TMI Tuesday: Daddy Kisses!

A few months ago, while trying to get our son to sound out a few new words, I would pick him up and ask, “Can you say, ‘Daddy, I love you’?” While the first couple of times that I did this there wasn’t much of a reaction and maybe only a few mumbles of a baby babble but, over time, this changed. One morning before sitting him at the table for breakfast, I posed the same question and got a response I wasn’t expecting. He didn’t say anything, rather he leaned over and gave daddy a big, and very wet, kiss on the lips.

This is not something that he had done but only a couple of times previously, before this he simply did not give daddy kisses. This became almost a daily routine for us as I would ask him the same question and our son giving me the same response. Frankly, I kept hoping for the words but was completely happy with the alternative. There were even some instances when, without me saying a word, he would walk over to me in the playroom just to give me a kiss.  

What came as a surprise shortly after this all started was that I didn’t even have to be present for our son to react this way. When driving home from the office one night I asked the question hoping that he may try to sound out the words but, instead, he took hold of the phone and gave it a big kiss and giggled. Again, this has also become part of our weekday routine.

However, a couple of weeks ago the kisses stopped. Our son no longer wants to give hugs and kisses as frequently as he once did. I guess the phase has passed. As we have been told many times over, enjoy the moments when they happen. While the in person affection has slowed, our son has maintained his phone response and continues to kiss and hug the phone when asked the simple question.

In place of the physical responses, now the words are becoming a much more prevalent part of our days with some clearer than others. We still working on the same question we were before, he is now making a more concerted effort to sound it out. While this was the original impetus for my query a few months back I now find myself missing those moments when my son would give me a big kiss as if to say “of course I love you daddy.”

Firearms Friday: Continuing The Dialogue

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a “Firearms Friday” post which was requested by a friend. I did what I could to address their original query but had no illusions that it would be an answer to their question. There are simply too many aspects to this whole discussion to offer a definitive response but it was a means to have a respectful dialogue. And so, with that in mind, below is their response to that post:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question seriously. I really do appreciate it. Like you, I'd rather have smart laws and knee jerk reactions. As you say you may not be an expert, but you have more experience on this topic than I do and can point out the flaws in my arguments. My goal is a reduction in gun violence and I don't really care much how we get there, as long as it's a path that works and not a token effort.

Here are my immediate thoughts:

When I've been thinking about the problem of shootings I've been dividing it into three categories: one-on-one (most self defense cases would fall into this category, I imagine), one-on-many (mass shootings) and many-on-many (gang violence maybe?). I'm mostly concerned about the one-on-many, mass shooting case. I'm looking for ways that could render a gun less effective when attacking a crowd that would have minimal impact in the one-on-one case, and thus minimal impact on self defense uses. In our legal system it is considered inhumane to maim. If lethal force is warranted you are supposed to take lethal force. That is a sentiment I support. To be 100% clear: If your family is threatened, I want you to be able to defend yourself with lethal force.

I do think there are ways we can make guns less lethal in the one-on-many case that have little impact in the one-on-one case since. Bullet ricochet increases the number of casualties, whereas (I believe) it is a virtually non issue in most self defense cases. It's my understanding that most (all?) bullets are deadly, but not all bullets are equally effective at passing through a person harming the person behind them. Most one-on-one situations don't require dozens of dozens bullets be fired in mere seconds. This is why the arguments of limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate make so much sense to me. (Guns are machines and it is possible to engineer them to fire no faster than a specific rate, regardless of how fast one can pull the trigger.) For a one-on-one scenario, there is no rushing the shooter/person defending themselves. In a one-on-many such changes might give the crowd a chance. At least the casualty count should be lower.

I was unaware that there was a sport dedicated to conduct speed reloads. How long does it take the average-to-above-average person to reload? If it's non trivial, than limiting capacity sizes still makes sense to me. I think (hope) most would be mass shooters are not in the elite class.

I strongly agree with both your points that gun violence is glorified in the media, and that the way the media reports on shootings encourages copycats. I have no idea how this can be addressed given the first amendment.

I also agree that we as a nation need more support for mental health issues. What's less clear to me is what this kind of approach would look like, especially since mental health status can change. I think it's a noble, but unrealistic goal to catch everyone who would commit a mass killing before they have a chance to follow through. Besides, hate is protected under the first amendment. One cannot be committed saying people of a certain race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else should be executed. (David Duke is a terrifying example of this.)

