Star Wars: Lightsaber practice

Since we've started learning how to do the special effects, Emmett's friends have wanted to be in them.

Here's a video we shot one afternoon while his friend was over playing:





These videos have been a lot of fun to put together, and the kids have learned a lot about what goes into movie making. Now they'll be watching TV going "I know how they did that!."



I just like that they're learning to use computers for more than video games and cartoons. :-)

Self Education vs. Having a Teacher

I've always said that the strength of homeschool is the training on how to be self-taught.

There's a process to it - you don't just start doing something. To try to teach yourself something without a plan gets frustrating and counter-productive.

Fortunately, the process is relatively simple, it just takes time.

First, find a good instruction book, manual, tutorial, etc. There are a lot of good resources available for free now online. You'll probably have to dig though, because they usually don't rank high on the search engines.

Then, you repeat the following cycle until you can't stand it, then you do it some more:
A. Read the instructions or watch the videos.
B. Try to do what the instructions tell you.
C. Repeat

It works like this: The first time you read the instructions, they make no sense. This is hard, and this is where it's easy to give up. It's like reading a foreign language.
Then you try to do what the instructions said. You will fail miserably. If you're doing something physical, you may fail painfully (more on this later).
Next you go back and re-read the instructions. This time they will make more sense.
Retry the instructions - you will get a little farther before you get stuck.

When you've finished the assigned exercises, try to do something "off book" and see if it works. It won't. Go back and apply the instructions to the new attempt and try again.

When you can do that without having to refer to the instructions, you've learned what the instructions were trying to teach you.

It's a frustrating and time-consuming process, but if you learn to push through you will find it very rewarding.

So why have a teacher?

My ideal is that a good teacher will guide the student through the above process. The teacher compiles and provided the instruction materials, assigns practice that challenges the student while reinforcing existing skills, and most importantly, helps to push the student through the frustrations and keep moving forward. A good teacher makes the whole process move much faster.

When is a teacher required?

If you don't have access to a teacher, then what? History is full of famous scientists, musicians, etc. who rose to the top of their field because they were self-taught. Being self-taught give you an advantage of approaching problems in new ways because you are not limited to what had always been done before.

But there are certain instances when having a teacher is a necessity.

It depends the risk factor of what happens if you fail during the practice steps.

Teaching yourself to do origami is a low-risk activity. If you fail, the worst you may get is a paper cut. SCUBA diving on the other hand is not something you just want to "try." There's no good way to really try it without risk. An instructor provides safety while you are learning, but they don't short-circuit the process, either.
Example: you assemble your SCUBA gear according to the instructions. You will probably get something wrong. You have two ways of finding out what you missed: you can jump in the water and try the life-support equipment yourself, or the instructor can double check your setup for you and show you what you've missed.

A good instructor mitigates risk.

A controversial subject for self-teaching is martial arts. Instruction can be expensive, and there are so many different styles out there that it can be hard to find a convenient quality place to train what you want.

It's tempting to self-teach martial arts, but it has a hidden danger. If you try the moves you see from your instruction videos without a solid foundation, you will hurt yourself. Maybe not the first time, but as you try more difficult things it will happen.
It's very rare to find a black belt that hasn't had a training-related injury. Because they had oversight from an instructor, those injuries are usually minor. Trying to reach black-belt level proficiency without an instructor is almost a guarantee for significant injury. Adding weapons (especially sharp ones) increases the likelihood of injury significantly.

Once you've learned the basics (black belt or equivalent) you are now encouraged to learn from books, videos, etc. Every proficient martial artist I know is self-taught once they are past a certain level of training.

I even know incredibly proficient swordsmen who have resurrected training styles from reading old fencing manuals from the 16th century. But before they did that, they had a solid grounding from good teachers.

