After the Storm

     Whenever there is a mass shooting a storm of hysteria
powered by a few noisy people sweeps over the nation.  The
shrieking voices obscure rational thought and reason.

     Legislators in Illinois introduced a bill to confiscate
semiautomatic firearms and other guns.  They claim that such
arms are not hunting weapons.  Please note that per FBI
statistics more are murdered in the US with hammers and clubs
than with rifles.

     Semiautomatic guns are hunting weapons.  I began
hunting with a semiautomatic rifle while in high school.  Most
of my friends used semiautomatics for hunting and target
practice.  I still use them.

     The even bigger error is that the right to bear arms is
about hunting.  The right to bear arms is about self defense. 
Still, the right to bear arms isn't primarily about defense against
common criminals, though such defense is important.

     Hubert Humphrey was a Democrat senator, vice president
under Lyndon Johnson, and 1968 Democrat presidential nominee. 
Humphrey stated the case for bearing arms, "The right of
citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary
government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now
appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to
be always possible."

     I am not aware that anyone ever accused Hubert
Humphrey of being some kind of right wing kook.  Humphrey
made the statement half a century ago.  Then the threat to
liberty, security and prosperity by an ever expanding, dominating
government was but a shadow of what it is today.

     Those familiar with the history of governments are well
aware that governments, left unchecked, ever expand their power
until they become totally despotic.  The only real limit on
government power and tyranny is the will and ability of citizens
to resist tyranny.

     For so long as rulers fear resistance to despotism, those
rulers will tread with care.  Remove the fear barrier and there is
no stopping them.  It is beyond the space available to even touch
upon why voting won't stop the wannabe tyrants.  As long as
citizens are armed and dangerous to tyrants, the citizens are
unlikely to need to use their arms.  It is only after the arms are
gone that the need arises.

     Consider some recent well known exploitive tyrannical
governments: Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, North Korea,
East Germany, and Cuba.  All of these governments made sure
the citizens were unarmed.  China is now lecturing the USA on
the need to disarm its citizens.

     Sometimes arms are misused.  This does nothing to make
weapons special.  What isn't misused?  Some murders drown
their victims.  Five thousand or so people drown in the US every
year.  Should we ban water?  Fires kill.  Some of those fires are
deliberately started.  Will we be better off if we ban fire and live
in the cold?

     The death toll from autos and alcohol, either alone or in
combination with each other, is well known.  Lawfully used
prescription drugs kill tens of thousands every year.  Many die
from food poisoning.  Should we ban autos, alcohol, and food? 
Some may remember that the attempted ban of alcohol only
created more problems than it solved.

     We should seek to minimize the misuse of weapons.  We
will never be totally successful.  Creating a world where only
criminals own weapons won't make us safer.  In that world it
will be only a matter of time until everyone, except the masters,
are reduced to servitude.  There is a reason why the ruling class
is bent on disarming us.

     "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the
security of all."  "The great enemy of the truth is very often not
the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth,
persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." --  John F. Kennedy

     "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,
history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of
arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

The Double Standard

     Most people are aware there are individuals known as
libertarians.   How many know what it means to be libertarian? 
What distinguishes libertarians from non libertarians?

     Most people don't believe it is right to threaten to hurt
their neighbor to get his money.  Murdering or even threatening
to murder a neighbor is even more unacceptable.  Most of us
frown upon private citizens threatening any peaceful person
simply to gain an advantage.  "Do it my way or I will hurt you"
isn't an acceptable way to get what you want from someone else.

     Most people accept the use of threats and force against
aggressors.  If your neighbor is bent on robbery, murder, rape or
arson, threatening to hurt him if he doesn't stop is generally
accepted by civilized people.  It is also acceptable to follow up
the threat with actual force when needed.

     The most basic laws of government are directed at these
same ends.  Few object to government using force against
robbers and other aggressors.  So far we haven't found a
distinction between libertarians and the rest of the crowd.

     Many people who abhor private threats do a complete flip
when it comes to government.  Government endlessly threatens
peaceful people with "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."

