Inequalities

There is a growing movement that decries the existence of inequalities and blames them almost solely on the greed, racism, or menace of other people. Unfortunately, it's simply not that simple and the evidence simply isn't there.

I'd like to present the following video of an interview with a man called Thomas Sowell. He is arguably one of the greatest economists of the past 100 years, second only to Milton Freedman. He has quite a personal history, is a highly intelligent (bordering on genius) man who happens to be black. He thoroughly rejects the idea of systemic oppression of black people. This video addresses a lot of different subjects and how they can be intertwined to create a particular outcome. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5WYp5xmvI

He may not be flashy or exciting but he doesn't say anything that hasn't been thought out thoroughly and backed up by statistics and studies. 

I will present another arguable genius of modern times: Jordan B Peterson. He is a clinical psychologist out of Canada. His research into all things relating to the mind and the way it works along with sociology is, in my opinion, a masterful endeavor. He has no political agenda and vocally denies political motivation in anything he says which is evident in his arguments. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ4CKvZrsoc

This is a compilation of some of his best arguments relating to inequalities and differences in people and outcomes. He gained notoriety and the wrath of the left when he spoke out against compelled speech laws that were being passed in Canada. ( A whole different story and progression in and of itself)

On Violence

I thought it important to recognize a couple of things from a personal viewpoint relating to violence and in particular to the violence that has been going on recently.

It is not an arguable fact that people have been killed by protesters. There is an innocent civilian on life support after being caught in a protest and being shot in the head. Civilians have been killed, police officers have been killed... all at "peaceful" protests/riots. No matter how you feel about riots or whether or not they were the legitimate product of peaceful protests is not the point.

Legitimate or not, violence can and has often broken out at these black lives matter protests. My simple guiding principle is that I would avoid conflict by any reasonable means. I would not knowingly go to a protest area because of the risks associated with it. But what if I was just driving down the street and happened to come up on a protest mob? I'd try to go around, or reverse course and leave it alone. But what if it was too late? What if I couldn't turn around or got blocked in by some other numbskull? I would be perfectly fine until I saw evidence that I was at risk of death or severe bodily harm.

All until they started to indicate they would harm me or people in my car... and this includes smashing windows. I use the legal principle of grave or severe bodily harm. Because I may take actions that may cause severe bodily harm or death and I must and can only respond with corresponding force to stop the threat. The legal definition of severe bodily harm includes injuries that have a substantial risk of causing permanent disfigurement, or loss of function of parts of the body. So someone coming by and smashing my car windows puts me at risk of severe bodily harm from glass fragments entering my eye and blinding me. I also don't know intent. Are they smashing my window because they are just angry? or do they intend to do more and assault me? I don't know and will not gamble with my life like that. And I will especially not gamble with the lives of my children.

If I get caught in a protest (or any other equally dangerous situation) and I have reason to believe there is possibility of significant bodily harm to myself, my children or anyone else I am obligated to protect; I will do whatever is necessary to stop that threat. And I do mean anything. I will drive, I will shoot, I will bludgeon, I will rip throats out with my teeth if need be. I have a moral, ethical, and arguably, legal obligation to do so.

What about the innocent people who might be hurt or killed if I drive through  crowd of people? It's simple: When you go to a protest, you should be aware that violence can occur and you accept that risk when you go out there. Now, if you stay on the sidewalk, don't engage in illegal activity (blocking a street is illegal without a permit), you are much more likely to be safe. If I have to choose whether to severely injure someone else or risk my daughter loosing her sight from flying glass... you better believe I will make bodies until the threat is gone. There is a phrase among people like me that pretty well explains the sentiment: "Don't make the mistake of putting me in a situation where I have to show you how heartless I can be." It's very simple.... don't make me believe you will harm me or mine and I will not harm you. But people like to dance on that line... they like to play with fire and court disaster. They like to poke dragons then complain when they get bit.