Dr. Shinichi Suzuki

On the other hand, one of the most popular methods of teaching the violin is the Suzuki Method, developed by Dr. Shinichi Sukuki. It's a fantastic program and one I recommend. According to his biography Dr. Shinichi Suzuki: Teaching Music from the Heart, Dr. Suzuki has access to violins when he was young, but didn't have access to a teacher. He taught himself to play by listening to classical records and playing along. After his playing caught the ear of certain people, they were able to arrange for him to receive formal instruction. By this time he had already had the basics, and he needed refinement.

This was encouraging to me because I don't have access to a violin teacher, but I have been teaching myself to play for many years. If I had the resources for formal instruction I would love it, but since I don't I make do with following Dr. Suzuki's footsteps. So far it has been frustrating but very rewarding.

Faith vs. Science - the battle continues!

I'm currently watching "Cosmos" hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson on Netflix. I'm thoroughly enjoying it. It's very well done.

Should I be enjoying a documentary that teaches the big bang theory and evolution? I went to a conservative Bible school for crying out loud! I'm still active in my faith and in church so I'm not a "backslidden" Christian. Shouldn't I be offended by something like that? I was always taught that I should.

But I'm not offended. I see no need to be. Stephen Hawking and other astrophysicists I've read have been very courteous and respectful toward the concept of a god, and have always been respectful toward the God of the Bible.

They're following science. The process of science was designed to remove personal influence in the testing process. One of the main test of a hypothesis is that it has to be reproducible by other people. In other words, if it only works for one guy and no one else, then it's suspect. People should be able to produce the same results using the same equipment under the same circumstances.

Someone once explained it to me this way: Science is allowed to ask how something happened. It's not supposed to ask why?

Confused? Try this example:
How: A whip makes a cracking sound by focusing kinetic energy into a small tip which then moves faster than sound, creating a small sonic boom.
That's the process of how it works.

Why: My whip cracks because I watched Indiana Jones too many times as a kid (and as an adult) and I like to play with whips, particularly with multiple cracks.
That's the intent of why it cracks.

The process is true of all bullwhips that crack.  How a bullwhip cracks is universal. Anyone can use a bullwhip under the same circumstances and cause the cracker to exceed the speed of sound.

The intent behind why I crack it is individual and unique.

So in other words, science questions and tests the process.
Science is not allowed to test the intent.

Now, let's take a classic example straight from my high school biology textbook: the giraffe. My textbook said that the giraffes grew taller in order to reach food that was not available to the competition. (I did go to public high school).

This sounds an awful lot like intent. If you have a giraffe that intends to grow taller to get better food, and passes that height on to it's children, you're dealing with Lamarckianism, which was debunked almost as soon as it was introduced.

That's not allowed in science. The scientific method can't test the intent of the giraffe, because intent is not reproducible.

Here's a statement about giraffes that would be acceptable to science regarding the process of tall giraffes: Some giraffes were taller than others - the short ones died out because they couldn't reach the food. Since the taller ones had an advantage, the tallest giraffes passed on their height to their offspring.

There's a good historical reason for regulating science: Back before the modern scientific method was accepted, there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology. Alchemy was still a high pursuit. Science was seen as a form of theology.

Thanks to the notorious DaVinci Code, everyone heard about the Fibonacci sequence. It goes like this: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, etc. It's really simple, you just add the two numbers next to each number to get the next one.

Now these numbers and their relationships to each other are all over the place in various different categories. They're in music (the pythagorean scale uses these as ratios for tuning), they're in faces (the "ideal" relationships represent the spacing and size of facial features), they are freakishly present in geometry, etc.

Seriously, just look up fibonacci numbers and the "golden ratio" (phi) derived from them and prepare to lose your grip on rational thinking for a few minutes.
Or you can start here:
http://www.goldennumber.net/

Architects, mathematicians and theologians all thought they found a "key" to understanding God. They found a pattern that crossed a lot of disciplines, and ascribed that pattern to the intent of God.

