance-learning.  Panic-buying of toilet paper and hand sanitizer.  People buying ineffective masks to protect themselves.  If the government cannot prevent the spread of a virus, how effective will if be in preventing the spread of violence?  Not very, judging from the "occupation" of parts of Seattle and elsewhere, not to mention the 2+ months of violence on the streets of Portland.  Riots protesting police violence.  Calls to defund police forces.  Such an equation does not end in anything other than a dystopia, so it's no surprise the average person decides not to make themselves into an easy victim.  My friend can charge the purchases of firearms are motivated by fear.  Perhaps some are.  But if fear informs impulsive actions that are easy to complete, like buying a year's supply of toilet paper, then purchasing a firearm is an action that requires more measured thought over time:  You don't just walk into a store, plop down cash, and walk out with the gun.  There's background checks.  Mandatory multiple-day waiting periods.  And if you want to be trained to hit something smaller than the broad side of a barn?  Time at the firing range.

 

And having all the weapons in the world is not going to change that.

I don't know, I think the guy armed with an AR-15, a couple of shotguns, and a 9mm pistol probably sleeps quite soundly. 

But then again, those who benefit from white privilege probably don't see it.

She might as well be screaming "I'm tired of trying to persuade you with facts and logic, so I'll state you're likely unable to  see how wrong you are because of the color of your skin."

That being said, the situation with weapons all over the US has taken on such dimensions, even if you were to - by law - legally reduce what weapons people have and who and how many, it wouldn't be possible to enforce.

The first thing she's said that is true.  You know that enforcing a ban would be unconstitutional and bloody. 

Either way, one life mistakenly taken is one life too many

Ah, the "if it saves just one life" argument.  It's called managing to the exception, a practice popular in government and failing businesses. 

... and there have been far too many, to really justify blindly arguing for this 2nd Amendment right.

But I didn't blindly argue for this right.  I laid out facts.

 

And believe me, while it clearly seems to be fully justifiable to many Americans (and there are plenty, who don't - again, minorities, PoC, ....),

Gaslighting again.  Did she take a poll? 

do you even care, how the rest of the world sees you?

 I very nearly responded to her lecture on social media, based on this one question.  I can't speak for my fellow 330 million citizens, just like she can't speak for the other 6.7 billion inhabitants of the planet.  Personally, I don't care what a European thinks of my country, especially one that doesn't live here and seems to believe everything spoon-fed to her by an agenda-driven media.

But then I realized, as evidenced by the tone of her comment, she wasn't looking to debate, she was looking to lecture.  Once, she called me one of her best friends.  If this is how she talks to me, I can only imagine the tone of the lecture a stranger would get!

 

Depends on your definition of "suffering"

An acquaintance of mine posted this screed on FB:  "8 years of suffering under Barack Obama"

It starts out fairly innocous:

The sentence I hear most from well-meaning, conservative friends since President Trump’s election is this: “We suffered 8 years under Barack Obama.”
Fair enough. Let’s take a look.

I won't address each point, but I will dissect the obvious ones:

General Motors and Chrysler were on the brink of bankruptcy, with Ford not far behind, and their failure, along with their supply chains, would have meant the loss of millions of jobs. Obama pushed through a controversial, $8o billion bailout to save the car industry. The U.S. car industry survived, started making money again, and the entire $80 billion was paid back, with interest.

And what made the bailout controversial?  Was it that it circumvented bankruptcy laws, and in so doing, violated centuries of contract law?  Obama insinuated the federal government into what should have been a cut-and-dried bankruptcy process:  GM files for bankruptcy, and a court rules GM's creditors be paid off.  This link tells it better than I could, but in short:  With bankruptcy, the secured bond holders would have the best chance of getting the most back on their investment in the company paid off first.  The UAW, with their pension fund (an unsecured creditor), was less deserving.  Instead, the Obama administration screwed over the secured bond holders into accepting 29 cents on the dollar, versus the UAW getting 40 cents on the dollar.

While we remain vulnerable to lone-wolf attacks, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed a mass attack here since 9/11.

This requires a liberal reading of "lone-wolf":  Nidal Hassan, who shot up Fort Hood, was in contact with al-Awlaki.  The administration classified the shooting as "workplace violence" instead of terrorism, despite Hassan's identifying himself as a "Soldier of Allah".  Hassan's attack was motivated by radical Islam.

Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.

He only had to violate the airspace of another nation to do so.  Granted, Pakistan is hardly a reliable ally in the war against terrorism, but they weren't declared state sponsors of terror.  So to violate their airspace was an example of the leftist mindset of ends justifying means.

For all the inadequacies of the Affordable Care Act, we seem to have forgotten that, before the ACA, you could be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition and kids could not stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26.
 

It blows my mind how many people don't comprehend how the notion of catastrophic insurance works.  There's a pool of money, paid into from premiums by all the customers of the insurance company.  If you have a pre-existing condition, it means you are more likely to need access to that pool of money.  In some cases, it's guaranteed to draw money out of the pool.  If I, as a healthy person, am less likely to need access to the pool of money should my health suddenly change, shouldn't I pay less than someone who is a greater risk to depleting the pool of money for others who might need it?  And is there a point to "insuring" someone who is a guaranteed risk?  And how the hell is a 26-year-old a kid?  If we recognize 18 as the age of an adult, and you're no longer allowed to claim a person 18 and older as a dependent on your taxes, how is it logical that they are still a health-insurance dependent?  It makes for messy law.

Obama approved a $14.5 billion system to rebuild the levees in New Orleans.

After the city of New Orleans squandered millions in funds in the years before and after Katrina.

He expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, supporting groundbreaking advancement in areas like spinal injury treatment and cancer.

This was a reversal of the Bush policy to not fund federal funds for the pie-in-the-sky promises of embryonic stem cell research, as a nod to the moral implications of research on otherwise viable embryos.  Obama made federal funds available before there was any tangible proof of the benefits.  That's not surprising, considering his administration's willingness to direct taxpayer dollars to projects that never stood a chance of convincing private investors to fund them, and for good reason.

He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

For doing nothing!  He'd been in office for weeks.  The award was seen as a snub of Bush, and Obama proceeded to show he was not deserving of a "peace" prize with ordering unilateral military action around the globe.  Lest we forget he committed the U.S. military to actions in Libya, never even providing the courtesy to provide advance notification to Congress, something I recall Chuck Schumer being bothered by, and mentioning that Obama's predecessors had done.

He was the first president since Eisenhower to serve two terms without personal or political scandal.

Operation Fast and Furious, which arguably resulted in Border Patrol officer Brian Terry's death?  The IRS denying or slow-rolling 501c3 organizations with a conservative political affiliation, versus "progressive" organizations not encountering similar resistance?  The attempt to freeze Fox News Channel out of the press pool, an action that prompted their rivals to object to?  How about the dubious investments in "green" energy companies like Solyndra that resulted in the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.  And let us not forget that the whole "separation" of children from their illegal immigrant "parents" was a program started and enforced under Obama.

You can claim his administration was scandal-free, only if you severely limit your diet of news coverage or suffer from a faulty memory.

High emotions masquerading as logic

So my FB friends never fail to disappoint in the weakness of their arguments regarding the border situation.

First of all, every nation in the world has the right to enforce laws governing who may enter/exit.  Our who may work within the borders.

But to the leftists, the U.S. must be excluded from this rule.  Since every attempt to enforce our immigration laws is either racist or cruel or both.

Let's start with the emotionally charged topic of "separation".  I've learned from my lefty friends that there is no greater sin than separating children from their parents at the border.  I mean, there's no other times we take children from their parents...

Except when the children are being abused or living in an unsafe home environment.  Or the parent or parents are incarcerated for committing a crime.

Like, say, sneaking across the border and violating the sovereignty of a country.  And then attempting to work in that country.  Oh, wait.

