One Shot

In looking at the mass murders and gun insanity that is taking place in present day America, one wonders if there isn’t a way available to limit the loss of innocent lives, without taking away the legitimate use of guns from those who collect them and use them for sport.    The idea here is to stop the lunacy driven massacres, without punishing those not responsible.   That would be good law and the answer to it is making the only legal civilian weapon, single shot.  Let’s see how that would affect the various acceptable gun uses.

Hunting.  When I was a motorcycle dealer, during the sixties, I took a beautiful hunting rifle in trade on a motorcycle.  I am a gun collector and target shooter.  The rifle, a Remington auto-loader, 308 Winchester caliber, with a telescopic scope and beautiful wooden stock, had only been fired six times.  Five times to sight in the scope and one time, hunting, to mistakenly shoot a nine year old boy off of an ATV.  The hunter killed the boy.  Had the hunter been hunting with a single shot rifle and only had one shot to fire, the game would have been carefully stalked, better identified and the single shot would have been placed with far more care, but with this rifle, he still had four more rounds quickly available.  The nine year old he killed would today be considering his retirement and his wife and family’s future.  The hunter might still be hunting, but would be much better at it.  Most hunters would probably agree that without an easy second shot, they would be a far better hunter.  So the single shot could benefit the hunter while limiting his selection of guns.

Home defense.  All of the above applies to home defense as well.  There are far too many loved ones mistakenly injured or killed, in the act of “home defense”.  The defender, with a single shot gun, will place a well-aimed shot at an identified menacing target.  Also, from a gun safety standpoint, a single shot gun would be much harder to mistake for “empty” and cause an unintended discharge.  Many single shot guns have an exposed hammer as an additional warning of their readiness to fire.

Collectors.  It makes little or no difference to a collector, whether a gun in the collection can fire one or twenty rounds.  He or she isn't firing it, other than occasionally on a range, to test it, unless they are a hunter or target shooter, as well as a collector.

 

Target shooting.  I am a target shooter as well as a collector (gun nut).  I formed an NRA club at my high school ROTC range, in the late 50’s.  At that point in history, the NRA was primarily about gun safety, especially on the shooting range and they were very effective..  They were not a political organization or a lobbyist for gun manufacturers.  And, “We liked it that way.”  It would not be a problem for target shooters to reload their firearm after each round fired.  It may cause each round to be more carefully placed on the target.  I would prefer it and I suspect that most who use their gun in timed competition would happily agree to the competition requiring reloading after each shot, in order to ultimately end the mass murders.

Walter Mitty.  Some folks go out and spend two to five thousand dollars on something called an “assault rifle” and dress their small children in “camos”.  They would be the most damaged by a single shot civilian law.  Winning the lottery for them, I suspect, would be actual combat, that they survived, unscathed.  It is the imaginary hero in them who has played a few too many video war games.  A few even see their government as a potential threat that they are armed and ready to defend against.  These assault rifles are not great target rifles.  They have plastic stocks and short barrels and a short sight radius deeming them less accurate.  The assault weapon is not a piece of art or an example of fine craftsmanship.  The finest hunting rifles today are generally bolt action and not particularly good for rapid fire.  The auto loading hand guns pretty well fit the description of the assault rifles.  Large capacity clips, being offered by accessory manufacturers, have no logical use other than sweeping a Safeway parking lot.  There is no rational excuse for producing the large capacity clips.  In 2006 a poll of uniformed British police indicated that 82% did not wish to be armed and they aren't. Most people don’t need to be armed to live their lives.  I suppose the most common reason for “packing” is an irrational fear.  The imaginary warriors and the fearful, need to limit their favorite imagined gun pastime to video games and leave the actual guns at the sporting goods stores.

If tomorrow it were illegal to produce, sell or own a gun, other than a single shot, would the mass murders end?  No, not immediately.  You could require a simple modification to turn any gun now owned into a single shot unit, but not all people presently owning them would comply.  But, these illegal weapons would soon be too expensive and rare to be easily gotten and the homicidal lunatic who commits the mass murders would not so easily obtain them.  They would not be sold at WalMart.  Gun manufacturers and their outlets would have a whole new product market open up with the single shot legal weapon.  Gun legislation can be very effective, but it will take time to eradicate the problem of rapid fire weapons.  Have you recently heard of a silencer being used in a killing, mass or otherwise?  How about a fully automatic, machine gun?  My point is, fifty years after the gun law is implemented, it’s pretty darn effective.  Better background checks would have had little effect on the recent mass killings.  That is not to say that better background checks and psychological help to the mentally ill are not good legislation, but we would do better to limit the tools available for mass murder.   Act today to stop the problems of tomorrow.  Stand for making the rapid loading guns illegal.  It makes sense and it can be done.