People like me are often the last to choose a violent response because we know more than most the price of violence and the gravity of it's use. It takes a lot to provoke to that point but when the tipping point is reached, action is decisive, vicious, and brutal. We don't play with violence like those yahoo's in black.

I know that makes me sound like a monster, but it's a way of life for me. And I pay a price for it every day in exchange for the willingness and ability to ensure my family's safety. I cannot live with knowing my inaction allowed someone I love that much to suffer or die. I will be the last person to start a fight but I damn sure will be first to finish it.

Systemic Racism: Slavery

Slavery in the United States

The Smithsonian article starts off with a statement about slavery and the slave trade. The context seems to imply that slaves were a singular existence in the Americas. I think it is a glaring flaw to not qualify the statements about American slavery with the fact that slavery was common throughout the world at the time and was often perpetrated by Black Slavers or warring tribal factions selling off captured rivals. Slavery was perpetrated by individuals of every color. It was not solely a "white" or "American" practice. Asians, Arabs, Pacific Islanders, all have vast histories that involve slavery. A conversation about slavery must acknowledge this fact as well as the fact that slavery was ended a little over a hundred years after the founding of the nation.... an achievement I believe no other country in the world can claim.

A Note about Native Americans:
The Native American is also thrown in as a group of oppressed peoples. And yes, there have been some horrible injustices done to the American Natives. But there are several major flaws with how things are presented and it follows this same historical logic. For example: The concept of ownership was quite foreign to Natives when it came to land.... that was a European idea. So when settlers came and purchased the Island of Manhattan from Native peoples, they didn't understand the agreement, and that led to conflict when later they wanted to move back. The island was purchased for a fortune at the time... were there flaws? Sure. Could it have been done better? Probably. But it wasn't "Stolen" as we are led to believe.... It's similar with a lot of other "stolen" land.

Then there is the naive idea that Native life went pretty much like it's portrayed in  Disney's Pocahontas before the white man showed up with all his evil. The truth is that native tribes, especially up and down the East Coast, where at each others throats constantly. They would raid, pillage, kill, and enslave other populations. And then it would happen in the reverse. They were brutal to each other and some of the practices involving defeated tribes was, at best, horrific. There were atrocities committed, but it wasn't as one sided as some people claim. These records are taken directly from journals of European observers who have no reason to mislead.

Christopher Columbus was not a genocidal maniac, nor does the Thanksgiving holiday glorify the conflicts with Native Americans. When the Thanksgiving holiday was originally announced, it was specifically created to glorify a time in our history where two different peoples communed together in peace and thanksgiving for the bounty they had received. It was about that singular moment in time after which there was a period of relative peace for about a hundred years. The same logic would have us not celebrate Christmas (A singular point in time) because of all the violence perpetrated by Christians in years since.
End Note

The Civil War was totally about the preservation of slavery. The slave labor industry was an important factor but it was not the reason that the Southern States attempted to leave the Union. Saying so is a common but mistaken interpretation of the very surface facts of the time and a biased, partial analysis of the history. Lincoln himself stated that he would allow slavery if it could have preserved the Union. The totality of the cause is still debated by scholars and the singular point will probably never be known. The first shots fired in the war were over Federal troops taking possession of federal land inside a seceded state (The Battle of Fort Sumter). If only a small percentage owned the vast majority of slaves, then the majority of the Southern population would have no vested interest in maintaining slavery. Slavery was an issue for sure. The North won and slavery was abolished and the idea that the former Confederate states are still bastions of ingrained racial prejudice after 150 years is preposterous. People showcase the people who fought viciously to preserve slavery while ignoring the people who fought viciously (and won) to end slavery.

