Things We Need To Stop Saying, #336

Confirmation bias…is the tendency to…interpret…information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs. ~Wikipedia

Here’s Sam Elliot, in character, with some words glued to his forehead:

You know, laws against homicide do not prevent homicide. Laws against DUI do not prevent DUI. Laws against domestic abuse do not prevent domestic abuse. I could go on, but you see the pattern. Why do we have laws at all? I mean, if a law doesn’t prevent something, the law shouldn’t be there, am right?

No, I don’t think criminals will obey gun control laws. Criminals are well-known for not obeying laws, and I am not stupid. I do, however, think that narrowing and tightening the legal pathway to obtain guns will help us identify and apprehend criminals earlier, before they use their guns to commit a crime.

There are two problems with this Sam Elliot meme: First, it calls the “other side” stupid. It’s easy to see where this scratches an itch for the pro-gun crowd, confirming what they already know. Unfortunately, it does nothing to actually convince anyone else. In fact, it does the opposite, widening the ideological gap between “us” and “them” and making “us” feel justified in writing “them” off completely. They’re stupid, right? Right! I’m preaching to the choir here, we all know this to be true! So why even talk to them or listen to them?

Second, it reinforces the idea that we shouldn’t do anything if it can’t be done perfectly. No, criminals do not obey laws, but that’s not the point. Going a step further, even if we do tighten up the legal process for obtaining guns, we won’t catch everyone that circumvents the process. Does this mean we should do nothing? Let’s once again consider laws against DUI: they do not prevent drunk driving, nor do we catch all drunk drivers. Should we therefore discard our DUI laws? Alternately, would this have been a valid argument for never passing DUI laws in the first place? Of course not!

December 2, 2015 was the 336th day of the year. There were two mass shootings on that day alone, bringing the national total for the U.S. up to 353. That’s more than one mass shooting per day. Contrary to President Obama’s assertion that “this is not normal” after the 351st mass shooting (on the 331st day), it is normal. It happens about as often as I make a pot of coffee or take a shit. It shouldn’t be normal, but it is. Nevertheless, I choose to believe we can do something about it. It is high time we stopped fighting amongst ourselves and started working together to actually fix the problem. Spending our time and energy insulting each other means we’re distracted from the real problem, which is getting worse all the time.

Things We Need To Stop Saying, #214

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. ~Wikipedia

Here’s today’s red herring meme:

First, the wording at the top implies very strongly that every act of terror is carried out by Muslims. By extension, it implies that violence done by anyone who’s not Muslim doesn’t count as an act of terror. Did anyone say “we shouldn’t judge all Muslims on the actions of a few” after the 2015 Planned Parenthood shooting? Absolutely not. That would have been ridiculous, since the shooter was a white dude whose political goals had fuck-all to do with the middle east. Yet it absolutely was an act of terror, and anyone who says differently is giving the perp a pass because of his nationality and/or skin color.  There are over 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet. Yes, a handful of them are extremists who are bent on violence. Judging all of them based on the violent ones would be as dumb as judging all 2.4 billion Christians based on the actions of a handful of clinic terrorists. Perhaps unintentionally, perhaps deliberately, our Mr. Meme subtly paints the entire religion of Islam with the same broad brush it’s whining about.

Second, nobody’s judging all gun owners based on terrorists or mass shooters. This is a red herring that muddies up the discussion and leaves rational people with the distinct impression that the gun activists are frantically trying to hide something. Nobody – nobody – has said with any credibility that “we need to disarm all gun owners so they don’t shoot up the place!” People love to feel like they’re being persecuted, for reasons I don’t fully understand. People with tattoos post Facebook memes about being judged for their tattoos, but in reality very few people give a shit about tattoos. Metalheads post Facebook memes about being judged for their taste in music, but in reality very few people give a shit about who listens to which kind of music. Gun owners post Facebook memes whining about being judged for owning guns, but nobody’s really doing that. I’m a gun owner.  Nearly everyone I know is a gun owner. Exactly none of us have been suspected or accused of being dangerous psychopaths because somewhere, someone shot some people. The actual issue is that we can’t sit down like adults to discuss how to keep guns out of the hands of people who are crazier than shithouse rats. In a practical sense, scientists and medical professionals aren’t even allowed to study the problem.