Cheers, Old Buz (the gun nut)    

The Ethical Nuclear Missile

I don’t believe that it is reasonable to talk about ethics when it comes to our nuclear missile corps.  To concern yourself with drug abuse or cheating on exams, which is taking place in the Air Force missile silos, is like worrying about a terrorist bomber spitting on the sidewalk of a church before blowing it up.  The folks who spend decades in a nuclear silo are willing, if given the order, to push a button that will murder millions of innocent civilians.  If you don’t believe that this act fits the definition of “International Terrorism”, then read the definition in Chapter 113B of the US Code on the FBI Website.

The main fear of our military should be that some of the folks assigned to this task might not be psychopaths (amoral behavior without empathy or remorse).  You don’t want to have them hesitate before turning the key.  We could switch to a computer operated system, with only our President holding the key.  The problem here, of course, would be a technical failure or the wrong man in office.  A historical example of this would be the Cuban Missile Crisis.  According to Robert McNamara, Sec. of Defense, in the documentary, “The Fog of War”, President Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev calmed things down there, while Curtis LeMay and Fidel Castro were rooting to let the good times roll and destroy the planet.  Now, for one moment consider what would have happened at that time if ego-maniacs like George Bush, Jr. were our president and Putin had control of Russia.  As long as the Nuclear Missiles exist on this planet, the world’s population is subjected to International Terrorism.  The threat itself constitutes terrorism.  Ask yourself, “Why is it OK for the US to present a nuclear threat to the world, when it is not OK for Iran to present one?”  Please don’t answer, “Because Iran would use them”, as you know, we already have.

I sat by the pool at a party with a retired man who spent his Air Force career in a missile site.  I asked him if he was given any psychological testing before being given the assignment.  His answer was, “No”.  Could our military have been dumb enough to have not submitted this man to significant testing before giving him this assignment?  The job requires a psychopath in order to expect him or her to carry out the assignment.  I mean, to sit there and contemplate the act, for decades, of pushing the button and killing millions, requires a very special person.  I did not throw him in the pool, and then drown him.  I decided … that was God’s job.

So, you live in a democracy.  What are we going to do about this lunacy?  Are we willing to support it, while skimping on Head Start?  Hell yes we are.  “Take your place on the great mandala ...” – Peter Yarrow.   Do you have any comments?

Cheers, Old Buz

"The End Days"

This is an emergency blog posting.  I read in the paper this morning that Learjet is laying off 1,700 employees.  Their market is the one percenters and they are buying fewer Learjets.  This development is akin to the parakeet of the American Nation dropping dead.  Learjet is a bellwether of the health of our CEOs’ wealth.  The decision goes something like this:  “Well, do I need a third Learjet or can I get along with two?”  It is very similar to the decision my wife and I are faced with.  We each have a car.  One is a Chevrolet Malibu, the other a Ford Taurus.  Both are over a decade old and were purchased used.  There is no public transportation in our little town, but the question is, how much will we save by sharing a vehicle and can we get along with only one?

The lower income one percenter, is faced with the decision of if he or she can afford one Learjet.  The unacceptable alternative to the Private Learjet is traveling by first class on commercial airlines.  To the person of extreme wealth, this would be like a trip to Quartzite, Arizona in a Greyhound Bus.  Learjet’s marketing and engineering people have tried to make the purchase much more rational.  Their new product, the “35A”, gets just over 2 miles per gallon while cruising.  This is termed “low fuel burn” by Lear and the unit is only sucking 197 gallons of fuel per hour.  Don’t try to tell me that the wealthy are not concerned about the planet.

To make matters worse for Learjet, Humvee is offering an alternative to this market, for ground transportation.  The new offering is called the FED or “Alpha” and is claimed to be70% more fuel efficient than the unit it replaces.  It averages an astounding 6.8 mpg.  This is over three times the Learjet's mileage.  With competition like this, it is little wonder that Learjet is having a hard time in the conspicuous consumption market.  What the Humvee lacks in fuel mileage, it more than makes up for in lack of seating capacity and lack of storage area.  This vehicle is normally purchased by a macho, very wealthy person, with a very small penis.  It compensates nicely.  The question is, when you drive by in your Humvee, why are people on the sidewalk always laughing?