There is no doubt that the past of 200 years was brutal. Inequality, injustice, brutality, were common. But it was hardly a singularly American institution. We have never been the sole proprietors of such things. These practices and occurrences happened all around the globe, as a world tried to move into the industrial age and out of the feudal servitude that had reigned supreme for a thousands of years prior. To say "Look at this horrible thing that happened! You should be ashamed." But fail to mention that the same things were happening everywhere is a malpractice of argument and sets up the basis for a straw-man that cannot be used to justify a valid conclusion. This is not a justification of the history, but an affirmation that what happened was not unique to the white man. Should we decry racism in one place and ignore it everywhere else? That kind of cherry-picking of facts serves a political narrative better than a historical one.

The past may affect our present and future but it does not define it. If racism is so ingrained in our culture by our history, why is it that people of African heritage are not (and in many cases claim, cannot) be racist when Africans played a critical role in the enslavement of their fellow Africans? Why is this a "black" issue when there was severe discrimination against Chinese immigrants? Asian heritage is now a roadblock to higher education (if you are Asian, you must score better on placement tests than a white person to get into most colleges). Why isn't that racism? What about the historic discrimination against the Irish? It was common to elicit services such as boarding houses where Irish were openly barred and not welcome. The same with job postings saying "Irish need not apply". How can historic injustice be used as evidence of contemporary racism but somehow similar histories do not lend such disparities to other groups?

Slavery was bad. It took us 110 years to get rid of it (with the critical support of quite a few "old white men"). Now 150 years later we have had a black President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Supreme Court Judge, Ambassador to the United Nations, and National Security Advisor to name a few. There is a record high number of black representatives in Congress. African Americans have a prominent place in the achievements of our country as Scientists, Entertainers, Athletes, and Religious Leaders. These facts presented in a vacuum and outside the context of the United States would be lauded as a great leap forward. Why is it that just because it has happened here that it is still presented on a stain upon our great country?

Here is a short video of a speech made to the Oxford Union on the subject.
https://youtu.be/pv7hsiUirUU
The whole series is fascinating if you have the desire to see the other (4 I think) speakers for and against the proposition.

For a more in depth look: Here is a video that is sections of a book that details some of the history of slavery worldwide. It is a little long but it is worth the listen even when it is kind of hard to listen to because there is no sugar coating of the realities of slavery. It also mentioned the details of the situations like George Washington who was opposed to slavery but was forced to keep slaves because of the legalities of the time.
https://youtu.be/GabXJ0EH9pU

Black Lives Matter

I believe there is a fundamental flaw with the Black Lives Matter Movement. The movement started when a man assaulted a police officer and was shot and killed in the ensuing struggle in which the man continued to pursue the officer as he tried to retreat. However, that is not the story that was published. the real story took months to come out through investigation, witness interviews, autopsies, and forensic analysis. He was not, as they said, running away with his hands up yelling "don't shoot!" I speak of course, of Michael Brown. From then on, the narrative was that white cops shoot unarmed black men because of racism. There was no evidence that racism came into play and it was not the vicious execution it is said to be ... even to this day.

The killing of Trayvon Martin was sensationalized in the media and within hours of the story breaking, there were immediate calls of racism against the shooter. The verdict of public opinion was in and George Zimmerman was a racist murderer of an innocent, unarmed, black teenager. Multiple investigations determined that Zimmerman was most likely acting in self defense. Witnesses stated seeing a person on top of the other and punching him. Zimmerman had grass on his back and a bloodies and swollen nose. Autopsy determined that Martin was shot once in the chest from closer than 18 inches. While I see this case as a prime example of how not to behave while in possession of a firearm, the investigations all came to the same conclusion or at least one that did not support the narrative of racism. Apparently, Zimmerman's skin color was light enough to include him in the "white" and "cop" category. Martin was not shot in the back as he walked away. Should that interaction had a different outcome? Yes. Do I think Zimmerman employed poor judgement? Hell yes. Do I think it was motivated by racism? Don't know. Was Martin completely innocent? I don't think so. People who say that it wasn't a situation to use deadly force have never been on the receiving end of an attack like that. It is easy to do severe bodily harm to someone in that circumstance and that is the standard for using deadly force.

