Guns, Guns and More Guns

Another week and another deranged person with an assault rifle and two more funerals.  The President and many members of Congress have vowed to make gun regulations a high priority.  The National Rifle Association has loaded up its propaganda machine and is firing with both barrels and we are being assaulted from all sides by fools armed with misinformation.  Of course the main fear is that the Second Amendment will disappear if we make any changes to the existing gun laws.  Time for someone to set the record straight and this time, I might even include pictures.

By my count, in 2012, 81 people have been killed and 83 injured in  12 multiple murder attacks.  These attacks all took place in public places, resulted in at least 2 deaths (not counting the shooter) and all involved semi-automatic weapons.  I have not included any of the shooters in the count.  I consider all of their deaths to be suicides.  Of the casualties, 42 were killed and 63 injured by assault rifles.  Since 1966 These types of public rampage shootings have taken (by my not very exhaustive search) 489 lives (not counting shooters) and injured another 477.  Considering the 46 year period, that only averages just over 10 deaths and 10 injuries per year.  But let's take a closer look at the numbers.

From 1966 until 1993 (The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect in 1994)  144 people were killed and 164 injured, that averages 5 1/3 deaths per year.  The average would have been much lower except in the 2 years prior to these laws taking effect, 42 were killed and 45 wounded in 4 attacks.  From 1994 through 2003 (when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired), 123 deaths and 94 injuries (13 2/3 deaths/year) were attributed to mass shootings.  From 2004 through 2012, 222 dead, 219 injured, averaging 27 3/4 deaths per year.  While the actual numbers aren't staggering, the rate of increase is something that should worry everyone.

The majority of these instances (I want to say, all of them) were perpetrated by people with either mental illness or severe emotional disturbances.  Of the deaths, 165 died in instances where an assault rifle was used and 205 died in attacks using high capacity semi-automatic pistols.  In other words, 3/4 of the deaths were caused by two types of weapons.  There are two possible approaches to this issue.  Either identify, isolate and treat the mentally ill/emotionally disturbed, or get rid of the guns they are using.  Pick a solution and then stand by it, all the way.  No exceptions, no limitations, all the way.

To identify, isolate and treat everyone who is mentally ill or emotionally disturbed is quite a task, but I'm willing to go that course.  The first step is to get every person in this country in for psychiatric evaluation.  I know, that you don't have any problems and that I don't have any problems, but how can everyone else be sure about us?  After all, you are reading this, and I'm the nutcase writing it.  To reduce the risk of a misdiagnosis, I suggest each person be required to undergo 3 separate evaluations by 3 randomly selected doctors.  If any of the 3 believe there is a problem, then further evaluations would be required.  That should help us identify all the mentally ill.  I suggest re-evaluation every 2 years, until age 75.  The emotionally disturbed is a little more difficult.  I suggest putting everyone through a high stress boot camp type environment every 5 years to determine if they can handle extreme emotional stresses without losing their reasoning abilities.  Try working 20 hour days for 2 weeks, then have your car break down and your girlfriend dump you all in the same day and see if you can still cope.  It isn't easy, and no, I don't want to talk about it.

You might be thinking all that sounds like a very expensive violation of your rights and your privacy, and you would be correct.  However, not only would it greatly reduce the risk of someone committing a mass murder, but it would also identify people who shouldn't be teachers, or police officers, or politicians.  It would help us to identify rapists and pedophiles, psychopaths and sociopaths.  And the mandatory boot camps would go a long way to fixing our obesity problems.  The difficulty has always been identifying someone who would commit such a crime, before they commit it.  Most offenders seem to be normal people.  Maybe not very outgoing.  Maybe they keep to themselves.  Maybe they don't have a lot of friends.  Actually, that sounds like me.  I better go buy several guns just to be on the safe side.