The issue here is why is a lowering of the Learjet market a bellwether for “End of Days?”  Obviously, if the richest one percent has to cut back, given the trickledown theory, you and yours are done for.  With 99% of the market gone, the remaining one percent is doomed as well.  Who will hang their clothes?

(I apologize to the 1,700 who are losing their jobs for my making light of it.  But you have to admit that you serve a strange market in a strange economy.  By the way, do any of you folks being laid off own a Learjet?)

Cheers, Old Buz

Cats & Rats

A friend sent me a video the other day featuring a cat and a small rat.  The rat approached the cat while the cat was at its water dish.  I watched the video a couple of times and saw that the cat caught a glimpse of the rat approaching, over his shoulder.  The cat took no immediate action and the rat jumped on the cat’s tail, and then proceeded to chase the cat from the room.   What was wrong with this video?  Lots of things.  Cats and rats don’t get along.  Cats don’t let rats sneak up on them.  Rats don’t chase cats.  I’m sure I could continue the list, but as it was shown later in the video, they were good friends and were having a great time playing together.

The question is, if small brained critters can learn to benefit from each other’s company, why can’t large brained critters like Israelis and Palestinians learn to do the same?  I don’t mean to point a finger at the Middle East here; you can ask the same question about cowboys and Indians.  The Crusades.   Your cave and my cave.  The Others.  Them and us.  So, what advantages do the cat and the rat have in remaining peaceful with each other and benefitting from each other’s company?  Damn!?

Well, for one thing, the cat and the rat know each other.  Our warriors know each other too, but don’t realize it.  The guy in both uniforms is fighting for God, Country, his family, his freedom.  When he aims his weapon, he is aiming at himself.  That should not be hard to learn and understand, especially with our methods of communication now available.

 

Another reason that the cat and the rat can get along is that neither is starving.  There are people starving on our planet, but with the present technology, that is not necessary.  If we turn “swords into plowshares” we can feed the planet.  Oh, hell yes we can.  So humans can be as peaceful as cats and rats, if they will get to know each other and enjoy reasonable creature comforts.  No more kill counts, we are talking about individual human beings, like yourself.

That seems too simple.  Problem is we have insane greed and psychopaths among our number.  There are folks who enjoy causing extreme pain and others willing to become wealthy at the cost of the lives of many or a nation.  There are soldiers sitting in missile silos ready to push a button that will kill millions of innocent civilians that they don’t know or have any interest in.  They have been sitting there for decades.  Just give them the order.  We just bombed Iraq back into the Stone Age and no one can give you a valid reason why.  We don’t even ask any longer.  So, how about we do some learning from the cat and the rat.

Cheers, Old Buz

We Are #1

We are number one.  Perhaps not in healthcare or education, a long way from it, but the United States is the #1 consumer nation in the world and it isn’t even close.  Japan is second, with less than a third of our consumption and Germany is third with less than a fifth.  We consume a little less than a third of what the entire world consumes and that is with less than a twentieth of the world’s population.  So take a little pride, consumers.  Consumption is power.  Perhaps more power to improve the world than our military has. 

 Right now our power of consumption is creating 1%ers and abused laborers all over our planet, particularly at home.  With a little thought and a little planning, we could accomplish the opposite.  A better world for all.  Even the wealthy would probably rather live in the foothills, above a middle income community, than above a slum.  I mean, one has to go to the market unless a servant does the shopping for you.

Our present creative consumer malice is best exemplified in the big box stores.  Volume flows to the lowest price.  This translates into the creation of slave-like working conditions and wages for the third world nations that strive to own the big box market.  The cheap labor in Mexico loses its jobs to the cheaper labor in India.  Only the CEOs and top managers in these sweat shops earn a living wage.  The American worker cannot compete, nor can our manufacturers.  Sounds like a free market driven world and it is.  We are describing a down spiral of world wages and living conditions.  Our middle class real earnings are falling.  We have an unfavorable balance of trade.  Can the down spiral be stopped?  Hell yes.  The world’s greatest consumer nation has the power.  We need to use it.