I could go on about may of the so called "unjustified" shootings o killings. All of which were tried in the court of public opinion before the body was cold. Then the outrage begins... A demand for justice (and by justice... they mean immediate judgement, conviction, and punishment). It's convenient just say the system is rigged when calls to wait for the investigation are made. And when officers are indicted and convicted... nothing is heard. BLM doesn't want judicial justice... they want vigilante justice.... they want lynchings... just now on their terms and on their mob rule. If they didn't.... they'd wait for investigations to be completed then criticize the investigation. Justice is only justice if it's *their* justice.

That aside, people will say it is a result of a wider problem of injustice forced upon black people by a system that is still racist. 

It seems that the only black lives that matter to the people of the movement are the lives of people who are killed by police, regardless of their potential criminal nature. They do not get upset when black police officers are murdered in cold blood (Have you ever heard of a protest where they shout for justice for any of the black police officers killed?) . They don't care about the young men who are being shot and stabbed by other black men in the gang and violence capitals of the country. So what is it that makes a black life matter? Well, it seems to only matter once you are dead at the hands of cops. Those are the only lives that can be held up to support the idea that cops are racist. They don't care that a black police officer was shot and killed trying to protect a courthouse from rioters. They don't care that a retired police captain, grandfather to 10 was killed while helping to protect a friends pawnshop from looters in a video that was also streamed live. These are only two of the black police officers who have been killed as a consequence of BLM instigation and protests.

Planned Parenthood has been praised as an institution which is vital to the black community. A more critical assessment paints a different picture: The founder, Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization. Her efforts at contraception were more aimed at eliminating those whom she saw as unfit rather than the freeing of woman. Today, 79 percent of abortion clinics are within walking distance of minority communities. Black babies account for around 35% of all abortions while the overall black population is only 13%.Whether by design or consequence, Planned parenthood kills more black lives than nearly every other cause of death combined. Why is this not an outrage? "Black lives matter".... except when they are babies... over half a million every year.

I've heard people say "Listen to the people in the movement.... listen to what they say they stand for." Is the same courtesy afforded to groups considered on the Right of the political spectrum? Hardly. I'll bite... let's see what they say they are about: They say black lives matter... OK. What else? "We dismantle the patriarchal practice...", "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure...", When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking,...". (All taken from the BLM webpage) What? That doesn't sound like a focused mission on preserving black life. It sounds like a reflection of the far left political ideology. How can I be OK with a movement that actively supports ideas that I do not? I may agree that black lives matter but I can't associate with the movement because as soon as I do I am also advocating for everything else they stand for. One of the founders recently admitted to being trained Marxists and have political aspirations to get Trump out. Those are political goals, not social goals.

It's an example of "semantic overload" where the movement seems to say one thing: "black lives matter" which every one can agree on. Black lives do matter. But if you say black lives matter, it also means you believe cops are racist, the system is rigged, modern lynchings are commonplace, and radical racism is alive and well fueled by White Nationalist propaganda at the highest levels of governance. Then if you actually had the balls to come out and say: "No, I don't agree with the BLM movement". You are criticized (to use a mild form) as not believing that black life matters. This is a no win situation here where you must be all in or not at all. You are either on board and believe everything or you are against us. This is a textbook example of how these seemingly harmless or good movements can be dangerous.

What message is given when people holding BLM signs attack police?  Or break windows and vandalize. I don't recall there being a lot of graffiti during the million man march. We hold people accountable for taking small parts in the greater scheme of things. That same implication would mean that by virtue of association, every protester has blood on their hands of the innocent people who were beaten half to death, or the cops who were killed in riots, or the millions of dollars of damage that was caused through looting and vandalism. So to throw up hands and say: "those rioters don't speak for the rest of us" flies directly in the face of their logic of guilt. So, we must reach one of two conclusions: 1. All protesters are guilty by proxy of the violence or 2. There is a blatant double standard. Is either one of those fruits good?