     Don't build your house too high.  Don't use marijuana. 
Don't sell raw milk.  Don't let your grass grow more than six
inches high.  Don't grow herbs instead of grass.  Go to jail if
you don't have grass in your lawn.  Don't arrange flowers
without a license.  Don't braid hair without a license.  This isn't
even a good start on the threats government makes against
peaceful people.

     Most people who reject the private use of threats against
peaceful people accept and encourage government's use of
threats and force against peaceful people.  We see substantial
disagreement over whom government should threaten.  Most
people don't support ending government's use of  "Do it my
way, or I will hurt you." against peaceful people.

     Anyone who says "there ought to be a law" is urging
government to say to someone "Do it my way, or I will hurt
you."  If that someone isn't an aggressor, the threat is against a
peaceful person.

     Most people oppose some threats by government. 
Usually they oppose the threats directed at them. 
Simultaneously they urge government to threaten others.  Many
find no problem with threatening the free speech of others while
demanding to be free from threats against their own speech.

     Our society is permeated with a double standard.  Most
people are only quibbling over when and why government
should threaten peaceful people.  These battles come down to
might makes right, or at least might makes possible.  The most
powerful prevail.  Constitutions are nothing more than speed
bumps on the road to domination.

     The few people who totally oppose government, or
anyone else, threatening peaceful people are called libertarians. 
Libertarians are often seen as anti government.  All the
libertarians oppose is government threatening peaceful people
with "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."   Libertarians appear to
be anti government only if government makes threats against
peaceful people.

     Government long ago enacted laws against most forms of
private aggression.  Thus, every new law is all but certain to be
either a threat against peaceful people, or redundant.

     Aggressive laws turn people against each other.  Each
special interest battles other special interests.  This breeds
animosity, strife, and violence.  The proliferation of laws doesn't
bring peace and prosperity.  Rather, it shreds the fabric of
civilization.  Our only hope is that many more people understand
and adopt the libertarian philosophy of refraining from initiating
force and violence against peaceful people, even disgusting
peaceful people.

     Everyone can still shun, refuse to associate with, or
cooperate with those with whom they disagree.   Of course, to
achieve this balance we must get rid of all the laws that threaten
to hurt individuals refusing to associate with others to whom the
government has granted special status.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

A Brief History of Weapons

      Weapons are as old as the human race.  History doesn't
record the first time one human hurled a rock at another. 
Perhaps the first weapon was a club or a stone blade.

     Human history could be viewed as an arms race.  The
story so far is rocks to lasers.  So long as human minds remain
sharp, the race won't end.  If there is an ultimate weapon that
can't be beaten, we are far from discovering it.

     Early weapons relied on muscle power.  Strength was all
important.  Skill made a great difference.  When two men with
swords faced each other in combat, strength and skill dominated. 
Giving a weak untrained man a sword doesn't come close to
making him the equal of a strong, skilled swordsman.

      A few weeks' training for the novice wouldn't make
much difference.  A sword wasn't much of an equalizer.

     Then came firearms.  Firearms made a difference because
they were different.  Firearms were the first common and simple
weapon that harnessed the power of nature.  A 90 pound woman
had the strength to hold a gun and pull the trigger as effectively
as a 200 pound man.  The little woman might even be better at
it than the big man.  Is it any wonder that guns came to be
called equalizers?

     Skilled swordsman didn't welcome this development. 
Even the strongest, most skilled swordsman was most likely to
lose if he brought his sword to a gun fight.  If he traded his
sword for a gun he still lost the great advantage he held when
sword went up against sword.

     Those who seek to harm others generally aren't looking
for a fair fight.  They want every advantage they can gain.  They
are likely to have second thoughts about the joys of violence
when they may be on the receiving end.  They live by the
principle that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

     Government is based on force and intimidation.   The
essence of government is "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."  It
is natural that throughout history governments have tried to gain
a monopoly on weapons.  This was much easier to do when
trained mussel men could dominate untrained citizens, even if
the citizens had equal weapons.  Thus, the Japanese government
gained a monopoly on swords.

     Effective weapons in the hands of the citizens are always
a threat to those who would exploit the citizens.  Guns are only
equalizers.  They don't guarantee advantage.  Those who want to
use violence prefer to use only the threat of violence.  This is
much safer for the one making the threats.  The mere fact that
one is armed reduces the chances he will be attacked.  This
principle applies whether the threats come from government or
common criminals.

