Ryan Byrd’s Ramblings

Right now on the kitchen counter is a Barrett 50 caliber m82a1 sniper rifle. The details on how it came to be there might be fuzzy, but what remains is that arguably the most powerful firearm legal for civilian possession is merely a foot away from me, propped up on its biped, beside a few boxes of ammo. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s talk guns. Specifically, let’s consider the Barrett 50 cal. Maybe you saw it in the recent film Shooter. Perhaps you’ve heard about it in the news? If you’re in the military, you’re do doubt familiar with it’s reputation.

Here are the facts: the m82 is heavy at 32 lbs. Throw it in a Pelican case and you’re up to nearly 60lbs. It’s not your casual, stick up the Quicky-Mart weapon. The bullet it shoots is huge– at five and 1/2 inches, it dwarfs the 7.62 AK47 ammo (see photo.) It fires its ammunition at a blasting 2700 feet per second and can engage targets at up to 7450 yards. It can stop an armored personal carrier and other lightly armored vehicles. It defeats bulletproof glass (level 8 ballistic glass (considered the strongest available)) and all wearable body armor (easily slicing through IV.) Unlike other sniper rifles, the m82 is semiautomatic, not bolt action. That means it can fire ten rounds in under ten seconds. Obviously, it’s loved by the military forces of the world.

It’s also loved by those not in the military, and because it’s legal to own in most states (California hippie legislators made them illegal to purchase so Barrett responded by refusing to sell to California law enforcement) it’s a hot item. Whatever your take on gun control, Barrett claims that were it not for civilian sales, they couldn’t stay in business. So choose your poison– sniper rifles for civilians or higher taxes for greater military spending.

The controversy really lies in it’s power– it is a formidable weapon and *could* be used with great effect against police, etc. But its length (5 and 1/2 feet) and weight and cost (nearly $10,000.00 plus five dollars per bullet), puts it beyond the reach of many criminals. And though Hollywood would have us believe otherwise, there has not been a single bank robbery facilitated by this rifle.

Yes, I’ve fired it once. Prone. Still, it knocked me back several inches and for about a second, I couldn’t see anything. I’m told that excessive firing can lead to retina detachment as well as hearing loss. With everything, there are pros and cons.

Q. What’s on your kitchen counter?

If you’re not from Utah you’re probably not aware of the cat fight that is occurring here between overzealous NASMs, that is, Nearly-Affluent, Stay-at-home Moms (and a few Dads, too.)  I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me explain the American educational system. You see, for a long time there were two types of kids, the regular kids and the rich kids. Regular kids go to public schools where they get beaten up, experiment with drugs and, if they’re lucky, learn stuff. Rich kids (or, rather the children of rich parents), go to stuffy-sounding “prep” schools with names like The Waterford or the Milton Academy. Everybody at these schools is good looking, wears plaid uniforms and gets to go to Ivy League colleges. That’s how it’s always been.

That is, until now. Now there emerges the almost-rich kid. These are children of nearly-affluent, upper-middle class families who drive SUVs, own timeshares on houseboats and over-decorate their houses with detritus found at Thanksgiving Point shops. These families, attempting to keep up with the rich Joneses, are also in a lot of debt. Consequently, these families are becoming increasingly raving-mad they can’t enjoy all the privileges rich families enjoy. Topping the list of coveted items is private school education. There is something about the prospect of kids learning science from someone who graduated in a science-related field that fills the hearts of NASMs with hopeful rage. Enough rage that swarms of them have gathered with their proposal of vouchers.

Basically a voucher is a coupon good toward 3k off a private school education if you pull your kid from public education. Now you can get the expensive education without paying as much for it!!! Television ads are currently running which feature an annoyingly happy couple explaining the economics of vouchers with stacks of Oreo cookies. That’s all rather ironic, given the credit-card induced economic depression these NASMs are in. (You don’t see rich moms picketing for vouchers…) NASMs have even begun quoting scripture from the Book of Mormon to support their cause (esp. 3 nephi 6:12.) Seriously people.

Considerations:

1- Depending on teachers for better education is short-sighted. In college many classes are taught by grad students anyway. It’s better if you learn to learn on your own (in spite of bad teachers.)

2- Pulling students from public schools and subsidizing their entry into private schools is bad because it hurts public schools. We need to improve public schools, and that doesn’t happen by pulling the smart students or the parents who care from the schools.

3- Quoting scripture to support your cause-de-jour is dumb and offensive. Knock it off. Shakespeare, in the Merchant of Venice, reminds us that “The devil can quote scripture for his purpose.”

4- Trying to save money while sending your kids to private school is misguided. If you’re already stretched thin, the cost of the requisite Porsche and cocaine alone will bankrupt you!

In my continued quest to understand the vegetarian mindset, in a previous vegetarian exploration post, I posed a number of yet-unanswered questions about their practices and beliefs. Is eating animals wrong because we’re killing them? Is it OK to eat animals that have died a natural death? Is it wrong because of the manner in which animals are killed? Is the prohibition because we’re causing animals to feel pain? To this line of inquiry, I’d like to add a few thought experiments.

The first, originally by Douglas Adams, is summed up this way: it is OK to eat an animal if that animal wanted to be eaten? More specifically, imagine there once was a certain pig named Priscilla “genetically engineered to be able to speak and, more importantly, to want to be eaten. Ending up on a human’s table was Priscilla’s lifetime ambition and she woke up on the day of her slaughter with a keen sense of anticipation. She had told this to [you] just before rushing off to the comfortable and humane slaughterhouse.”^*

Here’s another: what if animals could be genetically modified to have no awareness of “self, environment, pain or pleasure,”^** decerebrated, if you will. Would that make eating them OK? Killing and eating such an animal could be comparable to eating a fruit or vegetable.