The pentagram (five-pointed star often associated with witchcraft) contains multiple examples of the golden ration in each arm of the star.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/pentagram.html

In fact, the pentagram was originally a religious symbol - it only got associated with witchcraft by intent. Basically, only authorized people were allowed to use it for religious services. When unauthorized people used it, they were accused of practicing religion without a license, also called witchcraft.

If you've ever wondered why people thought dueling to the death was an intelligent way to solve legal disputes then congratulations! You're more like me than you want to admit. The truth is that at the height of judicial dueling, the practice was permeated with mysticism. It was argued that the skill of dueling was an indicator of a person's harmony with Truth. So by default, whoever won was a true person.
The fencing manuals and teaching were as mystical as any kung-fu movie, it was just Roman Catholic based mysticism, instead of Buddhism or Confucianism.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/09/25/history_of_fencing_geometrical_images_of_sword_fighting_by_gerard_thibault.html

This came to a head with Galileo. His model of a solar system challenged the astrological and mystical beliefs of the "scientists" of his day as much as it challenged the authority of the Pope. When Galileo was eventually proven right, the whole scientific process had to be reexamined. The mysticism and religious aspects were removed, systems were put in place to remove intent from the process, and science was allowed to pursue what it found without fear of imprisonment from whoever was in charge of religion.

So science is not allowed to ask about the existence or intent of God. God's miracles, teaching, authority and nature are not within the realm of science. They are not repeatable, nor testable. In fact there is a lot of knowledge and belief that lies far outside the realm of science. To put it bluntly: Science will never prove nor disprove the existence of God. If it tries, then it's bad science.

Science has it's place. Where it fits into one's religious beliefs is a question for philosophy, and that's a subject of a whole other article.

My Name is Travis, and I am a Racist

They say the first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Well, I admit it.

I don't want to be racist. I don't like the idea. I'm ashamed to say it. But it has to be said.

But I won't be able to improve until I am honest about where I start.

Right now my heart is twisted up in emotions. Last weekend my family and I received an incredible gift: we got invited to spend the 4th of July at a family reunion and birthday celebration for a family we just met. It was a celebration of the whole family overcoming a difficult past, heartbreak, and sometimes fighting, but they come together to remember the past, and encourage their kids to keep striving.

I was amazing. I came away so encouraged to see the resilience of a whole family, and knowing that my family can get through the tough times we've had.

What really made this interesting was that the reunion was for a large black family. (I say "black" because that's how they described themselves, if they called themselves "African-american" I would say that.)

The reunion also celebrated diversity. There were a couple of mixed-race marriages, and we weren't the only white family there. My favorite part was watching the kids play together. My kids had no concept of "race" yet. There were people of different color skin for them to play with like there were people with different color hair. It meant nothing more - there was nothing to divide them, just something different.

That's one thing I've been wanting for my kids -- to not know the concept of racism until they were so ingrained with a healthy attitude that when they finally understood what it was, they would be totally puzzled by the idea.

I have a new "family" (we've been adopted, BTW), and I came home all set to be an ambassador to diversity and to do what I can to help.

Then the shootings happened.
First Alton Sterling was shot at point-blank range in Baton Rouge, then Philando Castile was shot during a routine traffic stop in Minnesota.

I haven't watched the videos yet. I don't want to. I do know that a whole group of people is feeling a loss in a way that I have never experienced.

And that's why I choose today to admit to the public that I am a racist.
But people will defend me: "But you just spent this time with a black family and are glad your kids were with them. That's not racist."

No, it's not. But that's only a part of it. It's deeper than that.

I, like everybody else in the world, make my decisions and predictions based on what I've experienced. You see something horrible happen on the news, and you say to yourself "would that have happened to me?"

It's a deep instinct. I probably didn't articulate the words, but I thought it. What if I was in Alton Sterling's place; what about Philando Castile? What would I have done?

Well, based on my past experience with police, I would have reacted a certain way and be here today. It's too easy to judge and say "He should have cooperated." That's what I would have done - I would have cooperated. And I would have been fine. But I'm not black.