I know I will not change your opinion on the matter, but I support gun free zones. For what it's worth, I don't think the intention behind gun free zones is to prevent intentional shootings. As you, and others, have pointed out, there's nothing magical about a gun free zone that keeps bad guys with guns out. Rather, I thought gun free zones are intended to limit guns from areas where thinking may be impaired (such as places that serve alcohol) or judgement lacking (schools). They're intended to prevent heated arguments and rash decisions from turning into tragic mistakes. While I agree with you that we should hold the shooter responsible for his or her own actions, it's little solace to the person whose life was lost. In these situations I feel the potential for tragic accidents is so great it warrants special treatment.

In this response I will focus on where we seem to be the furthest apart. Let us begin by discussing “limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate” which, to this person, seem to be the options that make the most sense regarding the prevention of mass shootings while having little to no impact on the ability to defend themselves. Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument as the assumption is that “there is no rushing of the person defending themselves”. On the contrary, in many self-defense scenarios there is immense pressure for quick and effective action as seconds count… if you hesitate you are most likely dead. Further, under duress the use of multiple rounds is commonplace. This makes all three of the above options dangerous in a self-defense situation.  

While caliber is something that is thoroughly discussed within the firearms community the simple fact of the matter is that in a self-defense situation accuracy diminishes and stopping power and capacity play critical roles in eliminating the threat. Further, there is no predicting the size of the assailant or how they will be dressed so, personally, I would prefer to have a little more punch than average. Over-penetration is a reality which is why anyone with a reasonable amount of training (and, in my opinion, anyone who owns a firearm) should always be aware of their surroundings and what is behind their intended target. The final point in this is that limiting calibers is a slip and slide that I don’t car to ride as it is nearly impossible to enforce, it would put those who reload in a precarious position, and, most importantly, it is completely against the rights for which I stand.

Rate of fire is something that is already regulated as automatic weapons are classified as Class III firearms and only legal for ownership with those who undergo the scrutiny of the ATF application process (and pay the tax). To regulate rate of fire would not only be dangerous in a self-defense situation but would add over-complication to a rather elegant mechanism. We don’t need to Rube Goldberg firearms… look what that thought process has done to our government.

As for “gun free zones”, the idea that these places are made any safer by eliminating the presence of legal firearms is preposterous. It has proven, time and again, to be a fallacy… nothing more than a means to provide a “warm and fuzzy” feeling for some people. Anyone who has carried a firearm and knows others who carry on a regular basis knows that the one thing that maintains a person’s even temperament is not a sign but the fact that they are carrying a firearm. Those who accept this responsibility also accept the fact that they must go above and beyond when it comes to keeping calm in precarious or stressful situations. This also means that those who responsibly carry will not allow themselves to enter into an altered state of rage or intoxication.

While I would like to say that there is an answer to preventing, as a whole, the practice of mass shootings in this country that is simply not a part of reality. I have already made a few suggestions regarding how we can go about addressing the issue of mass shootings but they are by no means a way to “solve” the problem. The best way that we, as a society, can face this is to come to terms with the fact that this is the reality in which we live. And while the contrary is reported on the daily news, this persons primary objective has already been realized... shooting deaths and gun violence continue to decline while gun sales continue to rise.

However, an important point to remember is that while this person, and many others, continue to make statements regarding the importance of the first amendment and how it limits our ability to address certain statements, stances, and positions that heinous people take, those same people are willing to do anything to limit the second amendment. Remember, the only reason that the second amendment is second is so the first amendment has backup. Why is it that so many people are willing to acknowledge that heinous people are outliers regarding the beauty and effectiveness of the first amendment but those who commit heinous acts are representative of those who support the second amendment? While the person with which I am having this discussion isn’t one of these extremists, the position is all too common.  

If we really want a solution to the situation that we find ourselves in it would be to face the reality that there is evil in this world. Evil people will commit evil acts and we need to confront that evil head on by defending ourselves, defending others, and eliminating the threat when we are threatened. We can’t rely on government in general or legislation in particular. If anything, we need to eliminate the hurdles that continue to plague law abiding gun owners. We must educate ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens about firearms. We must respect what they can do and appreciate the freedom that they represent. So, my advice is simple, go to a range. Understand, appreciate, and respect firearms. Teach one another. And never allow yourself to be helpless and maintain your self-reliance. I’m sure that this is not the response that they were looking for but it is an honest response and one that has proven, time and again, to be the most effective was to address the issues that we are currently facing.