This idea of being "anti-racist". The idea that if you aren't actively somehow fighting racism, that you are somehow complicit and even engaging in violence yourself by inaction. This will allow people who have done nothing worse than not complying with what someone thinks they should do to be branded "racist". And we have already seen the kind of violence that these groups can direct towards those who they see as racist. These ideas get people killed. And when these ideas are codified into ordinance... millions die. These ideas lead to organizations such as the NKVD troika.

These concepts are immoral and evil. Yes, I mean it... immoral and evil.

White Privilege

I understand white privilege to be the idea that white skin allows a person to have certain "advantages" over those who may not share the same "white" skin color. Or rather that people who do not have white skin are subject to certain extra difficulties not experienced by people of "white" skin. That is, of course, an over simplification of a concept that has taken books to define in all it's nuance.

Reading through the "White Privileged Test" written by a lunatic professor 30 years ago, I was amazed at how the words just oozed of "wokeness". It wasn't an expression of realizing the potential of betterment for oneself, but a profession of victim-hood experienced by "people of color" and the vast moral superiority one will obtain by recognizing these so-called "privileges". Not being able to bind BandAids that match your skin tone? Come on. Madam CJ Walker,the first self-made female millionaire in the US was a black woman who made her money selling cosmetic products aimed at African Americans. And now it's white privilege that BandAids don't come in dark skin tones? Last time I checked, the colors didn't match my skin tones either... maybe they match a little better but they don't exactly blend in, and I certainly don't feel like a freak wearing one. Of course, I'm not trying to be a victim either. I wonder who those bright pink or Disney BandAids are aimed at.... certainly haven't seen those skin tones yet. It invents a problem where there isn't one.

The people at the newly created parasite country of CHAZ have demanded black doctors for black patients... as if that makes a difference in quality medical care. I'm sure there would be a lot of medical professionals who would be highly offended if you told them they wouldn't or couldn't care for someone who had different skin. Frankly, if you need to see a doctor who has the same skin color to feel like you are being taken care of.... you probably need a different kind of doctor... the one that sits you on a couch instead of an exam table. I don't care if my doctor is a purple tentacled alien from the planet Zorax.... as long as he/she/it/zer keeps me well. There is no legitimate medical reason why skin color matters in medical care unless you are actually racist. Hmmm.... that doesn't sound right.... oh that's right... it's only racist if a white person says it.  

Fundamentally, there are qualities that give everyone a bit of an edge or disadvantage in some way or another. Not all of them can be attributed as racist. Hair Color, Height, Eyesight are all qualities that are discriminatory in some facet of life but since it can't be blamed on a race it can't really be racist. There are the jokes about redheads or gingers having no souls... etc. Improper and probably in poor taste outside of good friends... but not racist. Is the NBA racist for having so many African Americans? It's not skin color but physical height that makes you NBA worthy. Should we demand the heights of basketball players represent a perfect cross section of height distribution? Eyesight is a factor in anyone who wishes to be a military pilot and for obvious reasons. That isn't racist either. But I would probably be barred from military flight school because I don't have quite perfect vision and I certainly couldn't compete for a spot in the NBA because of my height. It is because these groups can't be singled out into a single category of victim-hood that we are not hearing about the poor short people who can't play basketball. Personally, I have an edge in certain physical disciplines because I am male.. but a college entrance exam? I would have to score better to be equally matched with an identical person who happens to be female. But is that sexism? Not if you ask the left and even when you acknowledge that more women than men achieve bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees. males are also more likely to do poorer when compared to their female counterparts and are far more likely to drop out of college than female students.  If I were to flip the male and female part of those last statements, the resounding cry would be that higher education is sexist, run by misogynistic pigs and would probably start a riot. But since it's males who are more likely to fall short in higher education, it's not sexism. 

