Gun debate 101

Okay, so the other day, I’m leaning against my work car in uniform.  Pistol belt visible.  I’m clearly armed.  A young couple walks by carrying a sign, clearly on their way to some protest.  It was a picture of an AR15 with the red circle around it and line through it.  The text was some blather about guns killing our children—a reference to the Cruz shooting in Florida.  They saw me and my gun and approached me.  At first I thought their intent was to ridicule or goad, but they surprisingly asked where I was on the issue of gun control.

At first I was going to give them the standard “Gun control is being able to hit your target” line, but I opted to try to educate and be educated.  I told them if they had some time, we could try to discuss the issue, but only if we stuck to facts and left emotion and political talking points out of it.  The girl was skeptical, but I think the guy saw it as a challenge.  Being of college age, and probably a former debate team guy, he had an itch to put this Republican in his place.  Follows is the gist of our conversation.

Me:  So you are on you way to a rally or protest.  Are you protesting the actions of the shooter, or that he used an AR15 to commit it?

Him:  Well, both really.  We’re against civilians owning military assault weapons.

Me:  Is it because of their power?  Magazine capacity? Looks?

Her: Yes.  That, and it has only one purpose—to kill.

Me:  Well, isn’t that the purpose of every gun?  But let’s shelf that right now.  How much do you know about the shooting in Florida?

Him:  A deranged guy who used to be a student there went in with an assault rifle and shot the place up killing 17 people.

Me:  Do you know any of the specifics?  How many rounds he fired?  How long the attack lasted?  His method of target selection?

Both:  No, not really.

Me:  Well, I do.  See, that’s what individual research will get you—answers, rather than relying on the media to tell me what I need to know.  Cruz fired over 100 rounds in about 6 minutes.

Her (shuddering for dramatic effect):  That’s a lot and a long time.

Me:  No, and yes.  100 rounds is only four magazines, less than that, really.  But six minutes is a long time when you’re under fire.

Him:  How do you know that?

Me:  Iraq.  2003-2004.  But back to the attack.  100 rounds in 6 minutes.  Sounds like he was prepared for a long fight and to shoot a lot of people.  You think that if he was committed to the act, he would have been prepared, would have had a LOT of magazines?

Both:  Yes, sure.

Me:  I haven’t found out yet how many magazines he had.  But 100 rounds means he had at least 4 (30 rounds each), or that he stopped and reloaded during those six minutes.  I don’t know about him, but that’s not what I would do—reload, that is.  I’d be prepared for a siege.  I could reload magazines after I’m holed up in negotiations.

Both:  (nodding)

Me:  But 100 rounds in 6 minutes.  Averaged out, that is 17 rounds per minute; a little over half a magazine per minute.  One round every 3.5 seconds.  Now, again, we don’t know the specifics of the attack.  We do know that he pulled the fire alarm to get the students evacuating and fired into them in the hallway before he started hunting in particular rooms.  So, he probably fired a lot in the first 2 minutes and tapered off after that as he hunted and searched.  Make sense?

Both: (nodding)

Me:  Do you know the relative costs between rifles and pistols?

Him:  I know an AR15 is expensive, over $1500.  Pistols aren’t that much.

Her:  Yes, most people can’t afford an AR15.

Me:  You can actually buy a basic AR rifle for about $500-$600.  Then you’d need some optics for it and magazines and ammo.  Magazines are about $10-$20 each online and ammo from the same website is $40 per hundred.  A basic 4 power magnification sight runs about $75.  So, $500, $120, $40, $75…less than $750, Cruz could buy everything he needed.

You see my pistol right here?  I bought one a generation older, legally, from a gun store, for $275.  Magazines for it on the same website are $12 each.  They hold 15 rounds.  Ammo on that website is $14 for a box of 50.  I could duplicate Cruz’s arsenal in pistol form for $399, about half price.  One pistol, 8 magazines to get me to the same 120 capacity, and 100 rounds.

Him:  What are you getting at?  It sounds like you are trying to confuse us with a bunch of numbers.