My experience tells me how to respond as a white person. I haven't experienced life as a minority. Traveling to Mexico doesn't count - I didn't live there.

My prejudice is that if black people acted like me, they wouldn't have problems. That's wrong. That's racist of me.

I don't know, but it seems logical for me to predict that when black people see this horrible situation in the news, and they say to themselves "what if that had been me?" The answer is: "I could be dead."

See, I've never experienced that kind of situation. I am projecting my white experiences onto a black problem. The only thing that does is to make me feel better about myself. That doesn't solve any problems, that just makes the pain go away, like drinking.

Like alcohol, projecting my white experience into these situations makes me numb to the heartache. That's why I have to approach my thinking in the same way AA does.

First, I have to admit I have a problem.

Another thing: recovering alcoholics are taught to never say they are "no longer alcoholics" - because once they think they're over it, they'll slip back into their old habits. They say they are "recovering alcoholics."

But for the sake of my new friends, I don't want to numb myself anymore. I want to feel with them, even though what I feel is different.

I realize that if I was in Alton Sterling's, or Philando Castile's position and I was black, I might be dead too.

And that's sobering.

Starting today, I am now a "recovering racist."

The Great Gun Debate, Part II

Wow, my last post about guns is right at 199 views right now!

For reference, the most views I've had on a single post before this week was about 50, so that's pretty fun for me.

Surprisingly for me, other than a lot of people sharing the article, I didn't get much feedback. There was one note about the article that a friend of mine told me about that had a couple of good points, and they helped me to frame what I wanted to say.

Two points to follow up on:
1. What about permitting and training?
2. How do not turn this into an arms race?

For both points, the questions resonated with me as "where do we draw the line?" And I'll get back to that in minute.

To the first idea:

Permitting and Training

I have always been a huge supporter of gun training. I've known too many people who suddenly feel the force disparity in their own lives, buy a gun, and go through one box of ammo at the range, only to leave the gun somewhere in their bedroom, or even worse, their car, thinking that if things go wrong you can just "pull the trigger" and the bad things go away.

This is a spectacularly bad plan.

If this you right now, go give all your ammo to your friend and lock up your gun until you learn to use it right. And I'm not talking about slow, controlled fire into a paper target 6 feet away. (If you bought a gun solely to use to punch holes in targets from whatever distance, carry on and enjoy.)

First, train the gun safety rules.
Some systems use 4 rules, I like the 3 step system, it's easier to keep track of 3 rules.

1. Assume every gun is loaded.
2. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
3. Don't point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.

Train with it. For starters, check with someone who knows, but see what it takes to safely dry-fire your gun. For the dry-fire exercise, keep the 3 rules above.

Dry fire your gun at least 100 times to start with. Before you go to the next live-fire practice, dry-fire your gun 10 times for each live round to are planning to shoot.

Dry fire your gun from a sitting position, from a standing position, while walking (forward, backward, side to side). Dry fire while leaning around a corner. Get creative but stay safe.

When you actually go shoot, practice more that just firing the gun. Practice what will help you actually use the weapon,but stay safe! There are a ton of good resources out there to help you.

But take responsibility for the tremendous power you have brought into your life and PRACTICE!

You're never done practicing.

Also, get your head straight. Killing someone (even in a justifiable defense) still can screw up your head if you're not prepared for it. (Actually, it can screw you sometimes even if your are prepared for it.)

Now about permitting.

I am fine with the permitting system that is in place now for most states. I would be unhappy to live in California, because they probably wouldn't permit me, but I'm not going to scream about my 2nd amendment rights there.

I have taken 3 concealed carry permit classes for 2 different states, and I'm about to take a fourth. They're great. I'm fine with requiring a permit to carry a concealed pistol for self defense. Even if you don't really plan to go around armed, take the class anyway.