Now, we see another shift in the propaganda of white privilege. First, white privilege meant you had it better because your skin was white and that went along just fine. Just fine until a bunch of white people said "Hold up. I'm white and I've had a pretty shitty life". Now, it doesn't mean you have a bad life, it just means you would be worse off if you were black. Says who? A bunch of virtue signalling white people. It is impossible to make predictions based on what would have happened if "something". It's like saying Obama wouldn't have won office if 9/11 hadn't happened. Really? Maybe... but then again... maybe not. And the best part? You'll never know so you can't rebuff them with reality because you are no longer in reality but a fantasy realm of "what ifs?". What situation would my life had been if the only difference had been my skin color? Would I have been murdered by the cops? Maybe I'd be homeless. Maybe I'd be exactly the same except making 50% less because... you know.... racism... or white privilege. No one could say in exactly what way I've benefited from my whiteness.... but your damn well sure I have.... and it's not fair. 

I believe this is the counter to the idea that people arrive in their momentary position in life largely by the decisions they make. Now, it's about where you could have been had you been white or what you got because you were white and has very little to do with finishing high school, not getting knocked up or knocking someone up, not choosing to engage in criminal activity, working hard, spending money wisely, etc. Bear in mind, they can never tell you exactly what you have gotten because of your privilege, but you certainly did. Compare it to being accused of a crime: they can't tell you what you did or how bad it was but they are 100% certain that you did something.  It's again, an effort to avoid the responsibility of making good choices. It's a bonus that you get to make white people feel bad about their skin color too because that further divides us into groups and allows group identity politics to take further hold.

A Note on Bias:
There is an argument that this comes from bias that had been learned or is hardwired into our brains. I believe this is true but not in the same way. Bias simply means a tendency to one thing over another when presented with both options equally. This is not a fault on our part but an essential mechanism for survival. People have a hardwired tendency to things that we are comfortable with and know. This makes sense... at our core, we are still animals with primitive portions of reasoning (don't get me started on that.... it's incredibly fascinating). We have very strong portions of our brains that are responsible for keeping us alive... you know... don't walk off the cliff... don't pet the saber-tooth tiger... etc. These are rooted in the decision making process which relies on bias to make fast decisions. We have an innate wariness of high places... why? Did we at some point fall off a cliff and decide that's not a good idea? Not likely. It's a situation we are not familiar with... and that can mean danger. Why do certain (harmless) things strike fear into small children? Because they operate on a more primitive level and haven't yet overcome some of those primitive reactions. Our brains naturally tend to like situations where we are familiar. This can include people who look like us, people who talk like us, people who behave like us, places that look like where we have lived for long periods of time, etc. Personally, when I last spend time in Korea.... the thing that bugged me the most wasn't the cultural differences or the fact that I stood out like a sore thumb being a white guy.... it was the language.... I didn't like not being able to communicate freely. Don't know why but all the rest of the stuff didn't bother me much except that. Kind of weird.

These biases allow us to make decisions. They artificially put a thumb on a scale where there may not be an easy way to distinguish one choice versus another. If we didn't have a way to make preferential decisions at an unconscious level, we would get caught at a decision that we couldn't make because our brain couldn't make a determination one way or another. This idea that conscious thought drives our day to day lives is an absolute farce... we make thousands, if not thousands of decisions each day unconsciously using that primitive framework. Every action involves a decision and if you had to weigh each decision you would never do anything. Think about what must be decided in order to eat breakfast... you must decide which hand to use... that's easy you say.... but is it really? Why do you actually tend to use one hand versus another? Why not use your non dominant hand? Could you dominant hand be doing something more important? And why do you have a dominant hand anyway? Ins't that biased one way for no good reason? Why don't you diversify and learn to use your other hand you bloody neanderthal! Do you start with your tofu eggs or your toast? Why? Are you really going to make that decision on a whim? But even before that.... what chair at the table are you going to use? One might be creaky... another might have a better view... another might put your back to the rising sun.... etc. Biases enable you to do these things.