So please, if you’re interested in actively doing something to help address the problem, stop saying “Don’t judge all gun owners on the actions of a few!” because nobody’s doing that. Claiming that that’s the problem makes it difficult for us to address the real issue. Instead, let’s hear your ideas for keeping guns out of the hands of irrational, dangerous people, and let’s discuss them. This problem needs more ideas, more discussion, and fewer sound bites/bumper stickers/facebook memes.

Still Not The Time To Talk About It

There was another mass shooting today in the U.S. Actually, no wait…there were two. The San Bernardino shooting was #355 on day #336 of 2015. We’re averaging just over one mass shooting per day this year.

I’m getting sick of this bullshit. Here are some ideas. (This is an opinion piece, so I’m not going to do any research. Sorry.)

State & Local Governments

State and local governments need to put on their big kid pants by ignoring the NRA and getting busy plugging loopholes and stopping leaks in existing gun laws and their enforcement. We should never allow a gun to be sold to someone without a background check. We should never allow a gun to be sold to someone who’s a felon or has a history of mental illness.

Objection: But criminals don’t follow the law!

Laws never stop crime. Homicides will always happen, but that doesn’t stop us from having laws that make it illegal to commit homicide. Laws just define what crime is and is not – and it should be a crime to purchase a gun without a background check. It should be a crime for felons and the mentally ill to acquire (or be sold) guns. It’ll still happen, but if we catch you doing it there will be consequences.

Objection: How do you define who’s mentally ill?

Good question. Off the top of my head, I’d say an inpatient stay at a mental health facility counts. Let’s call this an implementation detail and have some meetings to iron it out. But let’s do something and get the conversation started. Throwing up our hands and saying “It’s hopeless, there’s nothing we can do” is what got us into this mess.

Objection: You’re infringing on the constitutional rights of felons and the mentally ill!

Shut up. Also, I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I know felons give up certain rights when they choose to commit felonies. We don’t let the mentally ill drive semis or fly commercial aircraft either, in the interest of public safety. Sometimes, depending on factors, they don’t even get to live on their own.

The NRA is fond of saying that we don’t need any new gun legislation, because there are plenty of gun laws already on the books and we should just enforce those. I agree. Let’s get after it. Let’s find those loopholes and plug them. This means legislators need to brace themselves to flip off the NRA, which will fight tooth and nail to obstruct any legislation that has a chance of impacting the firearm manufacturers’ bottom lines. They’ve been the sole voice in the discussion for far too long, though. It’s time for politicians to tell them to sit down and STFU.

The NRA and Firearms Manufacturers

Unless they want to end up royally goat-fucked like big tobacco did in the 1990s, the NRA and firearms manufacturers need to come to table like adults and be a partner in this discussion. The tide is turning, and it’ll go worse for them if they continue their tradition of shouting down the conversation every time it comes up.

The NRA ought to stop stoking the fires of paranoia in their membership for political and financial gain. Nobody is coming to take anybody’s guns, and civilians don’t need assault rifles or high-capacity magazines. The profit margin on “tacticool” is enormous. That’s the real reason behind the NRA’s constant obstructionism and lobbying.

Objection: What about that Nancy Pelosi/Barbara Boxer/Dianne Feinstein?

What about them? Yes, they’re anti-gun. Yes, they’re liberal Democrats. Yes, they’re from California. Yes, California’s full of lefty wingnuts. So what? Did you know that Dianne Feinstein survived an office shooting? True story. Do you think if that happened to you it might traumatize you and possibly determine your opinion on guns if you were otherwise unfamiliar with them? I think it might.

Objection: What about tyranny?

Oh please. Middle aged, balding, pudgy suburban man with the mortgage, don’t kid yourself. You aren’t going to do a goddamn thing about tyranny, least of all pick up your AR-15 and successfully fight off trained soldiers. Tyranny isn’t going to come marching down your street in formation anyway – it’ll come quietly in the form of universal surveillance and in the name of safety. Besides, the military’s got tanks and bombers and shit you ain’t got and won’t even see until it’s too late, so don’t make me laugh.

Objection: But the [city name] shooting didn’t involve an assault weapon!

Maybe not, but the overheated rhetoric, incessant fearmongering from the gun lobby, and very basic marketing tactics applied to firearms (buy this and you’ll be one of the cool kids!) aren’t helping, and we need to start doing anything we can to cool things down. If the NRA and manufacturers take some proactive steps in this direction, it would go a long way toward tamping down public anger over the ever-increasing body count…and I believe the body count would go down too.