Me:  Only if you are that easily distracted.  No, what I’m saying is his weapon of choice is irrelevant.  I could do the same thing with a hand gun for almost half price.

Her:  But a rifle has greater range, is more accurate!  (Smilingly indignantly.)

Me:  He is shooting into a hallway for the most part, probably 10 or 12 feet across.  If he was smart, and by all indications, he was, he would let them come close so that they’d be bunched up tight.  The 12 feet width of the hallway wouldn’t matter anymore.  I recently qualified with this pistol.  Target ranges were from 7 feet all the way to 45 feet.  The AR has a 16 inch barrel giving it greater accuracy at great ranges.  Then there is his scope.  My pistol has a 4-inch barrel and no optics, just 3 dots to line up.  I shot a perfect 100%.  Cruz missed wildly, obviously as he didn’t hit 100 times out of 100 shots.  He killed 17 people, and wounded 17 more.  34 out of a 100.  That’s one third.  I hit 50 out of 50.

Her:  What is your point?

Me:  I could do worse with my cheap pistol than he did with his expensive rifle.  This Glock was also recently in the running for the US Army’s new standard pistol.  Does that mean it also should not be allowed to be privately owned?  It is a military design, and by my confession, potentially more lethal.

Her:  So, no, you shouldn’t be able to have one of those.

Me:  Well, I also have another pistol in the same caliber with an equal number of magazines.  Should I not have one of those?

Her:  I bet you have a lot of guns.

Me:  Indeed.

Her:  Why do you need so many guns?

Me:  I like guns.  I grew up with them.  My father taught me how to shoot.  He also taught me to respect guns.  They are not toys, but rather, tools.  I taught my son the same way.  He has several, too.  My wife also shoots.  She has a couple and shoots mine quite well.  We belong to a shooting range so that we maintain our proficiency.  Oh, and we’ve never killed anyone.

Her:  That doesn’t answer my question, at all.  You’re dodging my question.  Why do you need so many?

Me:  It is how I choose to protect myself and my family.  What do you do to defend yourself?

Both:  That’s what the police are for.

Me: So the police are to be relied on for protection against the bad guys whenever they decide to break into my home, or try to rob me on the street?

Her:  Yes.  That’s their job.

Me:  Actually, no it isn’t.  Are you aware the police are under no legal responsibility to save your life?  They are there to stop crime from happening, when possible, but even if that is true, why do so many car jackings, home invasions, murders, and robberies occur?  Are you saying the police are inept at their jobs?

Her:  Well, they can’t be everywhere at once.

Me:  So, if they aren’t around, I’m supposed to just let some crack head take my money, or rape my wife?  It’s just a case of bad timing, my bad luck?

Her:  (no answer)

Me:  Do you remember that church shooting in Texas?

Him:  Sort of.

Her:  No.

Me:  Really?  It was only last November.  A guy went into a church and killed 26 people and wounded 20 more.

Her: (interrupting)  See?  My point.  If he didn’t have that gun, he couldn’t have done that.

Me:  Of course he could have.  He’d have just used something else.  But a neighbor heard it, went to his gun safe and grabbed an AR15.  He then ran barefoot to a vantage point and placed two well aimed shots between the body armor plates the killer was wearing and the guy not only stopped, he fled to his car.  Then the hero, still barefoot, got into a vehicle with another passerby and the chased him to make sure he couldn’t hurt anyone else.  No police anywhere around.  The guy killed himself in his car.  Partially to your point, the killer shouldn’t have had that gun or any gun.  He had a prior domestic violence conviction and was barred from buying, even owning a gun.  But he still did.

Her:  So what is your point?

Me:  A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, whether he is a cop or a legal gun owner.

Her (with him nodding) What are we supposed to do, learn to live with this killing?

Me:  Of course not.  But we have to get smart about how we defend ourselves and how we stop bad guys from getting guns.

Him:  How?  Where does it start?

Me:  Look at this from a few steps back.  Do you think Cruz would have killed and wounded so many if the armed guard present and on duty wasn’t a coward, and actually entered the building and confronted him?