The other approach to this problem is to do away with the weapons being used to commit these atrocities.  That means stop making them, stop selling them and get rid of the ones already out there.  This won't stop the killing, after all there are still plenty of other guns or other ways to kill.  But, if you reduce the numbers killed by 75%, that seems to be a worthwhile improvement.  If your reading comprehension is at least adequate, this next sentence won't need further explanation. I don't suggest banning all guns, I suggest banning two distinct types of guns:  Assault Rifles and Assault Pistols.

Before going any further I'll define each of these.  An Assault Rifle is a semi-automatic rifle (1 pull of trigger = 1 shot, with no reload to capacity of magazine) with a removable magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.  An Assault Pistol is the same thing, except in a pistol.  The 10 round designation is my own.  I am unaware of any fixed magazine weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds, and there are many removable magazine rifles and pistols that hold 10 or less rounds.

As I see it, there are four reasons to own guns.  They can be collected, used for hunting, used for protection or used for crime.  If you consider having guns to protect yourself from the government as a reason, you might want to work on your reading comprehension.  That falls under either protection, or crime, depending on how you look at it.  Collecting, really doesn't deserve to be mentioned, since gun collectors tend to have guns for one of the other reasons.  Pistols, rifles and shotguns are all used for hunting, depending on what and where you hunt.  Pistols and shotguns are good for protection.  For most crime, pistols are best.  Easily concealed and quite effective for robbing banks and liquor stores, they are also a good choice for murder.  Banning Assault Rifles and Assault Pistols in no way prevents you from your chosen gun usage, it merely reduces the number of people you can kill or injure at one time.

If you are hunting with a rifle, it probably looks like one of the above pictures.  The top is a bolt action rifle, perhaps a Mossberg, 30-06 caliber.  It holds 4 or 5 shells and is excellent for many types of large game.  After each shot, the bolt is manually operated to remove the spent casing and insert the next round into the firing chamber.  Below that is a Winchester Model 94 30-30 lever action.  It's magazine capacity is 6 or 7 (depending on length of barrel) and the lever serves the same function as the bolt on the Mossberg.  Also very good for large game, it however, does not have the effective range of the bolt action, due to the shorter barrel and lower muzzle velocity.  Both types of rifles are available from several manufacturers in a wide range of calibers.

The reason that hunting rifles tend to be one of the above types is simple.  If you miss with your first shot, chances are your target is going to run away.  A second, third, fourth... twentieth shot is less likely to hit and increases the danger to other hunters (when you continue firing, you develop tunnel vision and are unlikely to notice anything other than your intended target).  In places where many hunters are likely to be around, rifles are either not allowed, or restricted to pistol calibers, to reduce their range and the danger to other hunters.

This is an Assault Rifle.  Assault Rifles are copies of military weapons.  The only major difference is the military versions typically have a selector switch where you can fire semi-automatic, or a 3 round burst, or (in some models) fully automatic.  The magazine is removable and typically holds 15 or 30 rounds, although magazines holding up to 100 rounds are available.  Every time the trigger is pulled a round is fired.  The shell is ejected and new round loaded automatically after each shot.  The reason for this is quite simple.  When you are shooting this type of weapon, you're probably shooting at targets that aren't going to run away.  In fact, they, most likely, are shooting back at you.  Having only 5 or 6 rounds is a problem when you have 25 people shooting at you.  You still need to be able to hit what you're shooting at, and if you have a lot of targets, this is the gun to have.

If you are worried about protecting your family, then you may wish to purchase a pistol.  They are compact, reasonably priced and very effective in close quarters.  Plus, if you do have to shoot an intruder, you are much less likely to kill someone across the street, or down the block.  They also will do a lot less damage to your house than a shotgun.

 The top gun is a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver.  The bottom one is a M1911 (unsure of the manufacturer on this one.  Many companies make them).  A revolver typically holds 6 - 8 cartridges.  After each shot the cylinder rotates to move the next cartridge to firing position.  Once all cartridges have been fired, the empty casings must be removed, and new cartridges inserted.  The M1911 was standard issue for our military from 1911 until 1985.  It has a 7 round removable magazine and is semi-automatic.  The standard is a .45 caliber, although both types of guns are available in different calibers.

