Author: thewriterinblack

As long as people continue to argue for creating victim-disarmament zones, free-fire zones for criminals, then criminals will continue to take advantage of them to kill people in job lots and mass murders will continue.  Banning particular weapons will not stop that.

The first high-profile “school shooting” was the Texas Tower Sniper. He didn’t use any “high-power assault weapons” (the .223 used in AR and similar rifles is actually fairly weak as rifle rounds go–don’t believe what the media tells you; check the ballistics for yourself), “high capacity”, rapid fire” (one round per trigger pull is not any more “rapid fire” than a Smith & Wesson revolver and 30 rounds has been standard capacity for more than 50 years in AR pattern rifles) weapons that scares the pants of media and anti-gun pundits. He used ordinary hunting rifles. (Mind you, when the hoplophobes get around to going after them, they call them “high-power sniper guns”.)

The highest death toll school massacre in US history didn’t use guns at all. It used explosives.

The Happy Land Fire, which killed 90 people, as the name would suggest didn’t use guns at all. It used fire.

The largest mass murder in US history didn’t use guns. It used fertilizer and fuel oil.  Yes, they now include “tracer” chemicals in ammonium nitrate fertilizer so that they can track the source of the material if it’s used as an explosive.  How effective that would be to stop a “blaze of glory” type common in spree killings is left as an exercise for the student.

And even if guns somehow were the magic “death wands” that anti-gun folk think, you really think you can keep them away from someone determined to cause harm? The US Army has a training manual on improvised weapons that includes firearms and explosives  Yes, how to make both using “ordinary” materials one might obtain at the local hardware store is described, in detail, in the manual.

It’s available online.

For free.

I have it in PDF as do a lot of other people.

The simplest repeating firearm to make (given current knowledge) is an open-block, auto-only (no select fire, no semi-auto mode) submachine gun. Some springs, some rod, some pipe in a couple of different sizes, and some sheet metal and scrap to make odds and ends, and an evening or two’s work. I haven’t done it, but I know how. (I am stopped by its being illegal.  Someone willing to commit mass murder would already have proven they are not stopped by something being illegal.) I’m nowhere near unique in that.

And even if you went all the way back to cap and ball revolvers.  These are not Federally regulated at all BTW, being considered “antiques”.   Replicas are also not regulated.  Well, there’s nothing to keep from stuffing a half dozen to a dozen such revolvers in ones belt or hanging off bandoleers (covered by a jacket, perhaps, until one is ready to shoot. (I am a writer and thinking through scenarios like this is part of what I do: “how could my character…”). “The Outlaw Josey Wales” has an awesome bit near the end where Josey (played by Clint Eastwood) draws revolver out of revolver (most “cap and ball”) from his clothing. The revolvers are empty and the “click, click, click…” change revolver “click, click, click…” change is very dramatic. (Note: I present this as an illustration, not “evidence.” There’s nothing stopping someone from carrying a bunch of “low capacity” firearms and using them one after the other.)

Or consider someone with a satchel full of single-shot zip guns–cheap and easy to make.  Fire, drop, grab the next.  Repeat.

Thus, no amount of disarming of innocent people will stop “bad guys” from getting the means to perform mass murder if that is their goal. The solution must lie elsewhere.  But so long as people keep focusing on the specific tools used by the spree killer, we’re distracted from even looking for the real causes of the problem.

It’s been less than a year since I originally posted this on this blog, but it seems the idea is coming around again.

It’s always frustrating to me when I see a “gun rights supporter” buy into the “we just want reasonable gun control” lie.  I’ve dealt with part of that, the “nobody wants to take your guns” claim elsewhere.  The questions you need to ask somebody who claims that is “how much is reasonable?  Where is the line?  At what point do you turn around and say ‘no more’? How far does it have to go before you’d agree we need to roll back the restrictions?” And then, take any answer they give you with a grain of salt because, frankly, whenever they’ve gotten a “we just want this” restriction they merely used that as a springboard for more.