John and Jane Q. Public Need to Be Honest About the Problem

After the shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, President Obama released a written statement saying “This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal.” I guess I see where he’s coming from, because he can’t really say “this is normal” without maybe actually doing something about it, but…horseshit. It’s very normal. Very very normal. It happens, on average, every goddamn day. I take a shit every day too, and I’d say that’s pretty normal. How are mass shootings not normal? That’s a ridiculous thing to say. We’ll never successfully address the problem if we’re going around spouting and swallowing patently false platitudes. (Yes, that includes “Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims.” Congratulations, you did and said nothing, but at least you feel better and that’s what counts, right?)

Guns, by themselves, aren’t actually the problem. Switzerland, I’m told, is armed to the teeth. There’s at least one gun in every household, and yet they have very low violent crime rates. Japan is a study in contrast. Almost no civilian in Japan has access to a firearm, and yet they also have a very low violent crime rate. So what gives? It’s the guns, stupid…well, that plus our violent-ass culture: the news media, movies, and video games all glorify and promote violence for our voyeuristic pleasure. A violent culture is a difficult, difficult problem to address, though – so we argue non-stop about guns instead.

Objection: Don’t blame video games, you asshole!

See? It’s tough to address a violent culture. Also, shut up.

Objection: It’s not the guns, it’s a mental health issue!

Yes. Absolutely. So what can we do about it? There are lots of people with mental problems that can’t afford help. Maybe something like Medicare/Obamacare could help with that. Maybe we need to work to reduce the stigma associated with seeking help by encouraging people to seek help rather than mocking them for it and/or gossiping about them. Maybe we need to be more diligent about saying “Hey man, cool it” when someone near us starts making “idle” threats. Maybe we need to be more diligent about reporting these people so they can get the help they need.

Finally, as much as I loathe the NRA, they’re right about one thing: the second amendment protects our right to bear arms. Confiscation will never, ever work, so we should forget about that and stop considering it an option. Hey, up above I suggested the NRA and firearms manufacturers should come to the table and take voluntary steps to help address the problem – gun control advocates need to do the same. Unwillingness to compromise is why we’re stuck at this impasse. Americans are going to keep their guns, and that’s that.

Objection: The second amendment only applies to well-regulated militias!

That wording is in there, and often minimized/left out by the pro-gun lobby, it’s true but…shit, I don’t know. I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but Americans have privately owned guns since we were still British colonists. I think this particular train sailed before the second amendment was even inked.

Objection: The founding fathers never intended us to own assault rifles!

Never mind what the founding fathers “intended.” They didn’t intend for us to use the Internet either. How could they know? This is a particularly smelly red herring.

Conclusion

It’s late, I’m tired, and I’m tired of writing so I’m going to wrap this up in very short order: You may not like my ideas. That’s okay. Throw out a few of your own. What would you do to address the problem? Let’s have a conversation. It’s way, way past time to talk about it.

 

Calderas, Catastrophes…and Gun Control

I have a volcano for a next-door neighbor. A super-volcano, actually. I live well within the blast radius of Yellowstone National Park. It’s a neat place. If you’ve never been, you should go. There are scenic lakes, grizzly bears, wilderness, moose and elk, crazy geysers and an absolute metric shitload of magma below ground.

From time to time, the super-volcano super-erupts, which pretty much ruins an otherwise nice day if you’re anywhere in mid-North America. The last time this happened was about 640,000 years ago. The good news is that scientists don’t expect the next super-eruption to be an extinction event. The bad news is that the good news is “extinction’s off the table.” If you’re anywhere near it, you’re most likely dead meat, entombed in an ash coffin so the archaeologists of 6489 can study your bones.

Most of the park’s area is a caldera that pretty constantly rises and falls as magma moves around underground. That’s comforting, and by “comforting,” what I really mean is “spooky.” The super-volcano is not dead, it’s just resting. It’s sleeping, and the rhythmic rise and fall of the caldera floor is its respiration.

Is it going to erupt again? Yep. When? We’re not really sure. There are a lot of variables in play. Soon? Probably not. I hope not. I just bought a house here in 2005, and what about my property values? Super-eruptions are hard on property values. The volcano fascinates us. We study it, measure it, discuss the possible implications of an eruption, but on a day-to-day basis we don’t really worry about it too much. It’s been dormant lo these 640,000 years, it’s probably not going to erupt this week.

Dammit Bobby boy, what in the hell, what in the heaven, what in the Earth? What does this have to do with gun control?