This is a Ruger P89 9mm handgun.  The P89 can take up to a 15 round magazine, making it (by my classification) an assault pistol.  There are several manufacturers that make similar guns, with the main identifying characteristic as the high capacity magazine.  Guns such as these are a favorite with many gun enthusiasts and with many criminals as well.  They are also the weapon of choice for public attacks with the intent to kill and injure a large number of people.

For home protection, any handgun will work, and the logic of many is that the more shots you have, the safer you are.  However, burglars don't tend to work in large groups.  If you're breaking in a house where you figure to get $300-$600 worth of stuff, how many ways do you want to split that?  Also, many states have greatly increased penalties for using a gun to commit a crime.  Get caught in a house with no gun, probably do 9 months.  Get caught with a gun, and do at least 5 years, and maybe a lot more.  In most cases, the presence of someone with a gun, will cause a burglar to run.  In almost every other case, a shot fired, will do the trick.  Ask yourself, if someone breaks into your home is your intent to protect your family, or to kill the person?  The difference between protecting your family and wanting to kill an intruder is significant. The difference between wanting to kill someone for breaking into your home and wanting to kill someone for cutting you off in traffic, or for not giving you that raise, or for insulting you is rather small.

For home protection, I recommend a nickel plate .38 or .357 magnum revolver with a 3" barrel.  The shiny nickel plate makes the gun more visible, the 3" barrel limits the lethality to close range and the medium caliber bullet is a good compromise between stopping power and recoil.  I also recommend spending some time at the local shooting range to make sure you can hit what you intend.  Then, if you hear someone break into your house, arm yourself, attempt to locate the intruder, and make them aware of your presence.  "Stop or I'll Shoot" is a popular method.  If the person runs, follow at a safe distance, try to notice as much as possible (height, weight, age, dress, getaway vehicle, etc.), and then call the police.  If the person doesn't run, but doesn't make a threatening move, keep them in your sights and call the police.  If they make a threatening move, or if they have a gun, shoot once at the torso.  Do not fire again until you determine the effects of your first shot, or until the other person shoots back.  Every shot you take increases the risks of a stray bullet injuring a member of your family.

Every year, some concerned homeowner makes a mistake and shoots someone they shouldn't have.  Often it is a member of their own family or a neighbor.  Depending on your neighbors, you probably don't want to do that.  Identify your target, evaluate the threat, give the target an opportunity to either flee or surrender and in almost every situation, you will not be required to fire a shot.

For the Second Amendment Panic people here's some good news.  First, the Second Amendment can not be taken away, or overturned, or anything else, without first being proposed by a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate.  The proposed change would then have to be approved by 3/4 of the states.  We can't get an Amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women, how do you think anyone will ever get an Amendment to overturn the Second Amendment?

As for the "If they pass one law, then they will eventually outlaw all guns" crowd, does anyone outside of elementary school actually think like that?  Our laws tend to be restrictive rather than prohibitive.  We have speed limits, which have changed over the years.  Strangely they haven't led to abolishing all cars.  We have laws that limit or restrict most aspects of our lives, from what we eat to what we say.  We already have a significant number of laws, some that have been around for a very long time, placing limits on guns.  If you truly believe a law restricting the possession of weapons that are only necessary to kill large numbers of people, will cause all guns to be outlawed, then I feel sad.  Not sad that you are unable to reason, but sad that you will continue to spread your idiocy to your children and to anyone who will listen.  And when the funeral is for your child, or grandchild, don't feel sad.  Be happy.  After all, you've still got all your guns.

How Not to Fix a Problem

Throughout history, tragic occurrences have caused changes to the way we do things.  Some of the changes have been important and necessary and have resulted in improved safety.  However, many of the changes are to create a perception of concern or safety.  The latest tragedy, in Newtown, CT, has the National Rifle Association (NRA) and others, calling for a change that falls squarely in the second category.  Let's examine some of the other tragedies and the changes, before tackling this one.