And then there is the concept of pain. Vegetarians, and animal rights activists, believe that animals deserve moral consideration because they can feel pain. It’s further argued that pain is wrong because of “the way in which it scars us in the longer run and creates fear.”^*** Suffering, then, is brought on from the memories of pain more than the pain itself. But that presupposes that all animals have long-term memory, which is clearly not the case. Is it only wrong to cause an animal pain if it can remember that pain? (Vegetarians, I suppose, have few qualms with spraying their houses for spiders or swatting at a fly.)

You should know that I find the concept of an animal “wanting to be eaten”, morally charged because of the disturbing implications. It raises a number of related issues, such as what it means to be a consenting adult, the age of consent, physician-assisted suicide, etc. If the line from Sweet Dreams by the Eurythmics, “Some of them want to be abused,” is to be believed, does that make the abuse any less immoral?

*, **, *** ref: Julian Baggini

A dozen or so of you have already completed my Gun Control survey. Several more of you have written to complain that the survey is too long. We all know, however, that survey results aren’t very useful unless a number of the surveys are completed, so that requires your participation. We don’t want sampling size error, do we? Go ahead and fill it out, won’t you? Also, did you notice I actually listened to the feedback from the last survey we had? Instead of check yes or no, I added a range of options. I’m a good listener.

So let’s talk about bear arms and our rights. During the Anglo-Saxon period, carrying a seax (a single bladed knife) was a mark of a free man, as slaves were forbidden to possess weapons. Times have changed since then, but as free Americans, we have the right to own and carry weapons. It’s in the Bill of Rights:
The second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You might notice that the 2nd amendment is strangely worded. It poses more questions than it answers. Q. Who does the Amendment mean by “the People”? Q. Why does the Amendment protect the right to ‘keep and bear arms’, and not protect just the right to ‘bear arms’? Q. Who or what does the Amendment mean by the “militia”? Is the militia the same thing as today’s National Guard? Q. What does “shall not be infringed” mean? Q. what does “well-regulated” mean? Q. Is the ban from infringement speaking to the federal government or the state government or both? Q. What kind of arms are citizens allowed to have? pistols? hunting rifles? shotguns? military (assault) rifles? automatic weapons?

And then there is me. Where do I stand? Though I’ve never admitted on this blog to actually owning any weapons, I have blogged about firearms a few times. Ownership aside however, as a man of science, I’m heavily swayed by appeals to logic and common sense. Studies and surveys, carefully administered, are therefore very important to me.

Enter statistics. In particular, let’s compare two countries England and Switzerland. The two represent polar ends of the gun control spectrum. England has the some of the most severe gun control laws in the world. Handguns are banned for civilians, even for sporting purposes. You must get a certificate from the police to own a shotgun or a rifle for hunting, and the certificates are difficult to obtain. In Switzerland, on the other hand, every male between the ages of 20 and 42 can be called into the military should need require. After completing a short period of active duty, they are enrolled in the national guard until age or an inability to serve ends their service obligation. During that enrollment the men are required to keep their government-issued automatic rifles and semi-automatic pistols in their homes, alongside boxes of ammunition. As well, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus combat rifles.

Here is a PDF showing crime statistics in the UK in 2004/2005. Some points of interest:

• Only 1% of violent crimes involved a firearm.
• A low percentage of homicides (11% of male victims and 5% of female victims) involved firearms. Most homicides were committed with “sharp instruments.”
• “Less than three per cent of firearm crimes resulted in a serious or fatal injury”
• “a big increase in imitation weapon offenses… “
• 40% of the violent crimes involving firearms were with pistols, even though pistols are illegal to possess.

And then there is Switzerland. Between 1998 and 2000, the entire country had only 69 Murders, which equates to a Murders (per capita) rate of 0.00921351 per 1,000 people, that despite the aforementioned 600,000 issued M-57 assault rifles. Anti-Gun Control advocates have claimed that widespread access to firearms acts as a deterrent to criminals and dramatically decreases crime. A recent study comparing serious crime in eight developed countries might help buttress that claim. Switzerland had the lowest crime of the eight in nearly every category. Check, for instance, the graph below on burglary rates.

On to another aspect: you should know that I’m concerned about a matter of delegation. If you don’t carry a weapon yourself, you’re delegating the task of protection to someone else. The police. What about in times of civil unrest or martial law or invasion? And then there is a question of who is policing the police.

Let’s not forget the University of Utah. That university believed it could institute anti-gun laws in direct contravention to state laws. ‘Cause they’re liberal and gutsy like that. The Utah Supreme court, on the other hand, predictably reminded the Utes that, as a state funded organization, they were in no position to legislate against state mandates. So, now people can carry their concealed weapons on that Salt Lake campus without fear of harassment by the unarmed mobs. On a related note, recently, while browsing at Cabelas, I might have seen Utah’s attorney General (Mark Shurtleff) in front of me in line, purchasing a pistol. Mark, of course, was the defendant named in the above referenced case concerning the University of Utah.

Further reading:

Gun Politics
Brady Act
State-by-State Overview of Gun Laws

Visit my funny gun control picture album:

Gun control is a controversial, divisive subject. Here you can let your thoughts be known. I’ve listed 22 statements. Rank each one based on how much you agree or disagree.