Earlier this week, I re-shared this pic on Facebook:

Which, as near as I can tell, originated from a Facebook page called The Middle Class is Drowning. One of my friends who’s an avid shooter/hunter/NRA member replied to this with

“I bet the first reaction by Obama and many liberals was ‘We get to take away their guns!'”

I don’t know if he was serious or not. I hate to say that, because I don’t want to disrespect his convictions, but it sounds ridiculous to me, and he’s a smart guy. So I don’t know. I’m pretty liberal, and when I first hear the news of the latest mass shooting, my first two thoughts are

1. Those poor bastards. Please, if you can, confer severe confusion on the shooter and clarity on everyone else that’s in the area.
2. This keeps happening, over and over and over. What on earth can we do to prevent the next one and the one after that?

We can’t restrict the sale of firearms. The NRA’s pretty decisively won that battle. Besides, we’re being constantly reassured that won’t work – killers will still kill, just with a different weapon. A nine-iron maybe. (Do you know how hard it would be to kill 20 people with a nine-iron?) We can’t institute background checks at the point of sale in an attempt to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable people, because who’s to say what “mentally unstable” means and blah blah blah. We can’t make healthcare (including mental healthcare) more accessible to the poor because ZOMG socialism!1! The cops can’t even stop and question people carrying assault rifles at farmer’s markets without an uproar.

No seriously, what can we do? Are we doomed to endure more and more mass shootings until the end of time? If we’re not willing to accept that, there must be something we can do. Personally, I’m convinced America’s violent culture is to blame. Switzerland is pretty much awash in guns. Japan has next-to-none. Neither country has anywhere near the number of gun deaths that the U.S. does. So no, I don’t think it’s the guns, necessarily. (Though you have to admit, it’s pretty tough to kill 13 people with a knife, even if it’s a big sharp one specifically designed for combat. Like the USMC Ka-Bar. Still tough.)

I have to conclude that people who respond to a mass shooting by thinking either “Now we get to take away their guns!” or “Now they’re gonna come for our guns!” simply aren’t very smart. Nobody has taken anyone’s guns away in the U.S. in a very long time. Access to guns has not been restricted at the federal level for a very long time. If anything, U.S. gun laws have gotten more permissive of late: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, and President Obama signed a bill into law in 2010 that allowed carrying guns in national parks.

So no…the super-volcano is not going to erupt anytime soon just because the caldera floor is constantly moving. We can figure this out when it comes to geology, but emotions cloud our judgment when it comes to our guns.

mjw

Guns, Violence, and A Different Kind of Political Correctness

This has been making the rounds on Facebook lately:

It neatly illustrates the “liberals don’t understand guns, are ignorant and easily scared” strawman that the gun community has been trotting out for some time now. I’m a liberal. I’m a gun owner and avid hunter/outdoorsman, and this just annoys me to no end. I’m not completely familiar with Ruger’s product line, but I’m willing to concede that the two rifles shown above are identical, aside from cosmetic differences. This is actually a red herring, though; I honestly don’t think anyone’s actually talking about that scary-looking rifle.

Now let’s talk about this one:

That’s a Bushmaster M4A2, an AR-15 style rifle that’s a knockoff of the US military’s M4/M16. It’s a semi-automatic rifle, which means it fires a single round for each trigger pull, ejects the shell casing, and automatically chambers another round for the next shot. It has this in common with much less fearsome-looking firearms; semi-automatic rifles and handguns are pretty common. One of the advantages of AR-15 style rifles is that there’s a dizzying array of components, add-ons, and accessories available for them. This allows owners to customize their rifle(s) for various specific needs: sport shooting, law enforcement, terrorizing movie theaters, tactical response, home defense – whatever. It’s a very versatile rifle.

For example, AR-15 magazines are available in a variety of capacities. Magazines that hold 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds are the most common. On the off chance that’s nowhere near enough ammo for your particular needs, though, you can always get one of these:

That sucker is a “drum” magazine that holds 100 rounds. Because AR-15s are semi-automatic, the amount of time it would take a person to shoot all 100 rounds depends on how fast the shooter’s index finger is. I don’t have a lot of experience with semi-auto rifles, but based on my experience at the range with my Glock 17 pistol, it takes me a second or two to fire, re-acquire my aim point, and fire again. Therefore I’d say it’s theoretically possible to empty this magazine in a minute and a half to three minutes. In practice, it’d probably take quite a bit longer than that.