One of the tactics the anti-gun folk use to great effect against us is “divide and conquer.” By going after one small segment of the gun community while assuring others that their guns are safe (at least for now), they get a large number of gun owners to sit back and essentially let them chip away at the 2nd Amendment. So we have the following:

First they came for the bump stocks
but I didn’t speak up because they are silly pieces of crap just useful for wasting ammunition.

Then they came for the “assault weapons” (again)
but I didn’t speak up because who needs an assault weapon?

Then they came for the open carriers
but I didn’t speak up because those people frighten the anti-gunners.

Then they came for the Saturday Night Specials,
but I didn’t speak up because they’re just junk guns.

Then they came for the high capacity magazines,
but I didn’t speak up because I only need a few rounds in the tube

Then they came for all the handguns,
but I didn’t speak up because I don’t use a handgun to hunt

Then they came for the High Powered Sniper Rifles,
but I didn’t speak up because I don’t use one of those.

When they came for the shotguns and muzzleloaders,
there was no one left to speak up.

Folks, the anti-gun crowd are not going to leave you alone. Just because they aren’t going after you today, just because they claim that they support your “right to hunt,” don’t be fooled. They say we need to “compromise” but we’ve been compromising since 1934. The ink isn’t even dry on each new “agreement” before they are talking about the “next step.” Each time you fail to support some portion of the community of law-abiding gun owners, you weaken yourself against the time they eventually come after you.

It’s time to stop compromising. Compromise is a strategy of weakness, of minimizing the effect of a losing position.  We haven’t been on the losing side since the mid 90’s.

It’s time to get back our rights.

So the ATF under the Trump Administration has unilaterally changed the definition of “machine gun” to include a firearms accessory, specifically bump stocks, making the possession of them illegal.  There is no “grandfather clause”, there is no way to render them legal by registering them and getting the $200 NFA Tax stamp (no new machine guns could be registered after the 1986 Hughes Amendment).  That makes this not only a violation of the 2nd Amendment but also of the “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” provision of the 5th.

But the die-hard “Trump can do no wrong” crowd are claiming once again that Trump is “playing 4d Chess” and this is all part of some plan to accomplish… something. What exactly it’s supposed to accomplish, and how, is left unclear.

Look, there is no “4-D chess” here. There is no “deal.” I, for one, do not think Trump is stupid enough to buy the “give up something now in return for the promise of something in return later” so beloved of the Republican party (that the “something in return later” never materializes never seems to faze them). One does not develop a business empire of that size by being stupid and certainly not from repeatedly falling for “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today.” If he’s giving up bump stocks now it’s not in the expectation of getting something else (like, say, national reciprocity which claim I’ve heard from the “4-D chess crowd) later. No, he’s giving it up for nothing.

Doesn’t matter how much you say “Bump stocks are no big deal” or “nobody really needs a bump stock” (we back to “bill of needs” again?) or “they’re just a way to waste money while losing accuracy and actual utility.” None of that matters.  All that matters is that people are being deprived of property, and the right to own said property if they want (all the justification anyone ever needs, at least if you want a free society) for nothing, giving up liberty not even for “a little temporary safety” just for…nothing.

When Trump does things of which I approve, I’ll say so.  And when he does things of which I disapprove, I’ll say that too.  This falls squarely in the “disapprove” side.

The thing is, despite what the “Trump can do no wrong” crowd would like to believe, he has never been a fan of the 2nd Amendment (or the 4th, or the 5th, or the 1st, or…) As just one example, while he was campaigning he was more than willing to throw semi-automatic rifles under the bus after the Pulse Nightclub shooting.

He’s not a fan of the 2nd. Never was. Pretending otherwise is naive in the extreme. Now, it’s possible that the Supreme Court Justices he’s appointed–Goresuch and Kavenaugh–might be, but that’s purely incidental. If they are (I don’t know enough about their history to say for certain.  And even if they were before it’s not unheard of for a Justice to change once ascending to the Supreme Court) he appointed them despite that, not because of that.

So buckle up and hold your hats, folk who actually care about liberty. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

In baseball, the change-up is a pitch a bit slower than the fastball.  The batter, expecting the fastball, swings early and WHOOSH.  Strike-three.  You’re out.