Most of what you will learn there is related to the laws of self-defense for your state.
And no, you don't need to register your hands as "deadly weapons" if you have a black belt.

I'm not getting into it here, but Massad Ayoob is widely recognized for his work in shaping use-of-force laws. You can get the basic rundown on one page here: https://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Most states have a variation of the AOJP checklist to determine if you are justified in using deadly force.
A: Ability - does your attacker have the ability and force (or force multiplier) necessary to harm you.
O: Opportunity - are they actually in a position to hurt you? This is where the gun vs. knife drill is useful -- a man with a knife in hand is a threat to you if he charges you from less that 25 feet away and you have a gun.
J: Jeopardy (Imminent Jeopardy) - Is the threat immediate? Just because a large man who is a black belt is standing next to you on a street corner (ability and opportunity) doesn't mean he's going to attack you (Jeopardy.)
P: Preclusion - Have you precluded (ruled out) all other options? Could you give the mugger your wallet and run away? Is it safe to retreat? Are there dependents with you? Etc. What about just buying the angry guy a beer and apologizing?

Different states draw a line at different places for each of these conditions. In one state, you can use deadly force to prevent a "felonious assault" on yourself or another person. (Kidnapping, rape, assault, etc.) Another state says that you can use deadly force to protect your property, and even that of your neighbor! Different states have different lines for preclusion - how hard to you have to try to retreat? Find out where your state stands.

This is NOT a comprehensive explanation, it's just there to get you interested in learning more on your own.
Start here:
https://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Get permitted. Pass the background checks. Don't worry about it.

I AM opposed to a national gun registry though. If certain weapons get banned, I'm not happy with the idea that the Fed. Govt. knows exactly how many of what kind of gun I own.

Now, on to the second point, before this gets too long.

How do we prevent the private arms race from accelerating?

Where do we draw the line? Muskets, revolvers, pistols, rifles, bazookas, tanks?

Let me introduce you to an interesting license:

The class III license.

In order to use a weapon that is listed below, you must have a special permit called a class III permit.
I thought about getting one to buy a silencer - I might still do it someday.

From the  of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: (ATF)
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-firearms-are-regulated-under-nfa

What firearms are regulated under the NFA?

(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;

(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;

(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

(5) any other weapon, as define in subsection (e);

(6) a machinegun;

(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and

(8) a destructive device.

[26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]

I know there are some people who are tying to get silencers off this list. Other than that, it's a pretty non-controversial list.

You'll notice that machineguns require a special permit. So do "destructive devices." This basically covers explosives. (That would include the ubiquitous bazooka or rocket propelled grenade [RPG] in the arms race question.)

So far as I know, the NRA or "Gun Nuts" aren't too concerned with this list. It's not a big issue. You want one of the items on this list -- you gotta jump through some serious government red-tape hoops to get them. Most people don't want anything on the list badly enough to get them.

By the way, if you do buy a Class III weapon, it does go on a national registry.

That's your arms race limit. You can go as high as you want until you hit Class III.

You can even buy your own tank! But the gun on the tank is a "destructive device" so you have to talk to the ATF about firing it. Most privately owned tanks have the gun permanently disabled.

I've met people who think an AR-15 is a machine gun. It's not. It's a big source of confusion because it looks like this:

(From wikipedia)

Those are M-16s of different models. These are machine guns and heavily regulated as a Class III weapon.

That's an AR-15. It's not a machinegun, and is not regulated as a Class III weapon.

Can you tell the difference by looking? 

I can't.

It's what goes on inside the gun that makes a difference. 

I'll try to take this slow, because it can get confusing.

You have basic designations for how a gun cycles -- that means how it loads the next round and prepares to fire.

