Well, my Day Job came to an end today; I turned in my laptop and my key cards and RSA token and signed paperwork and shook my supervisor's hand and I was done. Braunbeck had a very good interview at the Franklin Park Conservatory just two hours afterward and we're hopeful. If he gets this gig, that plus my mentoring at Seton Hill will give us some breathing room. I'll have some freedom to hunt for work that I want to do rather than have to scramble to find the first job I can do.

And also I'll have some time to work on novels for a change. Getting writing done isn't just a matter of time management. It's also energy management. It's hard to get the work done when you've already spent all your juice doing something else that day. The job I just left was a very decent job, but it was not something I'd ever intended to do with my life, and it regularly left me with an energy deficit. I was making a living but not making much progress on any of my greater life goals. And that started to chafe after a while.

It's a little scary, and it was a hard decision to make, but right now it feels like the right choice. I don't have enough time left on the planet to stay in a holding pattern. I have to move forward.

On an unrelated note, I was driving us back from dinner at the Columbus Brewing Co. We were headed up North High Street in Worthington when a deer leaped out in front of my car. I utterly did not expect a deer in that part of the city. I hit the brakes, but clipped the poor thing. It scrambled off to the side, and it took me a couple of blocks to get turned around. We drove back by the site, looking for the deer; I was going to call the wildlife rehab center if I saw it was hurt.

But apparently it got to safety; I'd have felt bad if I'd injured or killed it. We checked my car later; no dents or scratches or blood. So, a lucky close call for both of us, it seems.

What is an “assault rifle”? Is it any rifle used in an assault? Why yes, yes it is, even an air rifle could be an assault rifle. Actually, in World War Two an Austrian bicycle maker made an air rifle to take on Nazis, and the gun was effective up to 100 yards. Even today, an American company is supplying collation troops with a 9mm PCP air powered sniper rifle.

So should we ban certain types of guns to prevent ‘crazed’ citizens from hurting other citizens? Under no circumstances should we; it would be like outlawing certain ‘unsafe’ sport cars because of the epidemic we are having with drunk drivers. I can hear it now, but… But a drunk driver has never killed 26 people at one time. Why yes, actually one has, Carrollton, Kentucky Bus Collision on May 14, 1988. A drunk driver named Larry Wayne Mahoney killed 27 people, and injured 34.

But why, because every tool can kill and be used as a weapon, even our words. A tool is as efficient as the user's skill set.

So should we ban the type of guns used to kill 20 little kiddies?


Well for starters, every tool can be used to assault someone, even one as simple as a pencil. I want to ask you something. Tell me which you think is worst, a bullet to the neck or a pencil, so which is more deadly?

A ninja is more deadly with a box of pencils than a child with a rifle is any day of the week. However, I am biased, but who isn't. Our perceptions though, need to be based on facts established through rational argument.

So secondly, AR15’s are a really, really, really small caliber size compared to other guns, it seriously is not much larger than a twenty-two and both the rounds are half the size of a 9mm. We are talking about three-one one-hundredths of a millimeter larger than a twenty-two. Roughly the width of a sharpened pencil.

What’s the difference between the two rounds, well, to untrained citizen the difference other than a couple one hundredths of a millimeter, is the amount of gunpowder used, as well as the shape and weight of the bullet. We could talk trajectory and how the .223 flies on a straighter path. This does make the round more accurate, but the question if it is more deadly, I would have to say only slightly since deadly deals with being able to contact the target, but we are back to the point about a user's skill set. I guess you can say an AR15 is more deadly because its maximum effective range dwarfs that of the 'typical' twenty-two round, but since we are talking most killings are at close range that point is invalid. At that range a rock flung from a sling has the same killing power. How deadly a projectile is really relies on the amount of kinetic energy at the point of impact. And a .22 centerfire at 60 grains is traveling at nearly 1,050 feet per second at 200 yards from the muzzle. Let's just say that is sufficient enough to bring down a deer. We could bring things like the physics of mass traveling through space and time to assume the potential kinetic energy the given objects at relative distances, but we have imaginations and we can look at this realistically and not mathmatically. Which does more damage, the bullet that will most likely become lodged in a bone or the one that bounces off the bone and acts like a pinball inside a chest cavity? It is debatable isn’t it, but with both of these examples there isn't a clear aggressor. It all eventually comes down to dumb luck and perfect timing.

Actually, ninety percent of the modifications and developmental concepts behind the AR15 and the .223 round are for accuracy, reliability and not damage. Take an AK47 round, it will most likely destroy a human with one shoot, ripping through the person and boring itself deep into whatever lies behind the target. That is exactly what it was intended when it was being designed. An AR15 slices through leaving the body’s internal organs intact, destroying less on its path, making it so the wounded solider must be carried off the battlefield. This tactic removes more opposing personal from the fight, and hence the fact, the .223 round is actually a lifesaver and more humane by design, not accident. The AR15 is also sometimes called the Barbie doll gun, not because it is light and it can be dismantled and put it back together by a little girl but because there so many scopes, lasers and other attachments to improve the accuracy of the user, and it was designed so they can all fit on to one gun. It is also so versatile the barrel can even be swapped out for different caliber sizes without any major adjustments.

Taking this little bit of information, except the part about dragging off the wounded, you can now see why the AR15, specifically, is widely used for hunting worldwide. An animal taken down by this round will have less meat ruined due to the caliber size. I know hog hunters that love their AR15 because they are durable and it can with stand the hard knocks coming from trudging through thick shrubbery. When hunting those beasts, a second tap is needed due to a deflected bullet from the surrounding brush, and because those little buggers like to charge with their razor sharp tusks, imagine taking that second shot with a bolt action. It can be done, you might have to scurry up a tree first, or better yet have a gun with a gas powered cartridge ejection system like the one found on the AR15.

Now, let us focus on the real definition of an assault rifle. A weapon used for assault purposes depends namely on the rate of fire. That is it. There are already significant regulations prohibiting automatic and burst capable guns. Any semi-auto can be modified to have fully-auto capabilities, but if a gunsmith makes the mod, governmental paper work will ensue.

So now that I have semi-clarified the situation but by no means has it been exhausted, I ask how does a piece of paper sitting in a file cabinet save lives? How does preventing honest people from buying a certain gun save lives? Do you really think the government can stem the supply when they can’t even prevent drugs from reaching the street? Wouldn't this lead to people with guns that are even more dangerous on the street? There are many other questions that can be asked about self-protection, entertainment, and civil liberties but do I really need to repeat those questions, or have you heard them enough already?

Gun control is best developed through educational resources and not by regulation. There isn’t a single law on the books that protects people from a crime, all laws are designed to punish people after the fact. Education is the only thing that protects people, just look at sexual education in public school. I think the teenage pregnancy rate dropping should support my argument.


Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.