     When arms are common, everyone is less likely to be
attacked.  The anti gun zealot is safer from home invasion where
it is known that many homeowners are armed.  The burglar
doesn't know which homeowners are armed.  Of course, the anti
gun zealot can eliminate that protection by putting up a sign
"Gun free home."

     In the USA where guns are common 15 percent or so of
break ins are into occupied buildings.  In England legal guns
have been all but eliminated.  Those who shoot intruders are
prosecuted and jailed.  Over 50 percent of break ins are into
occupied buildings.  Those who want to eliminate guns should
chew on that for a while.

     So, why do so many want to eliminate the guns that
make them safer?  It is partly because of ignorance about the
benefits from gun ownership.  It goes far beyond ignorance. 
Many people are infected with gunaphobia.  They have an
unreasoned, illogical fear of guns.

     Such people are unlikely to ever change.  We must not
let them win.  There is no good reason why we must all suffer
in insecurity because of the mental problems of the gunaphobs. 
We don't ban water because some fear it.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284

I'm Sick of Healthy Mice

    In recent years I have noticed a trend that lies somewhere
in the realm between aggravating and annoying.  Every article
about a "medical break through" leads off  promising something
that sounds too good to be true.  The promises range from pills
that cure cancer to a silver bullet to drop Alzheimers in its
tracks.

     I have never been impressed by the headlines.  After all,
if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

     Over time I have developed the ability to predict most of
what the articles will say.  That can save reading time. 
Invariably the magic cure is based on discovery of a gene or
substance in mice.

     The researchers discovered a way to cure cancer in mice
or give them memories that would embarrass an elephant.  I
never considered forgetful mice with cancer to be among the
worlds ten greatest problems.

     At some point the reporter admits that the magic cure
only works for mice.  The admissions usually continue.  The
cure usually only helps mice a little bit.  Next is likely to be the
researchers claim that the discovery holds great promise for
humans.

     Then comes the admission that no one knows if, how, or
when the cure may reach the human race.  Some speculate that
trials on humans may be only years down the road.  Others
won't even hazard a guess about when, if ever, the cure will be
available for people.

     Usually I find the suggestion from the researchers that
lots, and lots of money will be needed to journey down the trail
and find the cure at the end of the rainbow.  Instead of using
bait to catch mice, Are they using mice for bait to catch money?

     Where is all of this leading?  Will the world someday
have 200 years old, cancer free mice?  Will mice be able to
regal cats with every detail of the mice's battles with the cat's
great, great, great, etc. grandfathers?  Will those mice also have
perfect teeth and be fit and trim?

     Why are we investing all of this effort in building a
better mouse?  Has everyone forgotten that if we build a better
mouse trap, nature will breed a better mouse?  Nature usually
works for lower fees than do research scientists.

     I can imagine other possible results.  Will most of the
mega millions for research end up down holes dug by the mice's
larger rodent cousins?

     I suppose the sensational headlines and lead paragraphs
are designed to catch readers.  The mice are bait to catch people. 
How long will this trick work?  For some time now I have
greeted such headlines with a somewhat less than enthusiastic
"Ya, sure."

     When I do occasionally read the article, I usually find
that my enthusiasm was still more than warranted.  How long
before such overstated headlines completely cease to attract.  
Don't worry.  Headline writers will come up with a new wrinkle.

     Perhaps the research is worthwhile.  When you don't
know where you are going, you may have to try many wrong
roads before you find one that doesn't lead down a mouse hole.

     Is it too much to ask for an end to the inflated and bogus
claims about minor accomplishments that may or may not lead
to something worthwhile, even if not miraculous?  It probably is. 
For the record, I am sick of hearing about healthy mice.

     How about even one article where the research made the
mice so sick they couldn't even remember that they were sick? 
Better yet.  An article about mice that after the research couldn't
even remember that they were mice?

     This column may be a bit short.  Last year was one of
those hard years.  It required 53 columns rather than the usual
52.  I'm tired.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2012
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284