May 6, 1937, the German airship Hindenburg, caught fire while landing at Lakehurst, NJ.  Thirty six people died and the accident signaled the end of airships (dirigibles, zeppelins, blimps) as air transportation.  Today, we see them providing aerial camera coverage for sporting events .  At the time of the Hindenburg disaster, airships used hydrogen for buoyancy.  All airships today use helium. Hydrogen is cheaper and lighter than helium, but helium is an inert gas and will not burn.  Definitely safer.

April 10, 1963, the USS Thresher, a nuclear submarine suffered flooding during sea trials and was lost with all 129 persons aboard.  May 22, 1968, the USS Scorpion, another nuclear submarine sank for unknown reasons, and all 99 on board were lost.  This resulted in 2 major changes, one good, one, mostly for show.  The good change was the creation of the DSRV (Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle) program.  For the publicity, the US Navy showcased the DSRV in the 1978 movie "Grey Lady Down".  The mostly feel good change was a change to submarines themselves.  Until after these disasters, a submarine could only be entered or exited on the surface.  It's simple, if you open a hatch, the water comes in.  Not good in a submarine.  All current submarines are equipped with Logistic Escape Trunks (LET).  The entire LET can be removed for loading supplies, hence the "logistic" tag.  The LET is composed of 2 hatches, with a space between.  The inner hatch is opened, sailors enter, close the hatch, then increase the air pressure inside until the outer hatch can be opened.  They then float to the surface where they can be rescued.  Sounds good so far.

The downside is that the air pressure has to be raised very quickly.  Too long at increased air pressures would cause the bends due to the rapid decompression.  The air pressure must be increased so fast that it causes the eardrums to rupture.  Still that's better than dying in a steel tube on the bottom of the ocean.  Now other factors come into play.  If the submarine operates in northern waters, the water is cold.  Cold enough that death from hypothermia can occur in 30 minutes.  If the submarine operates in southern waters and the water is warm, there are sharks, attracted by the blood from the ruptured eardrums.  Add to that, the oceans are vast and the chances of someone getting to the scene to actually rescue you in time, are very small.  Still it did give us hope, as long as we didn't think about it too much.

On to transportation.  In 1938, the Interstate Commerce Commission, created the original hours of service regulations for people that operate commercial vehicles.  The rules have undergone a few changes, all intended to make the roads safer.  These regulations define the number of hours a driver can drive during a day, how long of a break must be taken and several other issues.  And the regulations are necessary.  Every day people die as the result of a truck driver falling asleep.

Unfortunately, the regulations are full of exceptions, greatly reducing their effectiveness.  This includes exceptions for oilfield operations, exceptions for drivers working for movie or television productions and exceptions for drivers making retail deliveries during the Christmas shopping season.  Here is an example of how, by following the rules, a person can drive 24 hours per day, without ever taking a break (until the schedule kills him).  Driving to or from home is considered "off-duty".  Drivers are required to take 10 consecutive hours either "off-duty" or in the sleeper berth.  If I live in Indianapolis and work in St. Louis, I can work 14 hours in St. Louis (but only 11 hours driving), get off work and drive home.  Upon reaching home, I can turn around, drive straight back to St. Louis and have taken my required 10 hour break.  I can now drive another 11 hours in the next 14 hour period.  All legal, but not a very good idea.

Now, on to current issues.  The NRA proposes training and arming security personnel and stationing them at schools to prevent another massacre.  On the surface, that seems like it could work.  After all, banks routinely use one armed guard to greatly reduce the risk of a robbery.  After taking a closer look, you'll either understand it's an ineffective, feel good fix, or you're so far out of touch with reality that nothing will reach you.

The only thing banks and schools have in common is they are both inside of buildings.  A bank typically has one way in, while a school has many entrances.  People that rob banks are sane criminals.  A guard inside is usually enough to convince them to find another bank.  Anyone that goes to a school (or a theater, or a mall, etc.) in order to kill a large number of people, is not sane and is unlikely to be stopped by one guard.  Although the guard may stop them, the presence of a guard will not deter them.