Maybe that’s too long for your particular application. Maybe you’re a real Soldier of Fortune type commando, and you need something closer to a full-auto rate of fire. Where “semi-auto” means one trigger pull discharges one round, “full-auto” means the weapon continuously discharges rounds as long as the trigger is depressed. Military versions of this weapon tend to be “select-fire” meaning the operator can select semi-auto or full-auto depending on the need at hand, but civilian versions don’t have this option. Luckily, there’s a technique called “bump-firing” that can simulate full-auto. Check it out:

(WordPress won’t let me embed a YouTube video for some reason, so you’ll have to burn an extra click to see the video. Sorry.)

There are a couple of problems with bump firing. First, it’s a technique that requires some know-how and coordination. Second, it’s impossible to aim since you’re shooting from the hip. Since we’re talking about the AR-15’s versatility, and the wide assortment of add-ons and accessories available for it, maybe you can guess what’s coming next.

Behold Slide Fire’s AR-15 stock:

The Slide Fire stock does two things for a shooter: it automates the process of bump firing so that any dummy can do it, and it allows bump firing from the shoulder which allows the shooter to find an aim point. The achievable rate of fire depends on the specific mechanics of each rifle and the characteristics of the ammo that’s being used – you can only shoot as fast as the fire/recoil/eject/reload cycle will allow – but it’s a very, very good simulation of full-auto. In fact, some users enthusiastically report being able to empty a 100-round mag “in the blink of an eye.”

Are we still talking about a squirrel gun?

This is a rifle that not only looks scary, it’s legitimately scary. It was designed as a combat weapon. AR-15 style rifles featured in the recent and infamous mass shootings in Portland, Aurora, and Newtown. (The Newtown shooter apparently didn’t use his AR-15 when he murdered 20 children and 6 adults. He left the AR in his car, and managed to accomplish his grisly feat using only handguns. The militant pro-gun crowd is, of course, claiming that change-of-story reveals a deliberate misinformation campaign by the media to build support for gun control measures. Unfortunately, I have a very low tolerance for conspiracy theories. Early information is often wrong in high-stress, breaking-news type situations.) To my knowledge, none of those instances featured a 100-round drum magazine or a simulated full-auto rate of fire. My point in mentioning these particular accessories is to illustrate one of the key differences between a so-called “assault weapon” and a standard hunting rifle. Semi-auto hunting rifles are reasonably common. Maybe you can get 100-round magazines for them somewhere, but hunting rifles tend not to lend themselves to the same mix-n-match game involving hundreds of accessories that a well-known and standardized assault platform like the AR-15 does.

I think we need an intellectually honest discussion of the gun violence problem we have in the US that doesn’t turn a blind eye to the “gun” part of “gun violence problem.” The first amendment’s right to free speech has obvious limits that everyone accepts – you can’t slander or libel someone, threaten public officials, or yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater without facing consequences. The second amendment is actually the same – private citizens generally can’t own rocket launchers, tanks, or bombers, and almost nobody complains. Among reasonable people, there should be a considerable amount of room between the extremes of “Ban all guns, period!” and “No restrictions whatsoever!” What are 100-round clips and high rates of fire good for, aside from killing/wounding a shitload of people in a short amount of time?

I think there’s a real possibility that these mass shootings will not only continue, but could actually get much worse. Imagine a military-trained shooter with a very high-capacity magazine and full-auto rate of fire, operating from a high and relatively inaccessible vantage point. You know, something like a book depository, bell tower, arena catwalk, or stadium roof trusses.

As soon as the discussion starts trending anywhere near the easy availability of “assault weapons,” a predictable and noisy clamor arises, to the effect that our constitutional rights are being trampled. Why? The most common explanation is governmental tyranny – we need weapons of combat (not tanks or bombers, mind you – just the assault rifles) to keep the government in check, as our forefathers intended. I think so little of this theory that it’s extremely difficult for me even to acknowledge that it’s a key concern of the pro-gun crowd without resorting to ridicule. How free vs. how oppressed we are as citizens of the United States has not changed materially in my lifetime. There are still checks and balances, we are still a representative democracy, governments always collect taxes, and the cops still have to read arrested people their Miranda rights. In spite of suffering a nasty bout of partisan gridlock lately, the government is still more or less functioning as it always has, as far as I can tell.

