Last November, eleven-year-old Domonic Davis was killed, and five others were wounded, in a drive-by shooting in Cincinnati. “Federal investigators,” the Associated Press reports, “believe the 22 shots could be fired off with lightning speed because the weapon had been illegally converted to fire like a machine gun.”

Per the AP report, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) reported a 570% increase in the number of “conversion devices” — weapons modified for full automatic fire — seized between 2017 and 2021.

Why? Because with the advent of 3D printing and machining equipment that fits within both home garages and home hobbyist budgets, making a gun into a “machine gun,” or even making a gun from scratch, is getting easier and cheaper.

Cue cries of “there oughtta be a law” from the usual suspects.

There are many reasons for there not to be laws about manufacture and possession of little bits of plastic or metal that might be used to make automatic weapons, starting with the fact that ownership of weapons is a sacred human right, followed by the fact that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution says any such laws are void, with the fact that such laws do not work and can never work in a distant third place.

At the moment, though, I’d like to focus on a fourth reason that’s as utilitarian as the third.

“Those who would outlaw weapons,” the late L. Neil Smith wrote, “must first outlaw the knowledge of weapons. And those who would outlaw the knowledge of weapons must outlaw knowledge itself.”

Specifically, knowledge of things like engineering, machining, and chemistry. Guns are, at this point, simple examples of those arts and sciences. While it’s been improved in various ways over time, the “machine gun” has been around since 1884.  There’s no way to get rid of it without making everyone on the planet much poorer because even amateur engineers, machinists, and chemists would all have to be killed, no new ones trained, and all texts related to those fields consigned to fire.

Nor are guns the only practical application of Smith’s maxim.

Those who want to outlaw drugs must first outlaw, among other things, chemistry and horticulture.

Those who want to outlaw strong cryptography and cryptocurrency must first outlaw, among other things, math and computer science.

If it was even possible to get rid of guns, drugs, and crypto — it isn’t, but if it was — the politicians who want to do so would have to figure out how to get us to give up everything modern, from the bicycle to the automobile to the microcomputer to the smart phone to most of the food we eat to accomplish their objective.

They’d have to outlaw Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), the set of fields that they’re constantly complaining not enough students are going into.

Are you willing to let them take us down that road into a world where roads would no longer exist? If not, it’s time to give up the fantasy of “gun control.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Last October, Robert Card killed 18 people and injured 18 others in a shooting spree across several locations in Maine. Card was later found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Now, the New York Times reports, an analysis of Card’s brain reveals significant damage, probably related to his eight years of exposure to explosions as a US Army grenade instructor, and quite possibly explaining his paranoia and “increasingly erratic and violent” behavior in the months leading up to the shootings and his suicide.

While some people tend to unduly write off avoidable atrocity as unavoidable tragedy, it’s difficult to deny that brain trauma — natural or artificial — can play a role in turning otherwise reasonable people into killers.

For example,  former US Marine Charles Whitman, who killed 17 people in a rampage at the University of Texas at Austin in 1966, presented with a behavioral history not dissimilar to Card’s, and an autopsy found a pecan-sized brain tumor that may have caused his mental collapse by pressing on the part of his brain responsible for anxiety and “fight or flight” response.

I find the whole topic at least a little bit scary on a personal level, as I stood right next to thousands of bone-rattling explosions in the Marine Corps myself as an 81mm mortarman.

No, I don’t hear imaginary voices. No, I’m not paranoid (at least I don’t THINK I’m paranoid). No, I don’t plan to pick up a gun and go kill anyone. And fortunately I’m surrounded by family and friends who would notice and take action if I started showing symptoms of any such kind of breakdown.

But Card’s family and co-workers noticed and took action too. His son and ex-wife talked to the local sheriff’s office about his seeming mental decline. His army reserve unit also reported problematic behavior and he was detained for psychological evaluation and treatment. Even when “the system” seemed to “work” as advertised, it didn’t work for Card or for his eventual victims.

When writing on issues of public concern (I hope we can agree that mass murder is such an issue), I often try to offer practical and ethical solutions. Here, I have few to offer. But I do want to offer a cautionary note:

If we allow government to “medicalize” murder and simply attribute mass shootings to mental illness, traumatic brain injury, etc., the flip side of that coin won’t be pretty when it comes to personal privacy.

We’ll start seeing mandated examinations — first for persons actually displaying symptoms, then later for anyone working in jobs deemed “unsafe for the human brain” — at risk of involuntary commitment if we “flunk” our CTs or MRIs.

If you think that can’t happen, you’ve probably never been ordered to urinate in a cup or blow into a breathalyzer to prove you don’t use drugs or haven’t been using alcohol.

Unless we, and our healthcare providers, get better at going the extra mile to help those who might otherwise become Robert Cards, that’s the dystopia we’re heading for.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Wendy’s ran into a wall of popular resistance with the mid-February release of its “earnings call” transcript for the fourth quarter of 2023. The transcript mentioned an intention to test “dynamic pricing” starting next year.

The knee-jerk panic reaction was understandable. Nobody looks forward to the prospect of sitting in a drive-thru line for 20 minutes before reaching the menu, only to learn that a Baconator combo is going for $50. Wendy’s quickly backed down on the plan and tried to explain that its focus is on “dynamic pricing” ideas other than mere “surge pricing” (i.e. higher prices at times of highest demand).

But “dynamic pricing,” including “surge pricing,” is a great idea — for Wendy’s, and for its customers.

Dynamic pricing goes in both directions, and it’s good all around. To see why, let’s look at that Baconator combo. I just priced one for pickup at my local Wendy’s: $12.29.

Now, suppose a nearby factory’s daytime shift is getting off work, or a local sporting event has just ended, and a bunch of hungry people are heading for Wendy’s. The drive-thru line extends  into the street. The workers are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. People are waiting ten minutes instead of two minutes for their food.

Of course, most of those customers are ordering via phone app these days. They know the cost before they even join that drive-thru line. And if the cost is $15.29 instead of $12.29, many of them will decide to eat at home. The people who are willing and able to pay the extra three bucks will get their food more quickly; those who can’t or won’t will eat elsewhere; and the staff will not be overworked and exhausted.

That’s “surge pricing.” But let’s look at the other side. Think of it as “slow business” pricing. There’s one person in the dining area and two cars in the drive-thru. The workers are standing around and one could safely be sent home. The basket of fries that just came out of the oil will end up in the trash if not sold ASAP.

The manager presses a button and everyone with the Wendy’s app gets a promo message — Baconator combo for $9.99 if you order in the next 30 minutes! People who happen to feel a little peckish get a deal. Food doesn’t go in the garbage. A worker keeps getting paid instead of going home. Instead of losing money during that hour due to wasted food and wasted time, Wendy’s makes money.

Everything else being equal, nobody wants to pay more for food than necessary. But everything else is never equal. For some people, saving time is worth a little extra money; for others, saving money is worth a little extra time. For businesses, keeping demand more steady is profitable.

“Dynamic pricing” — prices rising and falling — has always been the rule, not the exception. It’s just getting compressed into shorter time frames. That’s a feature, not a bug, and the sooner we see it at the drive-thru the better.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY