Good Guy With a Gun

You knew I'd take time to comment on the latest mass shooting, even though I'm still working to unpack my kitchen, with the living room and my office barely touched.  

Over the weekend, a good samaritan took out a piece of garbage attempting to kill as many people as he could in an Indiana shopping mall.  This of course, brought out all the right wing idiots pointing out how a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  Conversely, the lefties are screaming that one instance proves nothing.  It follows that those who claim to study such things would come out and say how a good guy with a gun almost never stops a bad guy with a gun, based on their data and research.  And these are the people who we shall refer to as hacks.

Let me explain.  Nowhere in their data do they take into consideration whether an armed civilian was present.  I'm ignoring law enforcement because they've proven themselves to be useless with more concern about themselves than the public they're sworn to protect.  If these hacks can't tell me whether an armed civilian was present, then how can they claim any insight into the subject.  In many cases, mass homicides take place where no one has a gun.  Schools, workplaces, etc.  All places you're mostly not allowed to carry.  In addition to the concentration of black folks, the Buffalo shooter admitted he chose the location of his mass homicide because he knew no one would be carrying a weapon.  You know I hate generalities, so I went back and reviewed every mass homicide since the beginning of 2001 to determine whether the venue would have been appropriate for a concealed carry holder.  I went with the Mother Goose database and didn't bother filtering the incidents that didn't meet the four fatality criteria.  Ordinarily I would but no one else is stopping by to help unpack, so I'm busy.  

Of the 16 incidents recorded, only one third could conceivably have a "good guy with a gun" present.  And I'm being a bit liberal with the church potluck case.  All the others either took place either in a venue where guns wouldn't have been allowed (i.e. school, workplace) or in a jurisdiction where getting a concealed carry permit is incredibly difficult.  

HOWEVER, when in a venue where a CCW holder could legally carry, over 42% of incidents ended with bad guy getting shot by good guy civilian.  Source - FBI data.

What the hacks also fail to account for are incidents that were about to become a mass event, but were stopped by an armed citizen before that happened.  There have been a few of these this year, including one where the citizen used an AR-15 to stop a lunatic with another AR-15.  Again, busy unpacking.  

I'll throw some of my own thoughts out before I try to finish unpacking the kitchen.  What would I do, were I in a mass homicide situation?  If the threat was close by and my life was in danger, it's a no brainer that I would engage.  However, if I'm in a WalMart and I hear shooting on the opposite side of the store, I'm hunkering down.  Sounds like I'm being a coward, right?  Well, if you consider that here in NC or previously KS, that it's not unlikely that another patron is legally armed, I don't want to risk getting into a gunfight with that person, because we've mistaken each other for the bad guy.  Furthermore, by the time I make it across the store (damn, out of Pop Tarts again), it's entirely possible the cops have begun to roll in.  More than one good guy with a gun has been shot by nervous cops fresh on the scene.  There was one in I think Memphis as well as one in Wisconsin within the past few years. 

Off to see what surprises lurk in various boxes.   

For Jayne

 I met Jayne shortly after relocating to Richmond, over a decade ago.  We connected on Match and I remember thinking how out of my league this gorgeous and classy redhead was.  We were together about two years, in two one year periods, but would occasionally reconnect as our orbits crossed paths, usually for a night here or there.  Our last interlude was during the pandemic lockdown, when we chatted for a few days, but then lost touch.  I'd recently reached out to her, letting her know I was now only a couple hours away, and no longer in Kansas, but emails went unanswered and texts went unread.  This was completely out of character for her, but today, I discovered why.  Jayne had passed away.  

She was an accomplished political operative, having worked with George HW Bush as well as being part of Fred Thompson's presidential campaign.  She also had the distinction of being felt up by Strom Thurmond.  

What drew me to her was her joie de vivre and constantly positive outlook on life.  We were always laughing and never failed to have a great time together, regardless of the circumstances.  Jayne was a passionate lover (I've previously written about some of our escapades) and one of the most kind, caring, and selfless people I've ever met.  Truly a devoted partner, deserving of someone's undying love.  And we truly did love each other.  

I would have married Jayne, were it not for her demons of alcohol addiction.  It was that one thing that prevented me from completely falling for her, despite her successfully quitting the second time we were a couple.   

While I remember so much of our time together, there's one snapshot that stands out.  One lazy and rainy Saturday afternoon, we found ourselves on the sofa watching DVR'd episodes of Bob Ross.  At some point, we became amorous and moved into my bedroom, after pausing the show.  There we were in the throes of passion, when the show re-started and we found ourselves with a soundtrack of happy little trees accompanying our lovemaking.  Needless to say, we wound up laughing our asses off.

For once, I'm not sure how to conclude an entry.  Despite having very little contact in the past several years, I still felt connected in some way to Jayne.  She frequently crossed my mind, reliving pleasant memories and my undying hope for her happiness.  In some way, I feel responsible, because at the conclusion of our two relationships, she'd relapsed hard.  Regardless, the discovery is a hard shot to the gut.  I guess that's what happens when you lose someone you loved.  

Farewell, Jayne.  You'll be missed.

Addendum - Much as I hate to admit to not being bulletproof, Jayne's passing is still hitting me pretty hard the day after. But something came out of nowhere that made me smile today.

While unpacking, I've been listening to some older playlists (only because I'd not heard them in a while) and a song was on one that made me smile and think of Jayne. We were returning from perhaps date number four and perhaps the same playlist was on in my car and "Fuck Her Gently" by Tenacious D came on. Jayne and I were still getting to know one another at that point and I was mortified that this classy lady would think less of me for listening to such a song. Instead, she surprised me by bursting out in laughter. That became our unofficial anthem and we'd sing along to each other, laughing all the while.

The 2nd Amendment

 Regular readers know of my interest in shooting pistols and rifles.  I enjoy preparing for and shooting matches, as well as going to the range to decompress at the end of a tough day.  I've written several entries concerning gun violence and the AR-15, but what I've not done until now was comment on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.  As usual, buckle up, because I ain't gonna say what you think I am.

The 2nd Amendment is fairly brief and worded in an odd manner, with a comma in a really dumb place.  

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But what the hell does that mean?  To reach that understanding requires a (hopefully) short history lesson.

First, during that period of time, it was common practice to keep a firearm for personal defense.  In fact, English law specifically allowed white protestant men to do so.  So, it was considered a given, with respect to being a personal freedom.  Also, Madison, Jefferson, and others endorsed retaining this freedom in correspondence amongst themselves.  

Militias

When the US won independence, our main fighting force consisted of militias from the colonies, each under command of a duly elected state leader.  These militias predated the Revolution and every fighting age man was required to serve, which meant drilling once or twice per month to ensure readiness.  The men were also obligated to own military grade muskets and appropriate uniforms.  Because these militias were wildly inconsistent in their capabilities, during the war, they were ultimately rolled under the command of George Washington, who built them into the cohesive force that defeated the British.  After the war, the various militias went home.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights

In 1787, our newborn country was attempting to get itself organized.  A bunch of smart guys spent a long summer sweating their asses off in Philadelphia hashing out what would become the Constitution.  The reason they were sweating was because it was summer and they kept the windows closed to prevent eavesdropping before the document was ready.  It might surprise you to learn the Constitution's ratification wasn't a slam dunk.  There were still those who wanted to remain a loose confederation of independent states, being justifiably afraid of a government that could do as it pleased.  But it did get ratified and life was good, right up to the point where the TJ, Jamie Mads, and the boys realized they'd screwed up by not including specific rights of the citizens.  Creating and ratifying the Bill of Rights wasn't a cake walk.  Those who took part in drafting the Constitution weren't in the mood to spend another summer in Philadelphia, sweating their asses off with the windows closed.  However, after much campaigning by James Madison, another meeting was convened.  

Many hours were spent narrowing down the various amendments to the ten that ultimately made up the Bill of Rights.  Some were written from a blank sheet of paper, whereas others were adapted from the various states' constitutions.  The Second Amendment falls into the latter category, having been mostly copy pasted from the Massachusetts constitution.  The adaptation and word jockeying is why it's so poorly written.  

A Standing Army

Because of how challenging it was to deal with separate militias, in the face of a large enemy, the Founding Fathers decided the best course was to establish a standing army, and included such provisions in the Bill of Rights.  This scared the hell out of many, because a centrally commanded army could easily be the enforcers of tyrannical central government like the one they'd just defeated.  Therefore, there were many influential men who wanted to preserve the states' rights to maintain their own militias as a check against this.  The Second Amendment did just that.

Second Amendment Meaning

Again, the Second Amendment was written solely to preserve the rights of the states to maintain militias, conferring no rights to individuals, except in the context of those serving their state militias.  Further evidence of this can be found in The Federalist Papers.  These were a series of eighty five anonymous "letters to the editor" written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and published in numerous newspapers, mostly in New York.  Their purpose was to expound on the reasons ratifying the Bill of Rights was so crucial as well as to allele the fears of the citizenry.  Again, the idea of a central government remained a scary thing to many in 1789.  The Second Amendment were only mentioned in articles 29 and 46, both of which referenced militias, omitting any allusion to a personal right to keep firearms.  Yes, I've read a lot of stuff on the subject!

In conclusion, based upon what I've read in various source material, I'm convinced the Founding Fathers considered personal ownership of arms for protection to be an uncontested norm of society.  Therefore, they didn't feel it needed to be enshrined in the Constitution.  However, the Second Amendment does not confer that right, which was confirmed no less than three times by the Supreme Court.  

As a footnote, that changed in 2008, with the Heller decision.  I've read the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia and it's a hack job.  The supposed originalist went off the reservation with more recent material that he misinterpreted.  But, it's the law of the land now, regardless of the Founding Fathers' intent.  And yes, I'm keeping my guns.

Record Profits By Evil Companies!!!

 Gotta get something off my chest about a type of news story that jacks my nads, the RECORD PROFITS proclamation.  This is usually tied to an industry that the news outlet wishes to vilify, either subtly or more overtly. Big oil is a typical target, and they've been attacked recently.  But a recent news story made a massive deal about how gun manufacturers have enjoyed record profits, while children were being slaughtered in schools.  How evil of them for getting fat off their products killing kids.  Before I go any further, it might be helpful to understand earnings and profits.  

Here's a simplified example:

If I sell something for $100 and make 40% gross margin on it, my profits / earnings are $40.

If customers buy 10,000 of this item, I make $400,000 profit (earnings) with $1million in revenue.

However, if my demand dramatically increases, and I sell 75,000 units, my revenue is $7.5million and I earn $3million.  In reality, my earnings would be greater, because I'm buying raw materials at better rates, due to the higher volume and more fully utilizing my factory, but let's not worry about that.

In case you missed it, Covid, civil unrest, and a Democrat being elected President drove gun sales through the roof last year.  Guns sold as quickly as they hit the shelves.  So, it should be of no surprise that Smith and Wesson shipped roughly 70% more firearms in 2021 than they did in 2020 with resulting revenue going from $530million to $1.1billion.  It doubled in one year!!!  So, of course their profits hit record highs because of math.  But not not one of these stories mention revenue increasing.  

So, the next time you hear a story about how some industry, who the outlet wants you to find nasty, has made record profits (with no mention of sales or revenue), you'll know it's likely a hit piece.  Not as though demand for petroleum has gone sky high with the pandemic over and costs have remained low...

Evangelicals, Abortion, and Other Contentious Subjects

Anyone who's read my blog knows I'm not a fan of organized religion.  My "position piece" on the subject is here.

I'm back to call out some of the most recent hypocrisy and generally offend fundamentalists, because I haven't offended enough of them this week.

I'll start with the contentious topic at the moment, abortion, where being completely up front, I think it's a woman's choice because it's her body.  Full stop.  

Of course, evangelicals scream that it's murder and life begins at conception.  Science says otherwise, but why do they hold such a position?  Their cherished book makes no mention of abortion or when life begins, so why would anyone pay attention to an entity that's mostly ignored science as a matter of course (except when it suits them)?  That makes as much sense as asking a blind man to review a silent movie.  If it wasn't your god, then the position could have only come from the church leadership.   