Or how about when some of the people in the country illegally drive drunk and murder someone with their car?  Which they don't have any insurance for, and which isn't registered to them.  If they can leave the scene of the accident, they will.  And law enforcement has to explain to someone's loved ones how finding and catching the lawbreaker will be next to impossible, assuming they haven't fled home.

But the leftists cry about children being "ripped" from their mother's arms.  Except, that, while seemingly cruel, the "mothers" aren't really the mothers.  Sometimes they are smuggling the children in as part of a trafficking network.  Big surprise, someone willing to sneak across the desert and cross the border is also willing to lie to the federal agents who catch and detain them.  And the "relatives" we place them with may be willing to lie to federal agents as well.  A recent report found thousands of illegal immigrant children, subsequently placed with family within our borders, to be "missing":  the federal is no longer tracking them.  Did the family move?  Or was something more extra-legal happening?

But the point is moot, since President Trump has issued an executive order to no longer separate children film their "parents".  Instead of keeping the kids somewhere with games and activities, now they'll be housed with the adults who knowingly broke the law and are consequently kept in a place that looks more like a prison and may be in violation of the law Congress passed during the Clinton years.  Signed into law by President Clinton.  And enforced by Clinton.  And President Bush.  And President Obama.  And President Trump.

So I've no doubt we'll see a lawsuit arguing how we can't keep children with their parents in a prison.

Because leftists aren't interested in enforcing immigration law.  And Democrats, wanting to gain and stay in power, are all too willing to support an open-borders policy with an eye to the future.  It's no coincidence that they oppose requiring photo ID to vote.  Or that they support amnesty and a speedy path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  Because the illegals will reward them with votes.

But you just keep kidding yourself that Democrat politicians have your best interests at heart...

Finally, I'd like to address the latest rash of comparisons of our ICE and Border Patrol agents to the Nazis.  Really?  Has no one heard of Godwin's Law?  And I defy the leftist drama queens to point to an instance where the hard-working, law-abiding American citizens that comprise our agencies charged with securing our borders have summarily executed illegal immigrants.  Or put them in cattle cars to extermination camps.  Or would follow an order to violate the human rights of people.  I have a feeling all I'd hear are the sounds of crickets.

With the left, the ends always justify the means

I'm a member of the NRA, unlike most if not all of the recent mass shooters.

So why is the NRA being targeted with this campaign to get other businesses to  sever their the civil-rights organization?  Because the <strike>gun-control</strike> gun ban advocates can't win the argument fairly.

So they paint arguably one of the biggest advocates of the Second Amendment as killers of children and the recipients of blood money.  For nothing more than advocacy.

To the left, the symbolism of toppling the NRA represents a key battle in their war on Second Amendment rights.  Defeating or neutralizing the power of the Second Amendment's champion means they can start fixing a constitutional right they don't like.  The hell with the fact that their measures are:

- useless
- unconstitutional

So removing the NRA becomes necessity.

I've noticed the gun-grabbers are not above hyperbole, deceit, and distortions coupled with appeals to emotion to persuade an uninformed public and their elected representatives that "we must do something", even if illegal and uneffective.

So why would they want the NRA to exist to check them on the facts?

Parkland

The shootings in Parkland, FL are terrible.  Just as terrible as every other act of senseless violence.  And they happen too often.

That's about the extent of where the leftist gun-grabbers and I can seem to find common ground.

Recently, they've adopted a new tactic.  They've always, as if on cue, made their emotional appeals to institute "common-sense" gun control, or something similarly-named.  But they've always been short on the details.  The more rabid (and, as it turns out, more honest) among them will put forth their simple platform:  Ban guns.  Confiscate them.

In the wake of the tragedy, the politicians and pundits of a more conservative bent will call on an end to politicization of the deaths to drive the gun-grabber agenda.  They will say the political discussions have no place on the stage when parents and guardians are still being called down to the morgue to identify their children (which is, incidentally, absolutely right).  They will offer "thoughts and prayers", which can seem like an empty platitude.  And it sometimes is, but it's our human nature to want to find some way to console the grieving family and friends of the deceased.

