Cranky Old Goat 3: Will this thing move? If I can document it moving I can start a new reality TV show and get rich...

Part three in my Cranky Old Goat Series. [1 | 2]. I was going to write this yesterday, but I was far too cranky. :)

I'm standing in my front yard again. I've set up a folding table and I've draped a pure white cloth over it to accentuate the colors of what I have lying on it. I have some cameras on a tripod fixated on the table. On the table I have my AR-15 lying there. I also have a revolver and a shotgun just for good measure and control.

A lady walks up and there is clear anger on her face!

Lady: "What do you think you are doing?" with clear anger in her voice.

Me: "Documenting."

Lady: "This is a very irresponsible thing to do with guns."

Me: "Is it? What do you think I am doing?"

Lady: "Having a yard sale and it looks like you are going to illegally sell guns."

Me: blinks a bit "I suppose it could look that way, but then what are these cameras for?"

Lady: "Perhaps you are senile and think your yard is a store and those are your idea of security cameras."

Me: chuckles "I can't tell you if I am senile or not, that'd be difficult for me to know about myself it were to happen. I can however assure you that these guns are not for sale, I am not having a yard sale, and these cameras while intended to document are not here for security purposes like in some gun shop."

Lady: "What are you doing then?"

Me: "I keep hearing guns kill people. So I thought if I could document guns moving on their own that I could get rich with a new reality tv special."

Lady: "Guns don't move on their own?"

Me: "Have you ever double checked that? I haven't. I try not to just assume I am right when there are so many reports stating the opposite of what I believe. I instead research to see if I was wrong or not."

Lady: "That is just silly."

Me: "And that is what is called an appeal to the stone."

Lady: "Are you calling yourself a stone?"

Me: "No, an appeal to the stone is the act of passing off something as absurd without providing any evidence to back up the claim of absurdity. Instead it is just accepted that a person is an authority and because they state something is absurd, or silly as you put it, so it must be absurd. Which means there is a nasty appeal to authority nestled inside the bowels of the appeal to the stone. One major problem. I don't acknowledge your authority, and even if I did only fools believe something without question just because an authority figure states it."

Lady: "Okay, it is silly because 'guns kill people' is just something people say. They don't actually think guns are up flying around by themselves shooting people."

Me: "Are you so sure about that?"

Lady: "Yes."

Me: "So, you've already done this experiment or seen someone else do it before?"

Lady: "No, there is no need. They are not alive."

Me: "Is being alive the only time something can move? I see robots vaccuuming people's houses, and all kinds od things that are not alive these days. They even are pushing for self driving cars big time also. Though I'll say more about that in a moment."

Lady: "No, those things were designed to move on their own. Guns were not."

Me: "That's a pretty good observation. Yet many people report seeing ghosts, UFOs, sasquatch, or bosons and quarks if they happen to work at the Large Hadron Collider, but I can't say I've seen or documented those personally. So if whenever a white man somewhere shoots a bunch of people I hear so many people saying 'guns kill people' then perhaps there is something to it. So like a good ghost hunter, I am looking for a self propelled, self aiming, and self shooting gun. If I can find it then perhaps these people calling for gun control will have a real target that something can be done about, because the targets they usually aim for won't fix anything they'll just make it worse."

Lady: "That's not what they mean."

Me: "They are not saying what they mean?"

Lady:* "When they say 'guns kill people' they are meaning those people wouldn't be dead without guns."

Me: "Oh, so the guns were somehow mind controlling the person that killed them? If so I need to get an EEG or some other device I don't own and attach it to one of my guns."

Lady: "No, they are not saying that. They are meaning because they are so easy to use, so easy to get access to, and often rapid fire that they only server one purpose to kill, and it is this ease that gives the person opportunity."

Me: "So, the person couldn't grab say a knife and run around stabbing people."

Lady: "Sure they can. Yet it is easier to run away from, and easier to stop a person."

Me: "If the person is untrained with a knife that is true, though not quite as true if they've been trained. Okay, so let's toss a knife aside. How about if they simply mix some bleach and ammonia and create chlorine gas that they toss into a room full of people?"

Lady: "That is horrible, but the people can get away and likely not die. In World War I that was more effective because people were in trenches where the gas would gather and they couldn't leave the trench so easily without getting shot."

Me: smiles "I am glad you know your history. That is refreshing. So how about a bomb, or a car, or poison, or an electrocution trap, or some nastier gas beyond chlorine."

Lady: "Of course we can't stop everything."

Me: "So, if a person truly has decided to kill it is likely they can find a way?"

Lady: "Yes."

Me: "So why take away that which can defend people from such attacks if guns cannot actually kill without human intent and action?"

Lady: "If we make it illegal then one of the easiest ways to kill people will be out of reach and will reduce deaths."

Me: "Interesting hypothesis. So if someone shows up an starts shooting people what do you do?"

Lady: "Call the police?"

Me: "How long is it likely for the police to take to get there? They are not magically everywhere whenever we need them. During that time how many more people do you think might die or be wounded?"