The evangelical church really didn't weigh in on the subject until the late sixties.  In fact, before that time, some (SBC) were expanding access to abortion.  Then the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe came along.  The evangelicals live and die by their belief in the patriarchal structure, meaning the man is the leader, with his wife being subservient to him.  Evangelical leaders saw ERA and Roe as threats to the patriarchal structure.  Women would have power over both their bodies and paychecks; they could demand equality in the family!  

Evangelical leaders couldn't allow such a threat to exist.  They needed to solidify their power over the women in the church.  So they caucused and decided God considered life to begin at conception and abortion was murder.  Who knew that God could change his mind like that?

This is one of reasons I despise organized religion.  The supposed word of God has been perverted and twisted so many times by power hungry white dudes, that there's no way it can bear any resemblance to true Christianity at this point.  Lest their be concern I fabricated these events, I highly suggest reading Jesus and John Wayne, by Kristin Du Mez.  She's an Evangelical scholar and pastor.  Even as an atheist, I found the book to be quite interesting.  She pretty much admits what I've been thinking for decades, which is literally everything the church does is about power.  

While I may seem pretty raw on this subject, I hold a great deal of sympathy for Christian women who've been betrayed by their church.  They've been manipulated for decades by men not fit to lead their flocks and it will certainly shake the core beliefs of those who finally wake up to the fact.  But the fact remains abortion was accepted by the church until they felt the need to tighten control over women.  

Evangelicals endorse having the baby and "taking personal responsibility", "rising to the occasion", and all that other bullshit.  That's a lovely idea, but expecting sixteen year old's to become adults overnight is pretty fucking unrealistic.  Let's say the new mother does make that leap, but has no support structure.  Evangelicals can't fathom this because they have the whole klan of cousins and spouses (who are typically one and the same) to help out.  In any case, if she doesn't have that safety net, she's not getting one from the right wing.  "Get a job."  Okay, how about some assistance for child care, because the kind of job an uneducated new mother can capture won't pay enough to cover half of that burden.  If those making these horrible laws truly believed in the sanctity of life, they wouldn't abandon fetuses after they pop out of the womb. 

Ultimately, I think most Republican politicians could give two shits about abortion.  You know damned well most of the men have knocked up at least one impressionable girl and paid to make it go away.  But they need the evangelical vote and abortion is a hot topic for them, at least it is now.   So they pander, laughing behind their backs.  Remember, with very few exceptions, your elected officials consider their only job to be reelection.  

A perfect example of this popped up in today's election news.  Mike Erickson has secured the Republican nomination for the House in Oregon's 6th district.  Here's a story about how gave a girlfriend $300, took her to the doctor's for the procedure, then later claimed he didn't know she was pregnant or having an abortion.  Many Republicans seem to share a brain defect that either prevents them from being aware of their surroundings or forget things they said.  Are they really fit to govern this country?

To those evangelicals who are amazingly, still reading, I'd love to hear how you reconcile the (recent) belief that every life is sacred, but don't give a thought to tossing that life aside, once it leaves the womb.  Also, please explain why you consider abortion to be murder, when your church didn't until recently.  I'd really like to hear from women anti choice politicians, who are actively working to help men bring women under control.  Evil or fucking moronic; no other option for them.

Baby Formula

 There's no other way to say this than the folks blaming the Biden administration for the baby formula shortage are clueless (those who know me should assume that word wasn't my first choice).  

We got here because Abbott Nutrition had to shut down their Sturgis, MI facility, which was producing tainted formula.  A point for Team Trump for removing a not insignificant number of FDA safeguards and dramatically reducing inspections.  Another point for Team Trump for putting protectionist measures in place that make it virtually impossible to import baby formula.  This is what the current administration is working on overcoming now.

But the FDA should have done more!!!  Like fucking what?  They shut down production of tainted product to prevent further infant deaths.  But they should have known this would cause an issue!!!  Newsflash, it's not the government's job to monitor capacity of a product, versus demand.  