As I said, the leftists have amended tactics recently.  Now, they will tell the "thoughts and prayers" crowd what they can do with their "thoughts and prayers".  They will push back against the call for common decency and implore anyone who will listen:  "If not now, then when?  Someone must do something!" they will cry.

We are doing something.  We're letting the loved ones grieve in peace.

What you, the gun-grabbers, are asking us to do, is make big decisions while emotions are still running high, without the benefit of calm, reasoned, logic-filled discussion that can temper the nasty side effects of rash decisions.  Side effects that are much more likely to be seen when logical reflection is allowed to participate.

But that's kind of the idea, isn't it?  Because you, the gun-grabbers, know that if we have time to think about your proposals, and give them careful thought, we would never accept them.

So you exploit grief instead.  You're despicable.

As to my proposal?  Well, it involves analyzing the factors that make these mass shootings all too common:

• Preponderance of firearms, often illegally obtained
• Mental health and criminal background of the shooters
• Environment in which the shootings occur
• Reaction of the shooters when faced with resistance (e.g. being challenged by someone else with a firearm)

The US has a lot of guns, no doubt about it, but increases in legal gun ownership have correlated to a decrease in violent crime.  When a certain percentage of the law-abiding public is armed, muggers, rapists, and other violent criminals will only prey on that public as long as the risk is outweighed by reward.  A would-be victim that is able to respond with deadly force presents a risk to the health and/or life of the predator-- in other words, the risk goes up.

But what if certain environments reduce the risk to the would-be predator, by legally requiring would-be victims to render themselves defenseless?  Usually, this disarming of law-abiding group is done in the interests of perceived safety:  Discharge of a firearm, even accidentally, can endanger lives on board a crowded airplane, in a crowded shopping mall, or in a school.  In the last example, we're also dealing with young people who have mental and physical abilities on par with mature adults, but often lacking the self-control and ability to think clearly in emotionally-charged environments, so we acknowledge these environments' restrictions are sensible, and we accept rendering ourselves and/or our loved ones defenseless as part of an implicit social contract whereby we get something in return:  Rapid transportation to a desired destination, acquisition of materials or services, or an education for ourselves or our progeny.

But it only takes one to violate that contract.  With minimal risk and high reward.  In the case of the scum that conduct mass shootings, that reward can be revenge, some sort of perverse pleasure, or the desire for immortality through infamy.  Both the risk and reward are timely:  A shooter can achieve his/her reward in the time before resistance exponentially increases the risk.

So in our closed system, what increases the risk sooner?  Removal of the means of violence?  As I said, there are a lot of guns in the U.S.  Nobody knows the exact number, but it is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions-- a minimum of 1 gun per capita.  Confiscation, even if not constitutionally prohibited, would be a Herculean task.

What other controls are at our disposal?  Reducing the access to guns from the mentally ill and criminals?  We have background checks in place to do just that, but they are built on a system developed by flawed human beings-- some people who shouldn't have access to firearms slip through the cracks and end up with them anyway.  Also, because our nation is founded on the notion of individual liberty, we must respect the rights of other, including the undocumented but nevertheless enshrined "right" to privacy-- the health records of our citizens are private, and while disclosure of those records for our mentally ill citizens may serve the interests of the State, our courts have often ruled that the State must demonstrate a compelling reason why they should go against the natural tendency toward individual rights trumping the interests of the State, as per the spirit of the Constitution.

What's left to adjust, in hopes of preventing these terrible tragedies?  Increasing the likelihood of the shooter being met with resistance, and sooner.  Much data exists to show when most of these scumbags encounter armed resistance, be it a cop, soldier, or average citizen with a gun whom had refused to be slaughtered without a fight.  But with the "resistance in street clothes", there's an element of unpredictability:  an environment of defenseless victims can be just that until it's not.