I Got A Response From @Montel_Williams

Every once in a while I get a little surprise on social media as much of the content I produce is simply caste into the vacuum to never be heard from again. Bear in mind that this is primarily due to my lack of correspondence through these sites. I really need to work on that. But, sometimes, someone catches one of my posts and comments, likes, retweets, or responds to what I wrote. Sometimes they agree and other times there is not a grain of agreement to be found.

The truly surprising part is when I recognize the name with these likes, shares, and responses. Most of the time these come from friends or family while other times they come from people whom I have never met before like back in June when Montel Williams responded to my post following the massacre in Orlando. The response was simple but addressed the core of what I was addressing in my blog. Frankly, I was just surprised that he took the time to respond which does say a lot about how he chooses to engage with people as a whole.

Bear in mind that I fervently disagree with many of the comments and confrontations that can be found when browsing through his account but he takes the time to listen and respond. Additionally, he takes the time to share his opinions and I have to respect someone who is willing to be vocal about what they believe whether or not I agree with them. However, there are many people with whom I disagree, many friends and family in fact, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t respect their opinion. Although some opinions are so far out there that I can’t respect them. But there are also times when we find a common ground like I did with Mr. Williams in our brief exchange over Twitter.

And this is the main point that I want to drive home with this post. There have been numerous people that have tested my patience and temperament through various social media sites in recent years and especially in recent weeks. And, honestly, I am sure that I have done the same through many of the things that I have posted. However, I have also invited many people to have a dialogue knowing full well that we will probably never come to an agreement on many topics. I don’t unfriend or unfollow people when I disagree with them and I don’t leave visceral comments to posts. I try to engage with them outside of the public forum.

We have to remember that we all possess different views colored by a diverse collection of life experiences. Many times there will not be any common ground to be found but, every once in a while, we find something in common… sometimes it is how similar events in our lives have taken us in drastically different directions while other times it is the surprise when we find ourselves agreeing on a topic despite our differences. This is a time for discussion not divisiveness but also a time when we cannot be afraid to share our views and opinions.

So, when you read much of what I write remember that I am open to discussing just about anything. You may not like what I have to say and I may not like what you have to say but that doesn’t mean that we can’t talk and it doesn’t mean that we will disagree on everything (although that is a possibility). How does that sound Mr. Williams?

Firearms Friday: Fulfilling A Request

Following my previous Firearms Friday post, I received a request from a friend on Facebook. This is someone who has demonstrated time and again an even temperament regarding a variety of topics whether or not they agree with the stance that I am taking. It is because of this thoughtfulness and willingness to discuss various issues that I am honoring their request for the Firearms Friday post this week. Their request was as follows:

“I fully accept your premise that mental health is significantly lacking, however I don't believe focusing solely on mental health with solve the problem of gun violence. (Some people really are just are evil.) I would be happy to support legislation that limits evil people's ability to do harm with fire arms, while still allowing gun owners to own fire arms. As a non gun expert I can only guess. I've been thinking in terms of limits on clip sizes, the rate at which bullets could be fired, or the maximum force behind the bullets. My requested topic is this: As a gun expert, how would you make firearms safer so that if they were to fall into the wrong hands they would do less damage?”

They later added the following:

“Fundamentally all I care about is a reduction in gun violence. Propose something I can get behind and I'll happily advocate for that when I call my representatives, otherwise I'm forced to stick to the generic "do something!" plea… We may not always agree, but I appreciate the effort. Our end goals are the same. The best polices come from listening to people on all sides of the aisle.”

Again, they were reasonable and respectful in their approach so my response was rather simple… ask and you shall receive. Of course, I made sure to point out that there it is likely that they will not agree with my response but I can't expect everyone to agree with me. In the end, we all have our own views. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. So, here is my response…

First of all, it is very important to note that I am by no means a firearms expert. This is an enjoyable hobby and a means to defend myself and my family. I enjoy and respect this right. I may have more knowledge in this field than others but I am by no means an expert. 

Second, the concept of "making guns safer" is simply an impossibility. Capacity is a moot point when you watch people dedicated to the sport conduct speed reloads. The same can be said regarding rate of fire when you consider the capabilities of the British Army conducting "Mad Minute" drills during World War I. Of course it should be noted that while the media and politicians may use the term "automatic weapon" we are really talking about semiautomatic firearms that fire one round per pull of the trigger. Finally, regarding lethality of the projectile, I wouldn't even consider this as plausible because while I can understand the perspective of the questioner I also have to consider the fact that, if put in a situation to defend myself and/or my family, I don't want to question the lethality of the rounds I am using... I just want to eliminate the threat. 