Why was there a capacity issue in the first place and why didn't other manufacturers have extra capacity to take up the slack?  The baby formula market is controlled by three players, Abbott, Nestle, and Mead-Johnson, making it a controlled monopoly.  These companies' respective market shares have remained pretty static, with each of them enjoying some portion of various government programs (read fixed price).  And there's little any can do to capture significant market share from the others.  Baby formula has strict standards and takes a lot of work for new products to be approved by the FDA.  For damned good reason; it's for babies.  Unlike something like an automobile, where demand is variable, being impacted by economic conditions, adoption in developing countries, etc., demand for baby formula is known because it's directly tied to the birth rate.  Not as though there's an emerging market for it hiding somewhere.  And the birth rate in the US has been declining for decades.  At the end of the day, you have a product with incredibly static and declining demand, that you don't make much margin on.  Anyone at these companies who endorsed adding capacity would be fired for being incompetent.

So there it is, the perfect storm that got us where we are.

For the cherry on top, yesterday, the House voted on a measure that would make it easier on mothers who rely on subsidies (which is most of them) to get formula for their babies.  It shouldn't surprise you that the Republicans, who've been screaming loudest about how badly the administration fucked this up, voted against it.  Fucking pieces of shit continue to prove how they only care about controlling women and not actual children.  

Guns Revisited

 With recent events, I thought it a good time to revisit what I wrote on gun control, along with some additional thoughts.  Before I go any further, let me say that I'm saddened and outraged at what that piece of shit did in Buffalo.  The kid was a sociopath, but the blame for this falls firmly at the feet of Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and the right wing media.  A good chunk of piece of shit's manifesto was lifted right from Tucker Carlson and others promoting replacement theory, among other lies.  So, to all of you MAGA morons, go fuck yourselves.  Do the rest of the country a favor and bump that suicide rate, because you fucking deserve it for buying into the utter stupidity being thrown at you.  You're not conservatives, but fucking racist, misogynistic inbreds who continue to destroy our society.  Yeah, I'm fucking livid...fucking Trump managed to completely pervert what it means to be to be a conservative and has left the world worse off.

Also, lest you have any doubts this heinous act wasn't racially motivated, take note of how the shooter avoids shooting the white guy hiding between the registers and actually apologizes to him.  Below is a link to the footage.  I'll warn you that it's incredibly disturbing.

Shooter's Video

Mass Homicides

We'll start with the stats on mass homicides (I may use mass shootings interchangeably, because frankly it's easier to type), which is defined as an event involving a firearm that results in four or more deaths.  These events are the ones that grab the headlines and bring the most outrage.  Mother Jones maintains an excellent database of these events, that includes a lot of detail on the shooter, weapon used, etc.  Links to that and the FBI database I'll refer to will be at the end.  Also, I've stopped with 2019, because with everyone under lockdown in 2020, there weren't really opportunities for mass anything.

The data says there have been 102 mass shootings since 1982, resulting in in a total of 918 deaths.  If we break the data into time periods, an alarming trend emerges.  Between 2000 and 2009, there were 171 mass shooting deaths, versus 482 the following decade.  The number of mass shootings more than doubled as well.  Because Mother Jones' database lists the firearms used in each event, we can determine how many deaths were the result of the shooter using an AR-15 / AK. military style rifle.    Assuming any unspecified semiautomatic rifle to be an AR-15 or AK, that number for 2010-2019 is 254, or half of the the deaths from mass shootings.  The decade prior saw 5 mass shootings, using these weapons, with a death toll of 33, and 2 in the 80's, with a total death toll of 15.  This is reflected in average number of deaths per event, which peaked in 2017 at almost 20, although it's been in the single digits since 2018.  Clearly, the AR-15, along with the AK platform, represent a serious threat, with respect to mass shootings.  I'll dig into the AR-15 in the second part because there's a lot about this gun I'm sure most aren't aware of.  Worth noting is how Joe Biden is responsible for the AR-15's popularity.

Overall Firearm Related Homicides
Back to the stats.  Before we jump to any conclusions, based on the mass homicides, let's put some context around them.   According to FBI statistics, the total number of firearm related murders, from 2012 through 2019, was 78,162.  That's a pretty astonishing number, which we'll dig into a bit later, but the positive thing is it's been trending downward since 2017.  If we compare mass homicides with total homicides, using firearms from 2012 through 2019, the former represents roughly 0.6% of the total deaths noted above.  I'll say that again; mass shootings represent less than 1% of all gun related homicides.  For additional context, there were 60% more murders in Chicago (where you can't legally buy a gun) last year than mass shooting victims in the same time period.  

