I'm Bored
By: Karl F. Auerbach
Posted: 03.30.00 Karl's Home Page

I'm bored.
Really bored.

See, I'm running this test. Why? I'm a concerned citizen. I've read reports on the gun violence prevalent in our society, and I'm concerned. I'm very concerned.

Especially since I'm a responsible gun owner.

It's just a small gun, a Glock 17. Still, with all the reports of gun violence out there, I'm sort of concerned about that gun.

Which is why I'm running this test. It's a simple test. I've loaded the gun, I've placed it on my family-room coffee table, and now I'm watching it carefully for any sign of violence.
Any sign at all. I'm hoping that it will actually go off, but I'd settle for its simply depressing its own
trigger safety all by itself. Or even for its doing some name-calling.

But so far - nothing. It just lies there. However, can I trust it?

In a few minutes, I'm going to place a beer along side it just to see if gun violence is affected by the presence of alcohol. If I can find a copy of Hitler's "Mien Kamf"
(that book HAS to contain "hate speech") or Al Gore's "Earth In Balance," and just lay one of those
books right down there beside the gun, then obviously I'll be able to test the effect of hate speech on
gun violence.

But I fear this is still going to be very boring.

So while we're all waiting to see if anything comes out of this test, let's talk about Smith & Wesson.
Do these folks really think that caving in to the scare-mongers regarding trigger locks and "smart guns"
is really going to protect them? All they need to do is to look at the tobacco industry to determine what the long-term impacts are of simply producing a product which the state decides to target.
The tobacco folks once naively thought that warnings on cigarette packs would protect them.
No way. A recent court decision has awarded a multi-million dollar settlement to someone who
started smoking AFTER the warning labels came out.

Think of the implications of that one. I wonder if ladder manufacturers really think that warning not to use that top step is going to protect them.

But back to S&W. The problem S&W faces in trying to accommodate the scare-mongers is that they will willingly and eagerly alienate a group of people who are vital for S&W's continued existence - an oft-maligned group of people blamed by the same scare-mongers as being the sole source of "the gun problem." Yes, I'm talking about gun-buyers and gun-owners. Remember them - those people sometimes called "customers," who actually BUY guns from S&W - ? Those people who are the SOLE SOURCE of the income that keeps S&W in operation - ? Does it really make sense for any business to answer the "concerns" of non-buyers while completely ignoring the wants and needs of its customers?

Sure, I know the "alternative" if S&W doesn't ask "How high?" when the "concerned" non-buyers yell, "Jump!" The FedGov, along with help from various StatGov Attorneys-Generals, will "force" S&W out of business via various semi-legal means. Lawsuits will be filed, courts cases pursued and won, billion dollar awards granted, and S&W will be out of business.

All in the name of ending "gun violence."

Back to the gun on the table. The gun test is still underway, and it's still boring. A fly landed on the Glock a few moments ago, and there was some hope that maybe some synergism might result in some gun violence, but the darn thing flew away. (The fly, not the gun.)

The gun is still just lying there. Boring.

And it won't even touch the beer. If it doesn't soon, I'll be forced to drink the beer. Obviously,
I can't let a perfectly good beer go to waste!

So back to S&W. What are they to do? Acquiescing to the scare-mongers will result in their producing guns that the gun buyer doesn't want. I mean, I like new gizmos just as much as the next guy, but I prefer that they actually work, and even more than that, I want them to work reliably, and when I need them to work.

I've got a 1998 Dodge Dakota with some pretty standard features like cruise control. We're not talking state of the art here; cruise control has been around for decades. You'd think Dodge would have that down pat, but the damn thing went out on me last week just when I was leaving on a long trip. It worked the night before, and then suddenly, in a time of need, and for no reason I could easily figure out, it just totally quit functioning.

Picture the 2005 S&W Safe & Secure .22 caliber pistol. For "safety" reasons, the .22 caliber is the largest caliber S&W now produces. For "security" reasons, it comes complete with the patented electronic DNA sensor, which is designed to ensure that the gun can only be fired by its owner. Once programmed (both the gun AND the owner), only a positive DNA identification by the gun's built-in electronics will allow the gun to be fired. Sounds great - until you read the fine print: there is a 10-minute delay when the gun is first picked up to complete the DNA test.

Bummer.

So this "state of the art smart, safe and secure gun" is totally useless when it comes to stopping that thief or discouraging that rapist, but if it ends gun violence, it's "well worth it," and should be the only type of gun we get to buy and own, at least according to the scare-mongers.

Speaking of gun violence, let's check back on that test. Damn, that Glock is STILL just sitting there. It must be defective or something. I don't get it. Here I've got a loaded gun, alcohol, some hate speech close by, and the thing just sits there. What am I dong wrong? I've incorporated all the aspects of gun violence and the thing isn't responding. Why?

Maybe if I bring some kids around, something will happen. That seems to be part of the recipe as presented by the major news, uh. sources. Or maybe if I wrap the gun up in that hate-filled Confederate battle flag it'll react and go off by itself. There has to be something that will trigger (sorry) this lazy gun into some kind of violence.

I mean, do I actually have to pick this gun up and pull the trigger to get something out of it?