How about we power an up spiral instead of the down one we presently sponsor?  If a foreign manufacturer wishes to be certified to export goods to The United States, they must pay all of their employees, at least, our minimum wage.  That rule would apply to their suppliers as well.  Our workers would then exist on a more level playing field.  Our production facilities would be more competitive.  Better paid foreign workers would become a viable market for our manufactured goods.  Better paid workers, with lower unemployment are less likely to be snookered into a war.  Our brave young soldiers could be converted into brave young auditors, making sure that the certified exporters are, in fact, paying their employees a fair living wage.  They would be armed with lap tops, rather than assault rifles.  This would not be forced on the employers.  Certification would be a choice.

You are going to pay a little more for goods with this system in place.  But it will increase living standards the world over.  Retail price competition will not disappear, as well it shouldn’t.  This program will not harm the people of any nation.  “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

Cheers, Buz

A Fair Minimum Wage

It is unfortunate that we must legislate a minimum wage.  Some large corporations would rather pay their workers less.  In a better world an employer greets each employee at the door each morning, can look them in the eye and pays a wage that will provide adequate food, shelter, clothing and transportation for the employee and their family.  Anything below ten dollars per hour cannot possibly accomplish this.   For a fair wage, the employer has a right to expect an honest day’s work from the employee.  Smart employers hire good, intelligent, industrious employees, not cheap ones.  Good employees create good profits.  A major problem is that the employer is often a casino in New York named Wall Street and the players have no interest whatsoever in the employees or in the long term health of our economy.  All decisions in our present market driven economy are made for the short term maximization of profit.  But, a middle class that is doing well is very good for the top 10% of income earners.  They are called the major market and drive the economy.  Middle income earners have some discretional income to spend.  The low wage earner has little discretion over how they spend income and the top one percent earner’s spending is simply obscene.  Individual competition for higher income rather than greater results is not productive.  Our bank CEOs have recently proven that.

A more effective legislative action than a legal minimum wage would be a legal maximum wage.  According to a “trickle down” theory, this would free up billions of dollars to working Americans; and even an intelligent theory would agree.   A figure like five hundred thousand dollars per year, maximum, would supply a high income person with an excellent standard of living and a reasonable incentive to produce.  There is a misconception that the great commercial producers, athletes, artists, financiers and surgeons do what they do for the insane incomes that they receive.  Any super effective producer is primarily motivated by satisfaction earned from the fruits of their efforts and yes, those who benefit the society deserve to be well compensated.  The need to have the highest income in one’s sport or their field will never be satisfied.  You would probably opt to add great educators to the well paid.  We live in a strange values society that pays the president of a top notch university several times less than it pays the university’s football coach.  If the maximum legal wage were $500,000 a year, do you think that a LeBron James, a Brad Pitt or a Bill Gates would be willing to do what they love, for that figure?  You know they would, as long as no one earned more.  You wouldn’t miss a thing currently being created nor would the country suffer.  It would bloom.

A fair minimum wage, scaled to the local cost of living, along with a reasonable maximum wage designed to minimize conspicuous consumption and spread the wealth, would be thoughtful legislation.  Thoughtful legislation couldn’t hurt this country.  It might be a nice change.

Cheers, Blogger Buz

Fathers & Sons

I was in a restaurant having breakfast a week ago and two men in the booth next to me got up and left.  They appeared to be a father and son team.  The son wore an “Iraqi War Veteran” ball cap, the father a Marine Corps jacket that said “Vietnam War Veteran” on it.  Each used an aluminum cane that circled their right bicep and had a grip for the hand to grasp below.  Each had a right leg that didn’t support walking.  My view was of them walking out of the café, next to one another.  It was a very sad sight.  Father and son had traveled the same road.  I wondered if the younger man had a son that will soon be ready to go.  Is there a lesson to be taken from that scene? 

Upon viewing these men, a song started running through my head, which I haven’t been able to get rid of.  It is Peter, Paul & Mary singing a song written by Peter Yarrow, titled, “The Great Mandala (The Wheel of Life).”  Take a listen to it on your computer.  Here are some of the lyrics.

“Take your place on The Great Mandala

as it moves through your brief moment of time.

            Win or lose now, you must choose now

and if you lose you’re only losing your life.”

The song ends with, “And it’s been going on for ten thousand years!”  Probably ten thousand years is an understatement.  We don’t have much reliable history before that.  Our leaders will always lead us into wars that serve no purpose for the soldier or the population, but the simple majority, Patriots all, will continue to support these wars with great enthusiasm.

Cheers, Old Blogger Buz, The Pacifist