In writing, however, I use the term “change up” to mean a significant shift in mood.  TV tropes calls it “Mood Whiplash” and “Mood Dissonance”.

Joss Whedon is a master of it. (See Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog as a good example.)

The Change Up is an important tool in fiction.  Let me give you an example, not from fiction writing itself but one that illustrates the point.

When I first got an MP3 player, I loaded it up with my absolute favorite songs.  Now, at the time, my tastes ran to rather sentimental love songs and ballads.  Soon I had a playlist consisting of all my very favorite songs.

Only one problem.  The playlist was boring.  There wasn’t anything wrong (for my tastes at the time) with any of the songs on It–remember, they were all among my top favorites–but the same basic themes and styles over and over again became monotonous.  The fix, in that case was simple, to go further down my list of favorites and find some music with different styles and different themes to add to the mix.  The result was a far more interesting, and less boring, play list.

I find the same thing happening in fiction.  I like gritty, realistic military SF.  Such fiction often tends to be grim.  But the fiction I’ll come back to, the series I’ll stick with, and the writers I will continue to follow, are those who add a bit of lightness to the mix–humor, perhaps, or maybe some romance.  Likewise with the lighthearted comedic stuff.  The occasional more “serious” subplot or set of episodes can help keep interest high.

So don’t be afraid to mix it up a bit.  Add some levity to your dark and gritty story.   Get serious occasionally in your lighthearted comedy.  You may find your story all the better for it.

Young people hear this all the time, particularly when they’re adopting something–some style, some hobby, or other interest of which older folk disapprove.  And they hate it.  They know, absolutely know deep down in their heart of hearts, that far from being a “phase” their passion is a reflection of who they truly are.

And their elders, roll their eyes at the young person’s conviction remembering the many “passions” that have come and gone over the years, indeed that they themselves have experienced.  And they are certain that this strangeness is just a passing fancy that will vanish and be forgotten a year, a month, even a week hence.

Both of them need to step back and consider the other view.

Young people do go through phases.  In our complicated world it’s a natural response to the many choices available to the individual.  We no longer live in a world where if daddy was a chicken plucker, your choices are be a chicken plucker or join the clergy.  As someone for whom freedom is near and dear to my heart, I cannot help but consider the vast array of choices available to the individual a good thing.  But, to a young person growing up all of that freedom presents a bewildering array of choices.

A part, a small part, of that endless variety is reflected in fashion, in music, and in the various entertainments available to each individual.  So there is a tendency for young people to latch onto something, try it out, see if it “fits” their own makeup.  If it doesn’t, they generally soon move on to something else, their next “phase.” But sometimes it does.  And when it does, and they recognize that it does (more on that in a moment), it’s not a phase any more, but an expression of their individual self as they understand it.

Of course, the young person in the midst of their latest “phase” is absolutely certain that it’s not a phase, that it’s who they’re really are.  And the parents?  They’re absolutely certain when the young person finds “who they are” that this one, too, is “just a phase.”  But, neither one can really tell until after the dust settles and everyone realizes this “phase” has lasted a long time indeed.

(And you parents who are worried that your child will be “led astray” by this fashion and music and what have you?  If you’ve done your job of instilling values from an early age and you continue to provide a nurturing environment with reasonable limits and not drive them away by automatic rejection of their attempts to grow into their own persons, I think you’ll find those early lessons paying off.  And if you didn’t?  Then it’s probably far too late to do it now and most ham-handed attempts will only make the matter worse.)

Now sometimes, a young person will find that “fit” but, lacking experience, not recognize it and get drawn away into something else, another “phase.”  But in some cases they can simply be talked out of it by others.  Take my own example where I was convinced to abandon my own early flirtation with Goth(ish) style because “if you want to be attractive to the ladies, you need to start wearing bright colors.” The end result can be living your entire life vaguely dissatisfied and not sure why.  To some that may seem a little thing and, in the grand scheme of things perhaps it is.  But there’s more than enough misery and dissatisfaction in the world.  Why add to it?

