Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Selene]

J.

I am so glad I missed all these Internet wars. Also, extremely glad I never posted on the Pig's forum.

I guarantee I would be banned after my second post!

A...

[william.scherk]

WSS:

There may be, as you say, a "range of opinion" on what the 2nd Amendment says, but there is only one opinion that matters: the United States Supreme Court, and that Court has spoken. Under case law going back 200+ years, the Supreme Court determines the contours and meaning of our Constitution.

Yes. There you go. Any law that attempts to regulate or manage or control or restrict the sale, transport, use and possession of firearms faces court challenge.

So, when I speak of the range of opinion on what the 2nd amendment means/says -- it is in the context of gun control and the likelihood of any new legislation coming to pass. Here is the way I put it: "Decoupling the right to bear arms from reference to a militia (be it well-organized/regulated), it still leaves the lawfulness of regulation/management of firearms open to argument."

This is interesting to me. How indeed will a revived bill of control (say the 1994 gun legislation) fare? It is my present opinion that Congress will get fuck all passed. I may be wrong, but I think the primary obstacle to any control legislation is in the unwilling-to-act Congress. If I am wrong that a new or revived 1994-like bill cannot be passed, let alone signed into law, then the process of court challenges will begin on constitutional/2nd amendment grounds.

A law could perhaps be passed that explicitly bans the sale of weapons such as the one used by the shooter in Connecticut (and the DC sniper, and others since the last ban lapsed). What then?

Let me lay it out that way, PDS, and you may better understand what Canucki observations are worth right now.

As I said up-thread, all those Americans urging that something be done are not being "un American", as you formulate it: but they are being promiscuous with their constitutional inheritance. They are willing to piss it away, in fact. Whether Daunce is making the same arguments, or not, is beside the point. I suspect she is making many of the same arguments, but with less ill intent than the hucksters in this country, who would love nothing more than to have a constitutional convention to make sure there are "no more shootings" as a pretext to fundamentally alter this country.

Here is the essence of the point I tried to make: In these gun discussions post-slaughter, those voices and arguments that you consider promiscuous (in blowing their inheritance) are not represented here; news items from the current debate are not making it here. So, you can have a chorus singing the same song (with minor variations), but this is not grappling with the issues.

Can I make it even plainer? Considering the moves afoot to impose new regulation on semi-automatic weapons (the primary target of the 1994 laws), is there any chance of passage?

The same constitution, the same amendment stood in 1994. What is different today?

And yes, it is complicated. Complicated from a psychological, historical, and constitutional standpoint. That's why quips and feelings and headlines won't do the trick here.

The takehome I get from your remarks is that the deaths in Connecticut are the price of freedom.

[Selene]

William:

You might find this article interesting.

To understand if reinstating the “assault weapons” ban would be effective, we should look at what an assault weapon is and the effects of the decade-long ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004.

Here is the essential difference between the 1968 Federal Law [National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1968 ]and the addition of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the latter banned:

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a bayonet mount;

(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) a grenade launcher;

© a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–

(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of–

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-fails-show-1994-assault-weapons-ban-worked/

The inability to define spelled out it's ineffectiveness.

A...

[PDS]

WSS:

There may be, as you say, a "range of opinion" on what the 2nd Amendment says, but there is only one opinion that matters: the United States Supreme Court, and that Court has spoken. Under case law going back 200+ years, the Supreme Court determines the contours and meaning of our Constitution.

Yes. There you go. Any law that attempts to regulate or manage or control or restrict the sale, transport, use and possession of firearms faces court challenge.

So, when I speak of the range of opinion on what the 2nd amendment means/says -- it is in the context of gun control and the likelihood of any new legislation coming to pass. Here is the way I put it: "Decoupling the right to bear arms from reference to a militia (be it well-organized/regulated), it still leaves the lawfulness of regulation/management of firearms open to argument."

This is interesting to me. How indeed will a revived bill of control (say the 1994 gun legislation) fare? It is my present opinion that Congress will get fuck all passed. I may be wrong, but I think the primary obstacle to any control legislation is in the unwilling-to-act Congress. If I am wrong that a new or revived 1994-like bill cannot be passed, let alone signed into law, then the process of court challenges will begin on constitutional/2nd amendment grounds.