Slate had a fascinating article recently that I thought effectively debunked the NRA’s claims that the AR-15 is useful for hunting and home defense. (I was so impressed with it that I almost re-wrote the same article here. If that sounds silly, I won’t tell you how many times I’ve written Cream’s famous hit “Sunshine of Your Love.”) Just past the halfway mark of that article is this gem:

AR-15-style rifles are very useful, however, if what you’re trying to do is sell guns. In a recent Forbes article, Abram Brown reported that “gun ownership is at a near 20-year high, generating $4 billion in commercial gun and ammunition sales.” But that money’s not coming from selling shotguns and bolt-action rifles to pheasant hunters. In its 2011 annual report, Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales.

(Emphasis mine.)

I’ll see your government tyranny theory, and raise you a less-commonly circulated one: the NRA is, in reality, the lobbying arm of an industry that makes fantastic profits by selling the machinery of death. It’s not quite as lucrative as the military-industrial complex – as we’ve discussed, private citizens aren’t allowed to own mortars and bomber aircraft – but it’s pretty damn good. If we were to have any success in banning or restricting access to “assault rifles,” the impact on quarterly earnings reports could be devastating…and “The Street” has expectations.

I don’t want to ban guns. I don’t even want to ban AR-15 style rifles, necessarily. What I want is a calm and thoughtful discussion about how we can do a better job of keeping weapons and accessories with high mass-casualty potential out of the hands of unhinged lunatics. I wonder if such a discussion is still possible.

Reluctant Badass Angel

Pulling out of the parking lot after work, I happened to drive by a twenty-something girl holding a sign that said “Stranded, out of gas, anything helps.” Sometimes I stop, and sometimes I don’t, and I honestly don’t know what makes the difference. Today I stopped. This gal and her girlfriend were traveling, got robbed in California, had bad luck ever since, somehow still made it to Montana, and here they were. She had a 2.5 gallon gas can with her. I’d already made up my mind to help her out, now it was just a question of logistics.

“So, uh…do you want to jump in, or just give me the gas can?” I asked her.

She thought about it for a second, and opted to just give me the gas can. Good call. She was no dummy. She’d already been robbed once. Fool her twice, and it’d be shame on her this time around. I told the girls to hang tight, I’d be right back with the gas.

Turning onto Park street, I happened to see an older gentleman who was reasonably respectable looking in spite of his long gray hair and beard – with his thumb out. I hadn’t even gotten up to speed yet – the speedo still read less than 10 – so fine, I figured I’d stop again and see what his deal was. He was headed out of town somewhere a few miles south of Pine Creek, and his ride had flaked out on him, so he was stuck walking or hitching.

“I’m not going very far – just past the interchange about half a mile south of here,” I told him.

“I’ll ride with you as far south as you can take me. And thank you very much!” he replied.

So he hopped in, and we went down to the gas station. Once there, he hopped out and I filled the gas can. Then I hit the ATM to get a $20 to hand the girls for food or more gas or whatever, and drove on back to the parking lot.

Upon arrival, the girls said “Just take it over to the convertible where those guys are, thanks” and waved me over toward the disabled vehicle.

Guys? What guys? This was the first I’d heard of any guys in play. Sure enough, there were two guys waiting for me. Both looked a little sketchy. One was kind of biggish, and the other one was scrawny, shaved head, dressed in a wife beater, tats running down both arms. Mother…fucker. I’ve been set up. What the fuck is this shit? I reached into the glove box of my pickup, grabbed my Glock 9mm, and shoved it in my pocket just in case. Then I pulled up 7 or 8 spaces to one side of the disabled vehicle to give myself some room, got out and walked around the pickup so as to keep it between me and Mr. Prison Tats.

“I heard you guys ran out of gas,” I asked him as I loosened the strap holding the gas can in place, without taking my eyes off him.

“Yeah, yeah, we did. Thanks a lot, man.” Prison Tats took the gas can, and headed back to the car. I relaxed considerably when I saw that he really was primarily interested in the gas can. Now Mr. Biggish was saying something to me – yak, yak, yak – but I couldn’t listen because I had unfinished business with the girls, who were still holding their “need gas” sign at the parking lot entrance. I started to wonder whether they were just grifting for the hell of it, but they didn’t look local.

“Here’s a little extra to get you down the road,” I told them as I handed them the $20. “Be smart. Stay safe.”

“Oh, absolutely. Thanks a lot, man,” they replied.

Back to the pickup, and Biggish is still talking to me. Apparently he’s not travelling with the girls and Prison Tats. They just made a chance acquaintance in the parking lot the same way I did.