Lady: "Sure there will be crazy people, but it will stop overall mass shootings."

Me: "So, you think some of the people doing mass shootings today should not be considered crazy?"

Lady: "No, that is not what I mean."

Me: "It seems to me killing people other than in self defense is already a crime. So all of these people doing it are criminals right?"

Lady: "Yes, they are. That is a better way of saying it than crazy."

Me: "So, if you pass laws to take guns away or make it much more difficult to get them you think that will help?"

Lady: "Of course"

Me: "So, the people preparing to commit a crime of killing people will choose to obey your new law and not acquire a gun illegally?"

Lady: "No, but people who just snap all the sudden and kill people out of passion will have less access."

Me: "Do you realize there are places in the U.S. that have stricter gun laws?"

Lady: "I've heard that. It sounds wonderful."

Me: "Really, you should consider moving to Chicago then. They have such laws. They also have more killings every month with guns than the Las Vegas or Texas shootings that occurred recently."

Lady: "That's one of those place black lives matter talks about, so that must be because of the bad cops there."

Me: "Nope, that isn't it at all. These are not cops killing people statistics."

Lady: "You sound like an NRA member trying to twist the story."

Me: "I am no member of the NRA, though I'd consider being one. I am also not trying to twist anything. I welcome any challenge to what I am saying as long as it is evidence based and not simply an opinion of your own or repeating an opinion of some authority figure."

Lady: "Well it sounds like something the NRA would say."

Me: "So? Do you know that no one that has ever committed a mass shooting has been an NRA member?"

Lady: "There must be some other extenuating circumstances in Chicago."

Me: "Actually, statistically places where gun laws are less strict tend to have less gun related crimes."

Lady: "That makes no sense."

Me: "Sure it does. If you are a criminal planning a crime you likely have an idea how fast the police will respond if you've done any planning. So you'll try to complete your crime before the police arrive. Why is that?"

Lady: "The police will stop them."

Me: "How can they stop the criminals who likely have guns?"

Lady: "The police have guns, coordination, and numbers."

Me: "Coordination and numbers are likely less a factor than the fact the police have guns, would you agree?"

Lady: "Yes."

Me: "So perhaps the reason gun crimes are lower in areas with less gun laws is because the criminals realize that many ordinary people likely have guns too. Committing the crime suddenly becomes much more dangerous for them whether cops are present or not. Witness the recent Texas shooting. That wasn't stopped by police. That was stopped by a barefoot NRA instructor who was hearing neighbors and friends getting gunned down. The suspect fled in his truck which had many more guns and there is pretty strong indicators he wasn't done with his rampage. How many more people would have died had that man not been there to stop him? While the police were responding and working at getting to the shot up church, he was speeding down the highway towards a completely different church with a truck load of guns."

Lady: "Yes, but that civilian only had a shotgun, and the criminal had an assault rifle."

Me: "Actually the criminal had several guns, including an AR-15, a pistol and others. The man that stopped him had an AR-15 as well. Not a shotgun."

Lady: "Well no one needs an assault rifle."

Me: "Honestly, did you ever drink alcohol before you were 21 yeas old?"

Lady: "Yes, everyone does that."

Me: "I'll ignore the absolute, but consider that it is illegal to do that. Yet it still happens."

Lady: "This is true but, that is nowhere near as dangerous as guns."

Me: "It actually is a component leading to far more deaths than guns. Yet, that isn't why I mentioned it. Do you know people that use drugs that are illegal, use other people's prescription pain meds if they are handy, or anything like that?"

Lady: "Yes."

Me: "So, if there are laws against that. Why do you think creating gun laws will actually stop people who intend to commit crimes with them stop them from getting them? As far as I can tell there is no case in history where banning something has stopped people from getting it. It does create a lucrative black market, but that is a discussion for another day."

Lady: "So people should be able to have nuclear bombs too."

Me: chuckle "It took you long enough to reach that. No, but then again the components to make a nuclear bomb are tricky enought o come by that they become super expensive and difficult to acquire. Some very wealthy nut job intent on committing a crime with a nuclear bomb could likely still acquire one with or without the laws. Especially thanks to the Clintons, Mueller and others who participated in the Uranium One deal and the fact that some of that uranium we actually have no clue where it went."

Lady: "I guess I can see your point."

Me: "I have something I'd like to ask you before you leave and for you to think about."

Lady: "Okay"

Me: "When a mass shooting occurs, at least if it was done by a white man, within an hour or less there will be cries for gun control before they even know the facts. Such as how it wouldn't have done a damn thing in Las Vegas. In Texas it would have made it worse. Yet, think about how quickly they are ready to pounce on the issue with their political agendas. Now here is the real thing. Have you noticed the increase in people getting killed all over the place by people driving vehicles? This is happening at the same time there is a push for driverless cars. Start watching for the 'cars kill people' slogans and the politics that push for taking your right to drive away."

The lady walks away...

I smile and pat my gun "Worked like a charm, like moths to the flame."