And note, this is not to say that one can or even should spend ones whole life chasing that perfect “fit” which may never come.  And yes, you do have to take into account practical matters, matters like keeping a roof over ones head and food on ones table. (I am lucky to work at a place where my “style” is accepted.  If I did not, well, I’d have to dress and groom to “fit” at work and save my personal style for my personal time.)

But if you have that vague dissatisfaction that you can’t identify, maybe look back at your own “phases” and see if you gave up something that perhaps you should not have.  And if you have found that good fit, music that “speaks” to you, a style that you love, grab onto it.  There may be times when you have to dress and style for others, or even for your own safety (dangly earrings and necklaces and machine tools do not go together) and that’s part of life.  But when your time is your own?  Indulge.

We can’t always follow our dreams.  My dream growing up was to be an astronaut and walk on other worlds.  Well, even if my eyesight hadn’t eliminated the chance of being an astronaut at the time (since then possibilities have opened, but they weren’t available then) the fact of the matter was that no “walk on other worlds” opportunities were available.

We can’t always follow our dreams.  Okay, fair enough.

Just don’t forget to bring them along.

From a project currently in edits toward release:

---

Starships do not run on Helium three, Li Zhang, owner and captain of the free trader Jin Long, thought, but on paper, or rather its electronic analog. At least the three hours he’d spent in his office had allowed him to finish the various forms he would need on arrival at Chiktaka, including fuel usage reports, a note on the wormhole trap flutter and the effect it had on fuel use, pingback readings from various navigational beacons along their route, all to show that they had not deviated from their flight plan.

The Eres did not want outsiders wandering.  The headaches were why most small traders preferred not to deal in Eres space.  That, of course, was what made runs into Eres space so profitable for traders like Li who would brave the shoals of bureaucracy.

The comm on his desk pinged.

“Li,” he said.

“Coll, Skipper,” Brenda Coll, Li’s engineering chief said. “We still haven’t heard anything from Chiktaka since the recorded message.  I’m getting a bit concerned.”

Li glanced up at the chrono. “I can see why.  Any explanations?”

“I kind of pointed our sensors insystem.”

“Uh, Brenda, Eres policy?  You want to bring a Lesser Claw down on our heads?”

“Passives only, I swear.  The system primary shows signs of recent flare activity which could have affected insystem comms but…look, could you switch on your office holo and let me slave it.”

Li tapped a few keys on the computer console built into his desk and the front half of his office filled with a holographic display.

That’s a lot of traffic,” Li said as he read the various icons. “More than I’d expect from what I know about Chiktaka.”

“More than that,” Coll said. “Let me put up the extracted course data.”

Coll had served as an engineer in the Terran fleet during the last war but had experience as a Tac officer as well.  She knew how to squeeze information out of a ship’s sensors.

Lines extruded from the icons representing ships.  More than half of those ships were headed outsystem, not just outsystem, but….

“They’re heading our way.”

“Close enough” Coll said, “contra-parallel to our course.  Now look as I project forward….”

The icons moved; the seemingly random positions and speeds coalesced into a clear formation by the time they reached….

“They’ll have us surrounded.”

“Yes, sir.” Coll paused. “Skipper, maybe I’m overreacting, but may I suggest we get the hell out of Dodge?”

“Thank you, Brenda.  I think you’re right.”

I was trying to do a cover render yesterday which tied up my computer (and ultimately failed) so no post yesterday.  Sorry.

Some years ago when A Certain Politician said “It’s not time to party like it’s 1773” media pundits laughed saying This Politician did not know when the revolution started.  However, That Politician did know when the Boston Tea Party occurred–something those media pundits apparently did not.

The road to to the Boston Tea Party began with The Townshend Acts of 1767 which established, among other things, a tax on tea imported to the American Colonies.  These acts were eventually repealed, but the tax on tea remained.  Fast forward to May 10, 1773.  The Tea Act permitted the British East India Company to sell tea without paying those taxes, giving it a competitive advantage over other merchants.  This was essentially a “bailout” of the British East India Company which was struggling, partly because of competition from tea smuggled from the Netherlands where taxes were much lower.  Rather than accept that this import tariff idea of 25% was just bad economics, they instead simply relieved the British East India company from the burden of the tax. (well, Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations was still a few years in the future and Mercantilism was in full swing.  Rather than counting the wealth of the nation as the sum total of goods and services available to its people it counted it as gold in the treasury and only counted the upper classes rather than the population as a whole.  So perhaps they could be forgiven for not understanding economics that had not yet been developed.)