“Hey, man, can you give me a ride into town?” he asked.

Oh, sure, why not. He’d been talking about Bozeman earlier, and I’d just come from there. I wasn’t headed back tonight.

“Where do you need to go?”

“Loaves and fishes. I hope they’re still serving.”

“Okay, hop in.”

They were not still serving. Free supper ended 20 minutes ago – just the amount of time he’d spent talking with the other three. On the plus side, they’d given him a sleeping bag, because they had extra. He’d need that, because he’d be sleeping under a bridge tonight, and he’d lost the one he had, having himself been robbed of his bindle in Coeur d’Alene. I had no idea people got robbed this often. Life sucks, what are you gonna do?

We headed back to the gas station, where I’d get him his very own $20 bill to eat on this evening. On the way, we passed an anti-tobacco billboard.

“I’ve been tobacco free for a month now,” he said.

“Oh yeah? You over the rages yet?”

“Well…I’m over the urges, anyway” he responded.

“I quit drinking in June, and man, that first week I wanted to kill every fucking thing that moved.”

“Oh hey, you must be a friend of Bill W. then!” He was suddenly excited. “I’m 18 years sober myself. I’ve been down that road.”

It was oddly comforting that we had recovery in common. Earlier he’d asked what I do for a living. Well…I work for a Fortune 500 company. Oracle is a Fortune 82 company, if we’re bragging. But we’re not. There’s already a stark difference between Biggish (whose name, it turns out, is Tim) and I. I’m white-collar corporate, and he’s a broke-ass transient trying to get back to North Carolina by Saturday any way he can. But recovery…suddenly we found ourselves on common ground.

I gave him $20, and he headed off to Subway. I was encouraged that he picked Subway over McDonald’s, which was right there too. It’s his money now. He can do whatever he wants with it. When I left him, he was really looking forward to a cold cut sub.

“Oh! Hey!” he shouted a postscript after me. “Stick with the program! Keep coming back! It works!”

He’s mentoring me. How surreal. How…appropriate. “Thanks man! I appreciate that!” I shouted back.

I walked in the door of my own house about 45 minutes late.

“Sorry I’m late honey,” I told my wife. “I’d have been home sooner, but I had to help everyone in the world first.”

Heavy Metal

I took my trusty Remington 710 .30-06 to the range yesterday for some practice and “just me” time. Before I left, I bought a fresh box of ammo, but unfortunately I forgot to check the grain before buying it. (“Grain” is the measure of weight used for bullets. Heavier bullets have higher grain.) Generally, you can get 150gr or 180gr bullets for the .30-06. The 180gr bullets are good for larger prey like elk, while the 150gr bullets are better for smaller prey like deer and antelope. It’s trendy to hunt elk, but … there are various issues I won’t go into here. Bottom line, they’re more difficult to hunt, so I usually just hunt deer.

Because I hunt deer, my rifle’s sighted in for 150gr ammo, but I headed to the range with 180gr ammo yesterday out of carelessness. My scope is specifically adjusted to shoot 2″ high at 100 yards, and roughly right on at 200. To my chagrin yesterday, I shot right on at 100, and about 6″ low at 200. I was really, really puzzled by this until I thought to double-check the grain of my newly-acquired ammo. 180gr. Shit. Well that explains everything. Heavier bullets fall faster than lighter bullets.

As soon as that thought occurred to me, I heard (I swear!) Galileo laughing at me. Excluding air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate. The difference is in the rising part of the trajectory. Bullets don’t travel flat. Right out of the muzzle, they jump up just a bit because of the fresh kick from the exploding powder. I think that both the 150gr and 180gr Federal bullets that I buy contain the same amount of powder (chemical potential energy). The 180gr bullets don’t jump up as high as the 150gr bullets because they’re heavier. Both bullets fall the same amount over their trajectory, but the 150gr bullets start from just a bit higher up. Thus I shot low at both 100 and 200 yards.

That Galileo was one sweet smart motherfucker. And me? I just don’t always pay attention.

---

Update: A buddy of mine has pointed out that a 180gr bullet takes longer to reach the target than does a 150gr bullet, because of a slightly lower muzzle velocity owing to a heavier projectile. He’s absolutely right, and I missed that aspect of the problem completely. The rise difference is slight, and probably inconsequential. See Federal’s own data for the 150gr and 180gr bullets I was using if you’re interested.