With the exception of very small, rural schools, schools are large, complex buildings.  Usually, only a few doors are left unlocked during school hours, in theory limiting access.  However, there are several ways to get into a school other than through the unlocked door.  One, or two, or even three security guards, can't possibly cover all access to even a mid-sized school, let alone one of the larger campuses.  To provide effective security, a significant number of armed guards is required.  It only takes one bullet to stop a would be killer, but the person with that bullet has to be between the killer and the potential victims.  For a small school this requires a minimum of 8 guards, and that is stretching things thin.  Ten would be much better.  Of course, 8 only works if the school is square, or nearly square.

Why so many guards?  First off, to be effective, guards must work in pairs.  One guard, and a moment of distraction, or someone taking them by surprise, could take them out.  Also, to keep anyone from getting inside, all 4 sides must be patrolled and monitored.  In addition, there really should be 2 guards inside the school as backup, relief for bathroom breaks etc.  This doesn't make things safe, but it's at least a step in the right direction.  Larger schools would require security forces numbering at least 20, and in some cases maybe as high as 50.

There are about 49 million children in 100,000 public schools in the United States.  This does not include day care centers, but does include kindergarten.  Providing minimal security (1 guard, making $30k/year) costs only $3 million, plus benefits, plus training, plus equipment.  Still not much money to spend.  Of course at $30k/year, you're probably not getting a lot of highly skilled applicants.  Better raise that wage to at least $45k/year.  Still a bargain.  Have you ever seen those "What to do in an emergency" cards on airplanes?  How many people have walked away from a plane crash praising those cards?  One guard at each school is the same thing.  The number needed to provide reasonable security to the public schools is about 1.5 million guards, with equipment costs at about $5000 each (weapons, communications, uniforms, vests, etc.).  By the time you add in training and benefits, the price tag is somewhere in the $10 billion/year range.  That is about 15% of the current federal budget for education.  Either the education budget needs a major increase (it does, but not for this), which is highly unlikely, or the quality of education (already poor) must take a very big hit.

What happens if we spend the money, and fill the schools with armed guards?  What happens if there is another shooting?   Do we add more guards?  And what if the mentally ill person seeking to kill dozens of people decides to look elsewhere?  Look 30 school buses of kids going to the zoo, or the museum, or to an amusement park.  At some point we don't have enough people to guard everything. It's time to examine, not only our gun laws, but also the way we deal with mental health issues.

The biggest problem with putting armed guards in all our schools:  It teaches the children, guns are the solution to all your problems.

Can't Touch This

After the tragedy of last week, and all of the ridiculousness that has followed, a palate cleansing story has come along.  It's been discovered that 3 time Olympic athlete, Suzy Favor-Hamilton has been leading a double life and working as a $600/hour escort.  How could the most decorated female athlete in NCAA track and field history end up as a prostitute?  Are you shocked?  Hurt?  Dismayed?  Disgusted?  Read on.

The country we live in is sick, and shows no signs of recovery.  I'm not talking about the economy, or the right-wing vs. left-wing debacle of our government.  I'm talking about our attitudes towards sex in general and specifically, towards women.  From a very early age, we are constantly reminded that sex is dirty, disgusting and wrong.  Since the Reagan era, there have been strong, and sometimes successful efforts to change sexual education classes in schools to abstinence only programs.  This is the partner to the "Just Say No" answer to drug abuse.  Ironically, the hypocrites that push such programs are often the same people that were sexual over-achievers at an early age.

Sex is natural and normal and can be something incredible.  It is also a choice.  Animals do not have a choice about reproduction.  When it's that time, it's that time.  People, however, can freely choose when, how and with whom, when it comes to reproduction.  We can even choose whether the act is for reproduction or just for practice.  And, contrary to popular belief, this is nothing new.  From paleolithic cave paintings to Egyptian scrolls, to Greek and Roman art, it's obvious that sex has been a very popular diversion for a very long time.