Oh, that's right. I do. Silly me. Silly test. And "gun violence" is a silly media buzz-word.

But an effective one.

I Used a Faulty Gun!
By: Karl F. Auerbach
Posted: 04.10.00 Karl's Home Page

That HAS to be it. My editorial last week, "I'm Bored," in which I described a gun violence test where the gun wouldn't cooperate was in error. To recap, I set my gun, a Glock 17, on a table and waited for it to get violent. It wouldn't. I even supplied some hate literature and alcohol, key components in many violent acts, but the damn gun just wouldn't do anything! I obviously own a faulty gun, perhaps one that has Attention Deficit Disorder, Alzheimer's Disease, or some other ailment that stopped the gun from living up to its full potential of violence. Perhaps someone has been dosing it with Prozac or Ritalin when I'm not around. Or maybe it's in love with my old .300 Savage. We all know what love can do to you.
What leads me to this observation? Just look at what that gun on board the Delta flight was able to accomplish! Now THAT is a weapon! Consider this Associated Press excerpt from the Washington Post:

"NORFOLK, Va. -- A passenger found a loaded gun in a bathroom sink on a Delta Express flight Monday, forcing the plane to be diverted to Norfolk, authorities said.

The gun was found about 10 minutes after Flight 2395 left Islip, N.Y., for Orlando, Fla. The plane landed in Norfolk less than an hour later. "

Wow.

I'm impressed. My gun hasn't been able to get me, or anyone else for that matter, to do anything. It hasn't even TRIED. Yet here is a weapon that "forces" an entire airplane to Norfolk!

At first, I thought it was funny that the it took an HOUR for the plane to land, oops, for the pilots to land the plane. Why didn't the plane turn around, OOPS, the pilots turn the plane around and land where they took off? But after further consideration, I realized the facts: the gun HIJACKED the plane to Norfolk!
It took the hour for intense negotiations between the gun, the FAA, and airline representatives to agree to let the gun go to Norfolk in exchange for not killing any passengers. Obviously, a much more talented and experienced gun then the one I used in my test. My gun should be jealous. Or ashamed, at least.

OK, so I'm a little fuzzy on details. Why anyone, even a gun, would WANT to go to Norfolk is beyond me. My guess is the gun was after something better, like maybe Duluth, but had to settle for Norfolk. Someone should have mentioned Spring Break to the gun; with all those drunk teenagers, I'd bet the gun would have insisted on going on to Orlando. What self-respecting gun would pass up the opportunity for a little violence with some drunk, scantily-clad teens?

Or perhaps the gun just wanted to get out of Islip, NY. I can buy that. The waiting list to leave must be huge. And how the gun managed to buy a ticket, get past airport security, and board the plane without being challenged isn't quite clear. Perhaps it simply disguised itself as an innocuous smoke detector and convinced an unsuspecting maintenance worker to take it aboard the plane. That would explain why it was hiding in the bathroom; it's where all the smoke detectors hide on planes. Or maybe it disguised itself as a kilo of cocaine. That would get it anywhere on a Delta plane. In any case, a damn "smart gun."

I propose a prolonged FAA investigation into the entire affair. We MUST stop these "smart guns" before they strike again! They're probably plotting against Air Force One as I write. To Arms! Or rather, To Unarms! Underarms? No arms? Whatever.

Then again, perhaps it was an (how should I say it?) intellectually challenged hijacker who got confused on where the pilots sat. Upon entering the bathroom, and seeing no humans present, he panicked at the thought of the toilet flying the plane and gave up, discarding the gun in hopes that maybe it could talk to the toilet. But I must discard this scenario: it requires us to accept that there was a human behind the gun. And we know better, right? Besides, what hijack demands can you make on a crapper?

Now, let's take a two paragraph detour to reality. Bear with me, please.

A friend of my wife has somewhat strange, though commonly accepted, ideas about guns. She's completely against them, and refuses to let her daughter watch TV shows where guns are used. I've tried to talk to her about the whole gun issue, but she doesn't want to discuss it. When it's pointed out that guns are inert objects that are useless without a human behind it, she just blanks out and insists that the subject be dropped. She's already made up her mind, or rather has had it made up for her, and she doesn't want to rationally examine the issue.

What's sad is she's not stupid. She works hard to support herself and her daughter, but won't take any time out to explore the issues. I've asked how she feels (it's all based on feelings, not rational thought) about knifes, forks, heavy ladles, boiling water, bats (the non-flying kind), hammers,
axes, screwdrivers, garden tools, cars and other implements of destruction, and she challenges me to explain why those objets are dangerous. She recognizes that none of those items are dangerous in themselves; the danger only arises when a human being gets behind them. But her understanding disappears when it comes to guns. To her, they're just dangerous, period.

Enough with reality. Given the talented gun that hijacked the Delta flight, maybe she's correct. Any guesses on whether the plane and the gun were in cahoots? It's clear that the gun WANTED to be violent, but has anyone questioned what the plan might have wanted in all this? Something that should be checked out. Can't trust those inanimate objects. They'll get you every time.

PS: Ed, don't get me started!

Karl Auerbach