In essence, what the Tea Act did was allow the British East India company to ignore the import duty in England, and to deal directly with the colonies.  The duties collected in the colonies, imposed by the Townshend acts, were retained.  Still, by reducing one level of taxation it reduced the overall cost allowing the British East India Company to sell its tea more cheaply, both in England and in the colonies, than competitors.

In the American Colonies there were two primary complaints about the Tea Act.  The first was the belief that the tax violated their rights as Englishmen to “no taxation without representation.” The taxes were passed by the British Parliament in which the colonies were not represented. The second problem was more practical:  the British East India Company was being given a special advantage over domestic colonial importers.

When the Tea Act was passed, retaining the tax on tea imported into the colonies, there were warnings that this might lead to another colonial controversy (said colonies already proving restive under what they considered rather high-handed British rule).  Former Chancellor of the Exchequer William Dowdeswell, for example, warned that the Americans would not accept the tea if the Townshend duty remained.

The warnings were not heeded.  The Tea Act went into force.

But notice something there.  The Tea Act did not increase the taxes paid by the American Colonists.  The tax on tea was simply retained.  Indeed, colonists could pay less if they simply bought the tea imported by the British East India company.  They were being given lower taxes…if they bought tea from that one company.

If.

So it wasn’t paying taxes the colonists objected to.  It was that dual pair of issues:  no taxation without representation and the bailout of the “official” corporation at the expense of others. (I guess Parliament thought the British East India Company was “too big to fail”. History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.)

Protests continued from the passing of the Tea Act in May into the fall.  In late November, the tea ship Dartmouth arrived in Boston Harbor.  American Patriots, including Whig leader Sam Adams, met and organized essentially a boycott of the tea, watching to block any attempt to unload the cargo.  They argued to have the ship depart, with its tea, without paying the duty.  Loyalist governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, however, refused to allow them to depart.  Two more ships arrived.  They, too, were prevented from unloading or from leaving.  December 16th arrived, the last day before which the Dartmouth must either pay the duty or have its cargo confiscated, Governor Hutchinson again refused to allow the ships to depart.

A meeting of patriots led by Sam Adams broke up.  Contemporary reports indicate that he tried to stop people from leaving as the meeting was not yet over.  Claims that his statement “This meeting can do nothing further to save the country” being a signal to start the Tea Party appears to be something invented nearly a century later.  Many of those leaving donned costumes, dressing as Mohawk warriors.  This accomplished two things:  one is that it disguised the individual features of the protesters, the other was that by choosing Native American regalia instead of simple masks, they identified with the Americas and the country then undergoing its birthing throes.

Over the course of the evening, somewhere between 30 and 130 men boarded the three vessels and dumped every chest of tea into the water.  They were very careful not to damage anything else and indeed, in one case where they broke a lock to get access to the tea they replaced the lock afterward.

Sam Adams may or may not have actively planned the Tea Party.  He certainly did take a hand in publicizing and defending it afterward.  And as a result, the Boston Tea Party became one of the major stepping stones in the rising tide of discontent in the American Colonies that led to their eventual separation from Britain.

We did the paperwork to get Athena transferred to Herron High School and she was accepted.  So far, so good.  Tonight she had her placement tests to see which classes she should take.  Next Wednesday morning is when we go in to actually schedule her classes.  We’ll know then how she did no the placement tests when we see what classes they offer/recommend for her.

Herron is a public charter school that bills itself as a Classical Liberal Arts school.  It’s rated #1 in Indianapolis, #2 in the State.

As they say on their “About” page:

Our Vision

Herron High School is founded on the belief that a classical, liberal arts education, where students are steeped in great historical thought and invention, is the best preparation for a future life of leadership and service.

Herron High School’s curriculum is structured around an art history timeline which emphasizes the classic art and literature of many cultures. Presented through the lens of science, mathematics, and humanities, this unique approach to the organization of knowledge provides a means to integrate subjects, and leads students on a journey through the earliest human history right up to modern examples of human creativity.