It is a denial of nature and our creation to say these biases are bad at their core... sure, some might not be great.... like your bias towards putting an extra dose of salt on your triple double bacon heat attack burger. But there are plenty that are harmless in their creation and do not have motive behind them. Doesn't mean you can't try to learn to disregard those biases.... as you probably should with things like people who look different. But the fact that they exist, doesn't make you racist, or have privilege. Unfortunately, it means you are, in fact, human. And that's probably the best thing we have going for us right now.
End Note

So many people are claiming this white privileged exists but can't ever produce any solid evidence of it that cannot be explained better by other facts or observations. It's a mythical fantasy that allows people to sit in their comfortable suburban home and self-flagellate over something they have no control over in order to somehow atone for whatever evils we have been told are being done to people of color. It is a an example of saying you are woke but actually doing nothing.... because nothing can objectively be done. White privilege must be acknowledged on an individual level but must be fixed at a policy or systemic level. So show me the policy that creates privilege. Show me the institution that is biased towards whites. Show me something... anything that can be changed. It's always these intangibles and hypotheticals or apologizing for something you didn't do. Should you apologize to everyone else when you get an extra scoop of free topping on your ice cream sundae because the server thinks you're cute? Should I apologize for the fact that because I am a regular at the place I get my coffee that one of the employees give me a discount? It comes down to apologizing for everything that might be seen as better than anyone else. This goes beyond race or skin color. Can there be such a thing as black privilege? What about Asian privilege? Should I apologize for being born in the most free county on the planet and in the history of the world? What about the fact that I woke up today? All this apologizing does nothing... fixes nothing... creates nothing better. Sooner or later people are going to realize that and demand substance. What does that look like?

This could very easily be swung the other way as an excuse to discriminate against white people. White people are actually advocating for racists ideology and practice because they have been convinced that they are guilty of the offense of being white. It easily goes from "You are white and have advantages you need to acknowledge" to "You have things you don't deserve because you are white" to "We are going to take things from you because you got them illegitimately." That is a slippery slope because what things do you have that you don't deserve? Who decides? Is it your money? Maybe your car? Your house? Your life?

We can never build someone up by tearing others down and that's what is happening even if that's tearing down yourself. let's build people up by acknowledging their perseverance in challenges, in success from determination because despite whatever may be working against us, we can rise above and achieve.

Experts.....

When it comes to bad people doing bad things, everyone has an opinion. Usually it's some form of: "I don't understand why someone would do something like that. It's terrible. I feel so bad for the victims. Something should be done to stop this from happening." Generally, I would agree with the sentiment.

But here's where a problem comes up..... when an airplane goes down, it's terrible. There is often a staggering loss of life and the public is sad and wishes it to not happen again. But I have heard no relative of a crash victim go back to school for aerospace engineering and try to help solve whatever problem happened. The on the scene reporter does not approach someone and start discussing the issues involved with solving problems of fatigue wear on metal/composite rivets, the vibrational harmonics of semi-rigid bodies, or multi-layered redundancy programming of instrument control systems. Why? Because the general public know absolutely zilch, zero, and zip about these things. A victims brother who perviously worked at a sporting goods store does not testify to Congress about the need for tighter thermal process control for ceramic turbine fabrication.

So why is it that violence seems to initiate the exact opposite response? Joe-Bob down the street says he wishes how was there so he could have blown the bad guys head off with "Thumper". Someone who knew the victim says the perpetrator was "disturbed. Relatives of the perpetrator can't believe such a nice guy would do something like this. A slightly narcissistic busybody decides they are going to tackle the social issue. Even more people write their senator with draft legislation to make killing people illegal. Self promoting, professional activists show up like flies to shit and hold rallies and pass out signs. In short, everyone is now an expert on what happened, how it happened, and what needs to be done to solve it. And often it's (coincidentally) so simple that the evening news even screws up the "facts" and the average person can understand it.