Again, please don't take my comments as being dismissive, but the fact is that, while mass shootings get all the headlines, they're statistically a footnote in the bigger picture.  Quite frankly, it would be dumb to base legislation on something of this magnitude, or lack thereof.  

Digging into the FBI numbers a bit more, another story begins to emerge.  The FBI statistics break down homicides by weapon.  I'm happy to report strangulations are trending seriously downward, whereas murder using explosives is showing growth, although not quite, um, explosive growth.  Firearms numbers are further broken down by type: handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.  There's also a category of 'Firearms, type not stated', which I find problematic, considering it's over a quarter of the total.  Looking at unmanipulated numbers, in 2019, handguns represented 62% of the 10,258 firearms related homicides, but were trending downward from 68% in 2013.  Rifles were only 4%.  Back to the not specified bucket, I think it would be cherry picking to not divvy that up a bit (although the Daily Caller had no issue doing so), knowing how much AR-15's have proliferated recently.  I went with 20% for rifles, which caused them to jump to 10% of firearm homicides in 2019, or 1,020 fatalities.  Taking supposition a step further, we'll err on the high side and say military style rifles account for 60% of that.   Military style rifles only accounted for 6% of firearms related homicides in 2019.  This is the first time when you ask yourself what impact banning such rifles would have on overall gun violence.

So what can be done to decrease the number of firearm related deaths?  First, I think rather than focusing on what trigger is being pulled, attention should be focused why the trigger's being pulled in the first place.  Anyone with half a brain should be able to make that distinction.  Having half a brain myself, that's what I'll focus on.  First, I think that more and more people live solitary lives without support structures and succumb to mental illness leaving them feel hopeless or that the world is against them. On a side note, why is it the greater a boring loser someone is, the more they're convinced the government is spying on them?  But people feel less included and more disenfranchised as time goes by.  However, I also think too many people have been raised to be self absorbed little racist snowflakes and don't understand the word 'resilience'.  So many murders are to 'get back at someone' for shit that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  Being disrespected is part of life; get over it.  Your significant other dumped you for your best friend?  Get over it and bang his mother, not shoot both of them, you moron.  How many of us were bullied as children, but the thought of killing anyone over such transgressions never crossed our minds?  My dad grew up in a rural area.  Almost every guy had a rifle or shotgun in their car, at school, because they all went hunting after.  If you had a beef with someone, it was settled with fists after school; no one ever grabbed a gun over whatever it was.  

Finally, there are those who want their fifteen minutes of fame and are willing to kill to get it.  Finally finally, shitty parenting has a great deal of impact, beyond raising snow flakes.  Two perfect examples of how decent parenting would have prevented mass shootings - Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened if the shooter's mother had half a brain and not tried to connect to her mentally ill son through shooting. (He shot her and took the guns)  The Columbine shooters were a couple of complete sociopaths that had exhibited plenty of warning signs ahead of that shooting.  Where the fuck were their parents?

Make no mistake, I'm completely behind universal background checks and other reasonable measures to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.  Universal should be emphasized here, because not all states perform their checks in the same manner.  NICS is the FBI's national background check system and, from what I've been able to uncover, queries their terror watchlist on each inquiry.  However, only 36 states currently use NICS, the remainder either carrying out checks at the state level or using some sort of hybrid model.  As someone pointed out, the Boulder shooter was on an FBI terror watchlist, yet still received approval to purchase his firearm.  Colorado isn't one of the 36, instead using their own homegrown system.  Had CO been a NICS state, the approval likely would have been denied, preventing another mass shooting.  Again, universal background checks are a good thing, are effective, and that's a no brainer.  

But other actions have to be taken to decrease gun violence or we never address the root cause.  Banning weapons, aside from it not working, sends the message 'we've given up on our society'.  We need to begin taking better care of each other or things will only get worse; gun violence will be the least of our concerns.