Risk versus reward.

Just saying

I think my Facebook friends list will shrink before the end of the year, if my politically-different-thinking "friends" don't stop inadvertently linking me to the  Nazis.

Invocations of the Kristallnacht?  Look in the mirror, morons, those aren't Trump supporters out there rioting.

Bewilderment at half of the U.S. being racist for voting for the man?  Take a Xanax, folks, and consider the possibility that people voted for him, or against his main opponent, for a variety of reasons.

Yes, the list will definitely shrink, but I won't necessarily be the one doing the friend-culling.  All I have to do is unashamedly state my political views, and the counter will drop. 

And you know what?  I don't care.  If these people are unable to function in civil society and accept defeat like adults, I'm better off not having that negativity around me.

And why haven't I yet?  Because while I'm OK enduring the hatred that would be directed against me, I may unavoidably draw my wife into the cesspool, and that's just not something a loving husband does.

Suck it up, snowflakes (Part 1)

It's been about 24 hours since the U.S. elected Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, and I just see more of the same whining and sniveling that I saw after the 2000 and 2004 elections.  People taking to social media to broadcast their demoralization and emotional exhaustion.  Teachers giving students a pass on coursework or exams because of their devastation at losing.

Suck it up, snowflakes.  This is not the end.

One of my Facebook friends, the wife of a former co-worker writes:

 Yes, I'm disappointed that my candidate lost. But that's not it. I have a whole lot of experience losing contests before, and my feelings today aren't about being a poor sport.
I'm devastated to learn that so many of the people around me condone (or at least don't condemn) sexual violence and hate speech against anyone who looks or acts 'different.' I'm afraid for the safety of my friends and my children. The author of this article does a beautiful job expressing what so many of us are feeling today.

I voted in the election, not so much for Trump (I would've preferred Ted Cruz), but against Hillary Clinton.  Trump has made some controversial statements, to be sure, but what's the saying about people in glass houses?  Hillary Clinton's party contains some real creepy characters:  Most notable has to be Joe Biden.

Set aside that Biden has been a fixture on the Washington scene for decades, and the most sensible foreign policy an elected official can pursue is to seek the advice of Joe Biden, and then do the exact opposite.  Biden's behavior as a vice president has ranked high on the creepy scale.  See the following links for well-documented instances where Biden engaged in behavior that would earn him a trip to HR in most large companies:

• http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/joe-bidens-woman-touching-habit/article/2560311
• http://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/

Then there's Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, a man who avoided the scandal of a woman drowning in his car as he swam to safety due to 2 things:  His last name, and the "D" next to it.

Ok, now on to what my acquaintance writes:

I'm devastated to learn that so many of the people around me condone (or at least don't condemn) sexual violence and hate speech against anyone who looks or acts 'different.'

So what are we defining as "sexual violence?"  If Michelle Obama is to be considered a source, it seems to encapsulate Mr. Trump merely talking about what he'd want to do to someone of the female persuasion.

So they have on tape, making a statement that, though awkward, conveys the sentiment that a lot of "red-blooded males" may have at times in our lives:  We see a sexually attractive woman, and the blood rushes from our head to a point somewhat south of the border.  We revert to our primitive selves a little bit.  I'm sorry that my acquaintance and the other not-Trump people out there take offense to this or will be surprised by this, but most if not all straight males will have at least one of these moments during their lives, where our inner cavemen crawls out, and we think about fulfilling a biological imperative without first wanting to talk about our feelings.

But what differentiates most of us from most of the animal kingdom is that we don't act on it, or we don't act on it without consent from our would-be partner.

Yes, what Trump said about a woman over a decade ago is despicable, and as members of society, we are right to criticize him for it.  But to take the logical leap from that to my acquaintance considering the people who voted for Trump to be condoning or not condemning "sexual violence" is ridiculous.  Newsflash:  People can condemn Trump's statements and still vote for him.