When someone dies on the operating table, it's sad and I feel bad the person and their family. Even worse when it is a young person. And even if I have a suspicion about what happened, I keep my trap shut. Outside of discussions with friends, I have no place to make any opinions known or take any action unless I waddle my ass down to John Hopkins University and emerge many years later with a lot of debt and a small piece of paper saying I do.

As a society, we will understand what happens when un-knowledgeable people start making important decisions. Disaster. So when it comes to violence, why do we allow novices to impact the decision making process. The forefront of the issue, being highlighted recently by the tragic case of a 3-year old find an unsecured, loaded gun, and accidentally killing his 1-year old brother. There is a cry to make guns safe.

So what happens? Everybody and their brother is crying for safe guns. Others want to help but only understand one small part of the issue. So their solutions (while well intentioned) are nearly worthless. Here's the take away: It's a futile effort. Know how you stop all freeway collisions? Take all the engines out of cars. That would undoubtably save lives. Now "cars" are safer.... but not really "cars" anymore.

The same is true for guns: A gun is specially designed to be dangerous. It's is not designed to be safe. A firearms' entire purpose is to effectively and efficiently cause as much massive and catastrophic damage to organs and tissue as quickly as possible. In fact, "safe" guns have been invented and I posses many of them and keep them close by at all times: a cell phone, coffee mug, table cloth, hot dog bun, TV remote, my pet rock, a pair of socks, double bacon cheeseburger (one of my favorite firearms),  etc.

Warning Shots and Missiles

The point is simple: Warning shots are not missiles.

We'll leave the discussion about whether or not one should even fire warning shots for another time (you shouldn't by the way.... ever).

A lot of the arguments about why you shouldn't is that if you fire up into the air, it will come down and kill some innocent little honor student who's personal story amounts to something that should have been featured on the cover of the next Times. And the finger of blame will be pointed straight at you for ripping that life away from the world. You start sounding like a liberal at that point when you get mired in the what if's and ignore factual input.

Here are some things to consider:

1. Bullets do not correct their trajectory in any way, shape, or form once they leave your barrel. If you listen to alarmists, that bullet fired up in the air will begin to fall back to the Earth and orient itself point first, directly at little Susie's brain with full intent to ruin her day. In what world on non-Newtonian physics are you living in? Newton's first law states: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. in plain English that means that if something is moving, it will continue on it's course unless something pushes it. The only two forces acting on a bullet after leaving the barrel are wind resistance and gravity. Neither of those have any particular attraction to Susie. Bullets will travel in a ballistic trajectory governed by classical mechanics.

2. Statistically, the odds of hitting a person with a bullet fired up into the air (We must assume a non trivial angle) are very slim. Perhaps better than winning the lottery but still very low. Think about what percentage of the earth is covered by bodies. Even when you correct the impact plane to account for angle of impact, it's still not very big.

3. Velocity will be substantially limited (we'll assume a shot fired will be relatively close to normal.... say given a variation of +/-20 degrees). The entire vertical component of velocity will disappear and the return to earth will be the cause of gravity and subject to gravitational acceleration. We've all heard the story about how dropping a penny from the observation deck of the Empire State Building would get falling so fast it would kill someone if it hit them on the sidewalk. Less common is the realization that the math of that claim fails to consider two very important concepts: Terminal Velocity and Free Fall. Terminal velocity governs the maximum speed a falling object will achieve, and Free Fall speaks to the absence of orientation. Just like the penny could never travel fast enough or be oriented the correct way to put a hole in someone's skull, a free falling bullet could not kill somebody. Ruin their day, and probably give them a nasty headache? Yes. But not kill them.

So come off it. Stop being alarmist about bullets fired into the air. It's not going to kill someone. Leave that out of the discussion and instead talk about the legal, ethical, and logical arguments of warning shots. Stop using false statements to justify your position... you just end up looking like an idiot.