Herron High School’s classical methodology relies on Socratic dialogue and the classical model of education called the Trivium as its academic corner stone. The three phases of the Trivium include:

• Grammar – In this phase students acquire fundamental knowledge in all disciplines.

• Logic– As students become world-class citizens, they learn how to reason and debate. Students apply their knowledge as they discern and evaluate, compare and contrast, and discover cause and effect relationships in any given subject.

• Rhetoric – As students progress through the Trivium, they learn to apply the rules of logic to the information they have acquired. Students learn to think rationally and articulate ideas effectively.

Part of the reason for the move is, well, it’s #1 in the city, #2 in the State.  But there are other, personal reasons as well.

The buildings Herron are located in used to house the Herron School of Art and Design (part of Indianapolis University Purdue University Indianapolis–IUPUI).  Although it’s not affiliated with the art school, it still has a very strong arts program which should be good for Athena given her artistic talents (see the collection of some of her work I posted last year).

We’re looking forward to a good start at her new school.

 

Yep.  Got nuthin’ tonight so…

Musical interlude!

There is this quote that goes around attributed to American Entertainer Henry Rollins:

“Less Bullets, more brains.  The strong don’t need guns.  Guns are tools of the weak.  If you disagree with me, it’s OK, you’re wrong.”

Hidden in there is a presumption that “strong” = “good” and “weak” = “bad”.

Well, compared to the average violent thug, I am weak.  I am especially weak when it’s “thugs” plural or if the thug or thugs is/are armed whether that’s with a knife, a length of pipe, a bicycle chain, or yes, a gun.

And that’s me,  a big ugly guy who’s reasonably strong for my age and build.  But “age and build” do matter.  No, all the exercise in the world isn’t going to turn me into a world class powerlifter–the genes just aren’t there.  Even at that, it leaves aside my daughter.  5′ 4″ and 105 lbs wringing wet, as the old expression goes.  Other friends of mine range from the downright tiny to one friend who is, yeah a bit of a monster at 6′ 5″. Oh, and one guy who really is a competitive powerlifter.  But even the biggest and strongest is “weak” against a gang or even against one person who is armed.

“Weak” doesn’t mean undeserving of defense against the strong.  Do you really want to tell someone who hasn’t been blessed with a good skeletal frame and a body that responds really well to resistance training “Oh, too bad.  Sucks to be you”?

My friend, the rather slight man, does not deserve to be mugged simply because his mugger is stronger.  The boy in school doesn’t deserve to be bullied, simply because the bullies are more numerous and stronger.  And my daughter does not deserve to be raped, simply because the rapist is stronger.

Yes, guns are tools for the weak.  They are what give the weak a fighting stance against aggressors who are stronger than them.  If you really think that worshiping the strong over the weak is a good thing, I have only one thing to say to you:

Crack open a history book.

If, however, you think that justice demands that the weak, faced with a violent encounter, to return safely to their loved ones then you can’t ask for a better option than to allow them to be armed, to be armed with weapons that do not rely on strength or lifelong dedication in developing skill.

Guns take away the need for strength, for a lifetime of training.  They aren’t a panacea, of course.  They offer a fighting chance, that’s all.  But it’s a chance one wouldn’t have when faced with significantly stronger attackers.  That guns won’t always save you is no more an objection to them than that being killed in a car because debris came through your windshield is a reason for not wearing seatbelts.  They don’t have to be a panacea in order to be a good idea.

Guns are tools for the weak?  Yes.  And thank all the gods that they are.  Because they mean that the strong cannot dominate the weak.  They mean that the weak can hold their heads up and not live in fear that someone stronger might threaten them whether to take what they have or just for the perverse pleasure of doing so.

There’s a reason that the old Colt revolver was called an Equalizer.  As the couplet goes:

God made man short and tall;
Sam Colt made them equal

Or the old advertising jingle:

Be not afraid of any man
No matter what his size
When danger threatens call on me
And I will equalize.

Tools for the weak?

That, sir, is the point.