A law could perhaps be passed that explicitly bans the sale of weapons such as the one used by the shooter in Connecticut (and the DC sniper, and others since the last ban lapsed). What then?

Let me lay it out that way, PDS, and you may better understand what Canucki observations are worth right now.

As I said up-thread, all those Americans urging that something be done are not being "un American", as you formulate it: but they are being promiscuous with their constitutional inheritance. They are willing to piss it away, in fact. Whether Daunce is making the same arguments, or not, is beside the point. I suspect she is making many of the same arguments, but with less ill intent than the hucksters in this country, who would love nothing more than to have a constitutional convention to make sure there are "no more shootings" as a pretext to fundamentally alter this country.

Here is the essence of the point I tried to make: In these gun discussions post-slaughter, those voices and arguments that you consider promiscuous (in blowing their inheritance) are not represented here; news items from the current debate are not making it here. So, you can have a chorus singing the same song (with minor variations), but this is not grappling with the issues.

Can I make it even plainer? Considering the moves afoot to impose new regulation on semi-automatic weapons (the primary target of the 1994 laws), is there any chance of passage?

The same constitution, the same amendment stood in 1994. What is different today?

And yes, it is complicated. Complicated from a psychological, historical, and constitutional standpoint. That's why quips and feelings and headlines won't do the trick here.

The takehome I get from your remarks is that the deaths in Connecticut are the price of freedom.

That is exactly the takehome you should get from my remarks.

Or the freedom people have to sit a on a barstool and drink their sorrows away, get in their car to drive home, and then manage to kill another. (Constitutional presumption of innocence)

Or the freedom to publish bad you tube videos in Southern California causes deaths in Libya, apparently. (1st Amendment-freedom of speech)

Or the same freedom Christian Scientists have to raise their kids in an abhorrent way without the aid of correct medical care. (1st Amendment-freedom of religion).

Or the same freedom OJ has to walk out of a courtroom after a jury acquits him of something he obviously did. (Constitutional right to a jury trial).

Or the same freedom an accused has to have evidence thrown out that is otherwise illegal seized by the government, notwithstanding obvious guilt. (4rth and 5th Amendment due process rights)

The price of freedom can be high, and the list goes on and on when one lives in a semi-free society.

[caroljane]

Even the smartest criminals could not steal a nonexistent gun.

Huh? Are you saying that you believe that it's possible to confiscate all guns? Guns would be "nonexistent"? They'd, what, be available to government authorities who you deem to be trustworthy enough to have them, and they'd somehow never make it in to the hands of others, or never be manufactured illegally and sold on the black market (um, like illegal drugs which are available everywhere)?

J

I am saying it is desirable to confiscate them, even if not possible. It is desirable to limit their accessibility as much as is possible.

It's desirable based on what? Your feelings?

It is the only alternative I can envisage to the everything-private, gated kindergartens with armed teachers and metal detectors at the Story Room Door, where everyone keeps eternal vigilance because you are still and always at war, and at any moment King George or Immanuel Goldstein will storm in to trample on your liberties.

Btw, it's my understanding that this Lanza kid got the guns from his mom's collection. Under your policy of making guns "nonexistent," I would imagine that you're not proposing that even the police and military would not have guns, so what happens when a messed up son of a police officer borrows his daddy's guns to go on a killing spree? What are you then going to propose?

J

Daddy would not have guns to borrow, only tasers and old fashioned truncheons. Only the military would have deadly weapons.In my fantasy world.

[Jonathan]

This is interesting to me. How indeed will a revived bill of control (say the 1994 gun legislation) fare? It is my present opinion that Congress will get fuck all passed. I may be wrong, but I think the primary obstacle to any control legislation is in the unwilling-to-act Congress. If I am wrong that a new or revived 1994-like bill cannot be passed, let alone signed into law, then the process of court challenges will begin on constitutional/2nd amendment grounds.