Starting at the bottom:

• Muzzleloader -- old-school muskets -- you pour the powder and ram the bullet into place from the dangerous end of the the gun. (rifles, pistols, shotguns)
• Breach-loader -- old school rifles -- you load one round at a time through an opening (using a gate or lever).
• Single-action - two types
• Revolvers - you have to manually cock the trigger back to rotate the live round into place to be ready to fire. The old cowboy pistols. The Colt Peacemaker (Colt Single Action Army) is probably the most famous.
• Rifles and shotguns - either using a pump action, a lever action, or a bolt action, you manually remove the empty case and load a new round by working the action. This also cocks the hammer. Each time you fire a round you have to work the action once. Most hunting rifles and shotguns work this way. Examples include the Winchester94 (lever action rifle),  Remington 870 (pump action shotgun), M1917 Enfield, (bolt action rifle).
• Double action
• Revolvers - one long pull on the trigger performs the "double" actions of pulling back the hammer and dropping it, rotating a new round into place for firing. End result - one trigger pull, one bullet comes out. Repeat as necessary. No safeties included. This type of pistol was popular with police for it's simplicity. The Colt Trooper and the Smith and Wesson .38 (Model 10) are icons of this type. 
• Double-action only
• This one's confusing, but important. It's a mix of the double action and semi-automatic. It's automatic in the method used to eject the old case and load a new shell, but in order to fire it, you have the long trigger pull of the double-action that cocks and drops the hammer in one smooth motion. This removes the hair-trigger of the semi-automatic and makes the pistol safer. DOA is also known as a "safe-action" pistol. The most famous is the Glock style pistols used by many police departments in the US.

• Semi-automatic
•  The "Automatic" refers the method of loading the new shell. You manually load the first one and cock the trigger, but the force from the pressure that pushes the bullet out also is used to remove the empty case and automatically load a new one.
• This gets confusing, because the "semi-automatic" pistol released in 1911, (called the 1911 because at lease something has to be simple) is known as a .45 Auto. 
• Each time you pull the trigger, one bullet comes out. To fire again, you have to release the trigger completely and pull again. That's what defines the "semi" part of the semi-automatic.
• Famous examples include most guns used during WWII - the 1911 pistol, the Luger German pistol, the famous M1 Garand of WWII, and later the controversial AR-15.
• Fully Automatic
• This is a machinegun. Early full-autos kept loading and firing bullets until you released the trigger or ran out of ammo. Later models have an option to only fire 3 bullets, then stop until you release the trigger and pull it again. This is to increase accuracy and waste less ammo. 
• As discussed above, this type is heavily regulated as a Class III weapon. This is what you'll see in most action movies and TV shows. The Tommy-gun, the AK-47, the Uzi, and the M-16 are famous fully automatic weapons.

So to answer the question - once you hit a certain type of weapon, whether it's a grenade launcher or a machine gun you have to get a special permit to obtain it, and pretty much everyone I know is okay with that.

Thanks for sticking around this long -- remember I promised I would talk about: 

"Where to draw the line?"

Well here we go.

Most people have a pretty common set of beliefs as far as what's acceptable and what isn't. We're fighting over a pretty thin line. What do I mean?

Well, right now the line people are fighting over is somewhere in the middle of the semi-automatic rifle category. 

Most people in the US are really pretty OK with Single action and double action guns. A large majority is OK with semi automatic handguns. And if fact, if you include a lot of older style semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, many people are fine with them too.

The fight right now is over such fine details as how many rounds can a magazine hold, and whether a pistol grip is more dangerous than an old fashioned rifle grip. We're arguing over whether the front stock can go all the way around the barrel (a barrel shroud), or if it can only cover the bottom portion.

Most people also agree that machineguns and explosives should be heavily regulated. 

At the end of the day, we're not that far apart on what we're willing to accept as a society. We're really pretty much in agreement. It's just the fine details we're fighting over. 

I'd say we're actually doing pretty well.

The simple problem regarding gun ownership. It's not about the children.

First, I want to get past some of the more often repeated pro and anti gun arguments based on statistics.

Statistically speaking, are you more or less safe with a gun in your house. The answer is:

It depends.