Cultures where sex is treated as normal and natural have much lower rates of sexually based crimes.  This includes rape and molestation.  These cultures also have fewer prostitutes, and often have legalized prostitution.  In the United States sex is twisted all out of shape.  Sex is only considered okay at certain times, in the right places, behind closed doors.  Sex is only acceptable if between a man and a woman (except most straight males will gladly watch two women).  And, sex is for marriage.

Yes, I know that everyone has sex before marriage these days.  What you may not know is, this hasn't changed.  Your parents probably had sex before marriage, your grandparents as well.  The only reason virgin at marriage was more common in the distant past is because a girl was considered eligible to marry after her first period.

All of these cultural restrictions on sex have created a multi-billion dollar sex industry.  From baby food to beer, advertisers use sex to sell their products.  Pornography and prostitution.  Sex toys and fetish clubs.  The more sex is repressed, the larger the market for all of these things.  Which leads us back to the subject of prostitution.

Prostitution has always been with us, and always will be.  With the exception of a few counties in Nevada and in some U.S. Territories, prostitution is illegal everywhere in the United States.  It's also very common.  Efforts to stop or reduce prostitution are expensive and unsuccessful.  Prostitutes themselves range from exploited children to very successful business persons.  Chances are someone you see on a semi-regular basis is a prostitute.  Could be your banker, your hairdresser, your kids teacher or the super-mom in the PTA.

Suzy Favor-Hamilton shouldn't have to apologize, or make amends for what she has done.  She did what she needed in order to cope with her life and her problems.  Although, technically illegal (very difficult to prosecute), there are no victims here.

If we can ever abolish the "sex is evil" mindset, prostitution will be legalized.  Which would go a long way towards stopping forced and exploitative prostitution, greatly increase government revenues and take away the necessity of women like Suzy Favor-Hamilton having to apologize for their actions.

'Tis the Season

The Christmas lights are all up and the retailers are frantic.  The children are shaking presents and trying to be on their best behavior.  Meanwhile the parents are hoping that next years tax refund will pay off the bills from this Christmas.  And amidst this, a non-controversy seems to be the issue of the day.

For as long as I can remember, the phrases "Seasons Greetings" and "Happy Holidays" have been widely used at this time of year.  I remember decorating grade school classrooms with just those phrases and they have long been staples of the greeting card and wrapping paper industries.  Now suddenly this is offensive, and the only acceptable thing to say is "Merry Christmas", at least to an extremely loud and annoying segment of the population. 

The propaganda is, some conspiracy group, in an attempt to outlaw Christianity, is trying to force everyone to stop mentioning Christmas.  I'm assuming this latest bout of stupidity has its origins at Fox News, or somewhere within the deluded religious right wing brain trust.  Whatever the source, my already tenuous trust in mankind is being eroded by the mindless multitude who are jumping on this bandwagon.  Sadly, this includes friends and even family.

Personally, I rarely say "Merry Christmas", except on Christmas day.  I will occasionally return the phrase when someone says it to me, or just say "you too".  I also don't tell people "Happy Birthday" if it's not their birthday, don't comment about the lovely weather when it's raining, or tell a vegan "You look like you need a good steak".

Not everyone in the world celebrates Christmas.  Shocking I know.  Wal-Mart is hoping the government will step in and make Christmas gifts mandatory.  Some that don't celebrate Christmas, but observe the holiday have their own rationale.  Jewish families I knew in San Diego would decorate their house and tree using only blue and white lights, and refer to the tree as a Hanukkah bush.  It's a case of "When in Rome..."

"Happy Holidays" makes sense to me.  As a child, the two week period at the end of every year was magical.  No school, homemade cookies and candies, and four separate holidays to be celebrated.  Christmas eve was a large family get-together, Christmas day was presents in the morning, then more presents and a big dinner in the afternoon.  Then a week later there was New Years eve and New Years day.  Football games, parades and all the new toys.  Time with family and friends, good food and happy memories.  It wasn't just Christmas, it was The Holidays.