Her:  So we put cops in all our schools?  Make them all prisons?

Me:  We have cops or armed guards in all our banks.  Are we guarding the tellers and bank officers?  No, we’re protecting our money.  We have very few bank robberies.  Are you saying that our money is more important than our kids?

Both:  Silenced.

Me:  But we started talking about military styled weapons.  Look at these two pictures.  They are two rifles I own.  (A Remington R25, and Remington 700.)  What are your thoughts?  Should I be allowed to own these?

Him:  Well, the green one is probably okay (the R25), but the black one?  No way.  Look at the size of that scope.  That gun is clearly a sniper rifle.  Way too much for a civilian to own.

Me:  Is it the scope, or the color, or the sophisticated stock that disqualifies it in your mind?

Her:  All of that and more.  It probably shoots a mile.

Me:  Well, they are both the same caliber, and it is a bigger, far more powerful than the one Cruz used.  The green one, actually camouflaged, holds twenty rounds, while the black one holds only 4.  I even have a drum magazine for the green one that holds 100 rounds.  The scope on the black one is powerful, but the scope on the green one also has a red dot capability that means I don’t even have to aim it.  The bullet hits where the red dot is.  So, based solely on looks, you’re letting me have a rifle infinitely more deadly.

Both:  (Shuffling a little)

Me:  This isn’t about looks, is it?  You have no concept about guns.  You didn’t bother asking me about the parameters of either rifle. You just don’t like them.  Which makes them evil, and by extension, me. You just want all guns confiscated.  Right?

Her:  You’re an asshole.

Me:  One willing to protect you.  Have a nice protest.

Not content with the flimsy and noncommittal “gender fluid” naming convention, many uber-liberal parents have begun naming their children (offspring?) (spawn?) after various chemicals.  Some have even begun stringing various letters and number together creating monikers virtually impossible to pronoun.

 The phenomenon began with parents, who despite the DNA and obvious sex of their child (based on physical genitalia), began giving offspring names that masked masculinity or femininity.  Names like Skylar, Justice, Riley, and others began climbing the charts of popularity tracked by such organizations as the Social Security Agency, and quite contradictorily, Planned Parenthood.

 These parents often eschew traditional and especially religious names, breaking generational norms such as naming sons after fathers or grandfathers.  Soon to be gone are the Juniors and (name) III.  Instead these spousal units (since “mother and father” are shunned in aggressively progressive countries like Canada) have decided that the child should be free to decide their own gender based on societal inputs and personal impulses rather than norms.

 The first phase of this new naming convention quickly yielded to using precious metals like Gold and Platinum.  However, following the murder of a child named Diamond by the sibling Cubic Zirconium, the parents were each punished for their negligence of slighting one child with a name the other with something obviously of lower intrinsic worth than the other.  The mineral Mica was almost immediately banished based on it sounding like Micah, a purely masculine name and also being a prophet in the Bible.  Any hint of religiosity, especially that of the Christian faith is expressing forbidden.  Given that Micah was likely Jewish was even more of a curse.

Numbers and letters followed in suit, but were quickly ruled out as by their very nature, these names imply order, hierarchy, and thus rank.  As A is before B in the alphabet.  Does that mean that A is superior to B?  Even if B was born first?  Indeed, like the character 7 of 9 from Star Trek fame, numbers quickly lost favor due to the connotation of mathematical value.  Indeed, the differences of odd versus even numbers, ordinal and prime numbers proved too exclusionary

Thus, randomness has become the “order” of the day.  In fact, lottery style name generators have become a boon business in hospitals providing such names as B67F4HJ0, like the VIN of an automobile.

 Mohamed is still quite popular and cherished since it is Islamic despite the prophet Mohamed being a child pedophile and rapist.  Any celebration of child sexual assault and/or pornography is celebrated and encouraged to aid the child in being free to select their gender for any particular phase of life.  The child does not have gender foisted on them by society.  They are free to choose over and again based on how they feel any given day.