That being said, I will do my best to address the larger subject at hand. 

The sad fact of the matter is that there is no way to stop all violence committed with firearms. Bad and/or evil people will always find a way to get them and thinking just because something is illegal that criminals will stop using them is lunacy. Evil people will find a way to commit evil acts and the most recent Terrorist attack in France is a prime example of that fact. This is the world in which we live, like it or not.

As I previously mentioned, mental health is the primary means of further decreasing the number of crimes committed with firearms in this country. I specifically used the term “further decreasing” as PEW research shows the steady decline since the early 1990’s. Unfortunately, the media coverage of “gun violence” has not only distorted public opinion but also has offered a tremendous incentive to those looking to commit such a heinous crime… fame. What further sickens me is the fact that the individual who committed this act, the one responsible for the death(s), is seen more as an accomplice rather than the perpetrator… the ones “found guilty” are gun owners in general. As I have said before:

“…The most commonly used of which was a quote from then Governor Ronald Reagan when he addressed the Republican National Convention in Miami Florida on July 31, 1968 amid a time of tremendous racial turmoil which erupted in riots. The excepted says simply “We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”” 

What I am getting at is that there needs to be a drastic shift in the mentality of the American people. We can’t glorify violence on a daily basis and we can’t assign blame to those who had nothing to do with the crime. We have to return to a society that accepts individual responsibility and promotes self-reliance. Too often, people are blaming others for crimes, addiction, health issues, financial situations, living conditions, and limited employment opportunities. We need to take responsibility for our own lives.

Education is fundamental to a healthy and thriving society but the idea that institutionalized settings are the only place that offer this is a misconception that is continuously perpetuated in every political circle. In this instance, on this topic, people need to be familiar with firearms and have at least a basic understanding. This used to be part of growing up and it was slowly strangled from the consciousness of the schools. We need to teach children and adults not just about how a firearm operates but also, and more importantly, proper gun safety. Firearms should be respected not something that should be feared or, even worse, painted as an innocuous piece of video game memorabilia.

These things would take time but, per the request above, what can be done NOW? My stance is rather simple in this regard. What we need to do is enforce the volumes of laws that are already on the books before any other measures should even be considered. Besides, overzealous kneejerk local laws work so well, right? Additionally, we need to spend the money allocated, through legislation, to improve the NICS system. By the way, it was signed into law by President Bush. Here is an overview that I previously wrote:

“Lastly, the other part of this whole equation that is being overlooked is the fact that even when bills are passed, they are not being enforced and/or the funding is not being spent (i.e. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System). The NICS Improvement Amendment Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2008 with the explicate mission to improve the background check system in this country. The law, endorsed by the NRA by the way, allocated Congress $1.3 Billion to improve record keeping in states which would allow greater transparency and improve the Federal gun background check system. To date nearly 90 percent of funding has never been spent and the Obama administration will further reduce spending from its peak in 2015 of $78 million down to $55 million in the President’s 2016 budget request.”

This is something that really bothers me as it seems as though the intentional “spenddown” is being leveraged to paint a completely different story about the system and the way it should be working. Again, even the positive actions taken are spun to accommodate a political objective. After all, if you improve the system you can’t blame it and try to pass additional legislation.

The final “recommendation” I would make is that we need to increase the penalties associated with crimes (violent or nonviolent) with a firearm. I’m talking decades not simply years. Basically, instead of the mandatory minimums for drugs, why don’t we change things up and have mandatory minimums for these crimes. This would also apply to those using something (i.e. a toy) to misconceive people in thinking they had a firearm. Those found guilty of straw purchasing (including members of the media) should be brought up on criminal charges. Those found in possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated need to be penalized as well.

Lastly, we need to eliminate gun free zones. They have been proven time and again to be ineffectual. In fact, rather than offering real protection they have presented wicked people with targets of opportunity. In addition to the multitudes of accounts, police reports, and stories about firearms being used to stop crime even the CDC has noted in one of their own studies that the use of firearms in “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Again, we need to be more self-reliant and willing to take control of our own lives in every situation rather than relying on the faux fairy dust sprinkle around certain places in the community.

So, let us review.

What is the current situation that we find ourselves in?

• Violence is a Part of the Real World
• PEW: Gun Violence in Decline
• CDC: Self Defense is an Important Crime Deterrent
• Mental Health Resources are Lacking
• Government is NOT Spending Allocated Funds on NICS
• Firearms Education is Lacking
• More Gun Laws are Ineffectual

What needs to be done to address the problems crippling our society?