I understand, it's Christmas and it's all about Jesus Christ, and the mistletoe, holly, decorations, pine trees, Santa Claus, reindeer, elves and presents are somehow all connected.  Just another example of how Christians are being persecuted.  So persecuted that it is almost impossible to find a place where Christians can gather together safely.  From where I sit, I can't see anyplace like that.  Now if I moved 20 feet to the front window, I could see four such places, and if trees and buildings weren't in the way, I could see another six.  So persecuted that you can't find any mention of churches in the newspaper, unless you turn to the page(s) most papers devote strictly to church news, advertisements and announcements.  In fact, Christians are so persecuted that Christian Bibles are nearly impossible to come by, unless you check any library, book store or hotel room.

Throughout history, persecution has been present for different groups in different places.  Ask anyone who has been a victim of persecution and you might begin to understand.  "Happy Holidays" isn't persecution.  It's considerate and kind.  It's saying "we may not believe the same, but I wish you happiness".  With that in mind, may your celebrations during this season bring you hope and good cheer, and may the coming year bring you joy.  Happy Holidays.

Gun Control for Idiots

Just so there is no confusion here is the text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:   "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".  The question is, what exactly does it mean?  I'll try to answer that today, also answer what it doesn't mean and maybe get a few people to understand a few basic facts about the world we live in.

During the American Revolution, and the early years of our countries history, our military establishment, had not yet become established.  The typical military unit consisted of someone of influence, getting together friends, relatives and neighbors and forming a company.  Such companies were expected to be self sufficient, providing their own uniforms, weapons and supplies.  During war (or any warlike action designated by Congress) they were paid and provided supplies and equipment when these things were available.  Once the war was over, the army went home and stopped being an army.

Since a large standing army (navy, marine corps, air force, etc) is extremely expensive, and equipping, training and mobilizing an army from scratch is expensive in time and money, the Second Amendment provided a workable compromise.  If the population already had their most important equipment, they probably knew how to use it, and forces could be gathered and put into action quickly.  Yes, I know, the Second Amendment also allows the population to defend itself, but that is only part of the issue.

To keep this short, I'm in favor of a licensing process for gun ownership.  At the very least, the completion of an approved gun safety course should be required.

This piece is the result of something I've seen before and saw again earlier today:  Someone ranting about boycotting an establishment because they do not allow firearms to be brought inside.  Apparently, the rationale is that if someone comes in and starts shooting, they want to be able to shoot back.  Personally, if there is a reasonable chance that guns will be fired where I might be eating or having a beer, then I'm not going there.  By the way, the establishment being boycotted is Buffalo Wild Wings.

Over the past 30+ years I have done extensive research on the effects of alcohol on humans.  Quite often I have become personally involved in my experiments.  One thing I have found is alcohol seems to have a negative impact on the ability to make good decisions.  If the bad decision results in you eating some wings that are so hot you'll be burning from both ends for the next 2 days, once the alcohol (and effects of the hot wings) wears off, everyone's life goes on without interruption.  Adding a firearm to the impaired decision making process is probably not a good idea.

But suppose you're still mostly sober and someone bursts through the door and starts shooting, you can be a hero if you have your gun!  First problem; until you've been in a situation where guns are firing, people are screaming, panicking and dying, you really have no idea how you'll react.  Will you freeze up?  Will you be able to, amidst the pandemonium, calmly assess the situation, react quickly enough and fire accurately to end the threat without increasing the risk to those around you?  And, the 20 other people in the bar, who also brought their guns, will they all respond correctly?  Talk to a soldier who has been in an actual firefight.  Now take what they've experienced and add alcohol. 

Buy your guns, keep them at home.  If your work situation puts you at risk, then carry your gun, when you are at risk.  But when it's time to go out and eat, drink or do laundry, leave it at home.