Every statistic that I've seen can be countered with another. A specific study on one type of situation has another one that has the opposite results in a different specific situation.

It seems at the end of the day, there is no statistical proof that either owning or not owning guns is safer overall. There are simply too many variables with too many agendas at this point to get a clear study.

So if you want to debate whether or not Australia or Austria is safer because of their gun laws, and how we should copy their laws into the U.S., that's for another site.

Moving on.

"But what about the children?" Children die from guns. That's true.

You know what more children die from? Drowning.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_unintentional_injury_2014_1040w740h.gif

According to this chart, 647 Children aged 1-14 died from drowning in 2014 in the U.S.

For the same age group, 220 died by firearm homicide. 174 died from firearm suicide, and 14 died from unintentional firearm.

This is also interesting:

"Minorities: Between 1999-2010, the fatal unintentional drowning rate for African Americans was significantly higher than that of whites across all ages. The disparity is widest among children 5-18 years old. The disparity is most pronounced in swimming pools; African American children 5-19 drown in swimming pools at rates 5.5 times higher than those of whites. This disparity is greatest among those 11-12 years where African Americans drown in swimming pools at rates 10 times those of whites."
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

So of the 647 children that drowned in 2014, the astonishing majority of them are African American? Where's Obama's outrage over them? What if Trayvon Martin had drowned?

If it's just about protecting the children or protecting minorities, why do we not have stricter pool ownership and swimming protection laws? Why do we not require permits and licenses to own your own pool? Shouldn't you be required to take lifeguard training before being allowed to own a pool?

Shouldn't hotels and recreation centers require certified lifeguards to be on duty any time the pool is accessible? Do you know how many children would be saved each year? If it's really about saving children, why are people not upset about the dangers of drowning?

Owning a swimming pool is not in the bill of rights. Laws could be easily passed that don't infringe on our right to swim.

But it's not about saving the children. It never really was.

It's about disparity of force.

Firearms are an extreme example of what's known in martial arts as a "force-multiplier." 

In common terms, it's a strength equalizer. 

Weapons are designed to maximize a person's strength to cause damage. A physically weak person with a club can hit harder than a strong person with a fist. Using leverage it multiplies the force to a greater amount. A spear or a knife takes the force and condenses it into a small cross section, effectively multiplying the force of the strike.

A gun takes a couple of pounds of pressure on the trigger to release several hundreds of ft-lbs of energy.

A 9mm pistol releases about 383 ft lbs.

A .357 magnum revolver releases about 640.

A .223 (What AR-15s shoot) is about 1,300.

A hunting rifle is between 1,300 and about 5,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

Most anybody is strong enough to pull a trigger.

At a basic, almost primitive, level we don't like the idea of other people possessing more power than we do.

Swimming pools don't do that. They aren't force multipliers.
Swimming activities don't trigger that basic fear of allowing someone else to possess that kind of force over us.

Swimming is just fun that can be dangerous.

Someone else with a gun has more physical force at their disposal than we do.

So we have two simple solutions to the force disparity. (or you choose nothing)

Someone else has a gun. You either.

A.) Take their gun away.
B.) Posses your own gun.

Let's be honest about what it is we're fighting over with this gun debate.

It's not about the children. If it were, you would see the same amount of effort put into preventing drownings as you do with regulating guns.

It's not about fighting terrorism. Your average Israeli population is armed to the teeth. They still fear terrorism.

It's about how do choose to deal with the primitive fear of knowing that someone near you possesses more physical force than you do.

If I choose A, then I make the decision to take the gun away from those who chose B.
If I choose B, then I become a threat to someone who chooses A.

That's what we're fighting over.

Choosing A is an impossible situation. I would have to take everyone's guns away when they don't want me to.

I choose B and take responsibility.

This Title is a Paradox.

Life is full of paradoxes. And that's awesome.