• Increased Focus On Mental Health
• Firearms Education (with Particular Focus On Safety)
• Reintroduce Self Reliance and Self Sufficiency
• Stop Assigning Blame to Others
• Acknowledge and Refute Media Bias
• Use The Funds Allocated To Improve NICS
• Increase Penalties for Crimes Committed with Firearms
• Eliminate Gun Free Zones

Of course, these are just some of the thoughts that came to mind over the past week since being presented with the original question. Again, I didn’t say that they would necessarily agree with my perspective on the topic but I hope that I have been able to answer their question. If you have a question or request, on this topic or others, please feel free to contact me or comment below. You never know, I may end up writing on that topic.

Firearms Friday: Come And Taken It!

Late last year I was introduced to Para Ordinance. As I previously wrote, I was not a big proponent of the 1911 platform before that time. While I didn’t have anything really against the design it was still a higher price point and, for the most part, one that had limited capacity. Para Ordinance changed that perception for me and early this year my perception of Para Ordinance was altered as well and in a very good way.

Like many firearms manufacturers, Para provides firearms for the movie industry. It is for this reason that you sometimes see different firearms in movies when you know that the police force that is being portrayed does not issue that manufacturer. This has always been the financial game that Hollywood has played… it is all about product placement.

However, Hollywood in general has always had a tenuous relationship with the firearms industry with many of the stars of the movies having very loud and opinionated views on firearms ownership. Case in point, Liam Neeson’s interview in late January with Dubai-based Gulf News during a promotional tour to tout his recent film Taken 3 which he said the following:

“First off, my thoughts and prayers and my heart are with the deceased, and certainly with all of France, yesterday. I’ve got a lot of dear friends in Paris.”

“There’s too many guns out there. Especially in America. I think the population is like, 320 million? There’s over 300m guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a disgrace. Every week now we’re picking up a newspaper and seeing, ‘Yet another few kids have been killed in schools.’”

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion even if they don’t have all the facts. Most of the time, this would be the end of the story but Para Ordinance decided to take a stand. Shortly after the interview went to print, the firearms manufacturer posted a response on their Facebook page:

“PARA USA regrets its decision to provide firearms for use in the film Taken 3. While the film itself is entertaining, comments made by its Irish-born star during press junkets reflect a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties. We will no longer provide firearms for use in films starring Liam Neeson and ask that our friends and partners in Hollywood refrain from associating our brand and products with his projects. Further, we encourage our partners and friends in the firearms industry to do the same.”   

The firearms industry and all those who support the right of firearms ownership shouldn’t let such brash comments go without a response and the stance that Para Ordinance has taken is one that we should all support. Hopefully other manufacturers will join suit and instead support those who support the firearms industry and our rights as a whole. After all, this country does not and never has had a gun problem, we have a problem with those people that have deep seeded issues that perpetuate the violence. I was a new fan of Para Ordinance before and now, so long as they hold their ground, I will be a lifelong fan.

This Is Not A Fleetwood Mac Song

If you ask someone if they have ever lied and they say no you know that they are lying. It is one of those things in life that we all do it as one point or another. Some tell little lies (try to get that Fleetwood Mac song out of your head now, I dare you) usually to protect someone else’s feelings while other people tell lies that are so large that they are simply unforgivable. Of course, most of the instances of uncalled BS are in the middle and I can deal with them.

Things seem to have shifted lately as there seems to be piles of bovine feces beginning to pile up all around me. But what smells more is the stench coming from the rotten cores of the people spewing these self-centered and vile piles of steer stew. It is so bad that I have found myself choking and trying to find some fresh air whenever I have been around them. These people lie not only to make themselves look better but make you look worse at the same time… we all know people like that.

But, there is some light in the situation. Some of these people are just having moments when situations are getting to them. These times will pass, things will return to normal, and I should be able to trust them again in the near future. However, there are some people that seem to never change or that have reverted to some old and nasty ways. Even if there is something going on in their life, there is no excuse for those actions. But there is a bright spot to this too because now I know and I can avoid them and, more importantly, protect my child from them in the future.

The most amusing part of this post right now is that I know a handful of people who have already become so offended that they are not even reading these words that I am writing right now. It doesn’t matter if it was meant for them or not, they think it does so they have long since closed out this page and are now steeping in their own little world waiting for the boiling point to come and the hatred to spew from their fingers. Come to think of it, this could be fun seeing how far out of context things have been taken and what drastic assumptions have been make. Things might have just gotten very interesting.