Last week I wrote about Algorithms, and how they can be used to master skills that can be used every day. Today I'm talking about the opposite end of logic and reason.

par·a·dox

ˈperəˌdäks/

noun

1. a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

   "a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox"

   • a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

     "in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it"

     synonyms:

     contradiction, contradiction in terms, self-contradiction, inconsistency, incongruity;More

   • a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

     "the mingling of deciduous trees with elements of desert flora forms a fascinating ecological paradox"

A paradox works both ways: A seemingly logical situation that ends up appearing absurd when you look "deeper", or a seemingly illogical or absurd statement that ends up making sense when examined closely. Sometimes both at the same time (which is in and of itself a paradox.)

One of the most easily recognized paradoxes used in fiction is the time-traveler's paradox. It works out in many ways.

In the Terminator storyline John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to protect his mother before John is born. Kyle ends up becoming John's father.

Would John Connor have existed if he had not sent Kyle back in time?

Variations include going back in time to give Shakespeare a full copy of his published writings before he wrote them, or going back in time to stop an event, which if successful renders the need to go back in time irrelevant, meaning the time traveler does not go back in time, which means the event ends up happening, prompting the traveler to go back in time to fix it . . . etc.

M.C. Escher based his career off of paradoxical drawings.
http://www.mcescher.com/

Bach even wrote a canon called the "endlessly rising canon" which is a musical paradox. (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StrangeLoop.html)

In real-life science, paradoxes are a part of quantum mechanics every day. They've been shown to be so consistent that computer chips and cell phones are designed around them, but yet they have never been resolved. They are still being studied, but the results are accepted and used.

Schrodinger's Cat is probably the most famous (if most misunderstood) quantum mechanics paradox. The most intriguing to me is the wave-particle paradox. The famous double-slit experiment and the experiments it inspired produce a whole host of paradoxes, including a scientific reexamination of the time-traveler's paradox referenced above!

If you want to really stretch your brain, look up explanations of the half-integer-spin particles called "fermions."  (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/spinc.html). We all know about electrons, protons and neutrons, right?  If you spin any one of those particles 360 degrees, they won't look the same. You have to spin them twice (720 degrees) before they end up back where they started. All atoms are made up of fermions which are physical paradoxes. You are made up of atoms. Everything is. You are a walking paradox.

You are a logical contradiction.

Light is simultaneously an energy wave, and a bunch of particles. Not part wave and part particle, but it behaves with properties of both waves and particles at the same time.

Time doesn't travel in they way we think it does, it is relative to your perspective. Einstein's E=mc^2 is the mathematical formula representing the paradoxical nature of time.

In fact, most things we accept as "true" are paradoxes.

So science, philosophy, art, music, and even common sense rely on paradoxes to function.

God is a paradox. Why do people who base so many beliefs on science, knowing it's full of paradoxes, dismiss the idea of God simply because the idea of an all-powerful God is paradoxical?

Some would say that the concept of God is "self-contradictory" and so it is illogical, but how is that different from a paradox?

"Can God make a rock so big he can't move it?" That's not an illogical question -- that's a paradox.

People say "the Bible is full of contradictions." Is it? Then why do so many scholars throughout history (who can plainly distinguish contradictions) say it's not? Is it just that the Bible is full of paradoxes?

The very concept of a Bible (a series of books inspired by God, but written by men, over the course of thousands of years to write a single story) is a paradox. If God wrote it, shouldn't it be perfect? But if men wrote it, it can contain imperfections (estimates instead of actual numbers, discrepancies in geographical descriptions, translation issues, etc.) Yet the imperfections are a testament to the authenticity of the process of the writing.

If it was too perfect, we would dismiss it as a forgery by just a small group of people, but if it's not perfect, we dismiss it as being made up by a small group of people, not God.

The very idea of a Bible is a paradox.

If God knows everything, does he know the future? If he does, can the future change? Am I a robot, or do I truly have free will?

These are all paradoxes. And by being wonderful paradoxes, they have great company in science, art, math, music, and philosophy.

1.