I think that a revived gun control bill would have a great chance if it included a provision for making it easier to commit troubled people to psychiatric facilities and to ensure that they're taking their meds. And I think it would have an even better chance if it were to somehow address the issue of bullying in schools.

J

[Selene]

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
-- Connecticut Constitution
Source: Article First, Section 15.

[Jonathan]

Daddy would not have guns to borrow, only tasers and old fashioned truncheons. Only the military would have deadly weapons.In my fantasy world.

So, let's say that a disturbed military man, or one of his disturbed children, takes a few of the deadly weapons and goes all Fort Hood on a local elementary school. Then what? The police show up with their tasers and truncheons and are instantly killed? And the slaughter continues until the military can be alerted and brought in?

Carol, your personal fear and hatred of guns is really blinding you to the devastation that would result from legislation that is based on nothing but your personal fear and hatred of guns.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

Heinlein once said that a person should not drink and shoot. He might aim at a tax collector and miss.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Daddy would not have guns to borrow, only tasers and old fashioned truncheons. Only the military would have deadly weapons.In my fantasy world.

So, let's say that a disturbed military man, or one of his disturbed children, takes a few of the deadly weapons and goes all Fort Hood on a local elementary school. Then what? The police show up with their tasers and truncheons and are instantly killed? And the slaughter continues until the military can be alerted and brought in?

Carol, your personal fear and hatred of guns is really blinding you to the devastation that would result from legislation that is based on nothing but your personal fear and hatred of guns.

J

That is possible, J. It is hard for me to see devastation that would result, hypothetically, from a reduction of assault weapons, etc., among the population. If I knew of anyplace where such devastation had occurred from such a reduction, I would not ignore it, just to confirm my bias. Sometimes the counterintuitive is correct. So in that sense I am blind. My feelings arise from what I can see, the devastation that has occurred, because such weapons existed to cause it.

[Selene]

Carol:

I say this with the ultimate respect.

Do you understand what an "assault weapon" is? And that no one, to my knowledge has used an

assault weapons

in any of the "mass killings" that we have seen in the last three decades.

A...

[caroljane]

Carol:

I say this with the ultimate respect.

Do you understand what an "assault weapon" is? And that no one, to my knowledge has used an

assault weapons

in any of the "mass killings" that we have seen in the last three decades.

A...

Admittedly no, I tend to skip over the pics and specs of various gun types. Guess I was thinking of any gun which can kill 30 people in 30 seconds as an assault weapon. My mistake.

[Jonathan]

That is possible, J. It is hard for me to see devastation that would result, hypothetically, from a reduction of assault weapons, etc., among the population. If I knew of anyplace where such devastation had occurred from such a reduction, I would not ignore it, just to confirm my bias. Sometimes the counterintuitive is correct. So in that sense I am blind. My feelings arise from what I can see, the devastation that has occurred, because such weapons existed to cause it.

I'm wondering if your fantasy world would also include the banning of bows and arrows? I mean, if it were possible to deny all non-military citizens access to guns, including on the black market, then I think the next logical choice of criminals would be archery. I have just a little experience with bow hunting, but I think that a criminal with my limited abilities would be able to use a bow and arrows to, say, rob a bank and hold off or kill three or four police officers who were limited to using tasers and truncheons, and an experienced archer could easily handle six or seven taser cops. So, would bows and arrows be banned too?

And do you think that your policies would have any effect on the number of people who would be willing to work as police officers? If that number were to decrease significantly, do you think that it would have an effect on the safety of all citizens? We'd have to wait and "see" the devastation before moving on to your next theory?

J

[Dglgmut]

My feelings arise from what I can see, the devastation that has occurred, because such weapons existed to cause it.

And again, the confusion between gun control laws and uninventing guns.

If we could uninvent neucleur weapons, I'd consider that. I wouldn't say it's a good option right away, because from my perspective they may have the potential to ultimnately save lives by preventing wars...

But now that neuclear weapons do exist, I would prefer my country had one than didn't.

If every country had nukes, I think the mutual respect would eventually lead to peace, actually.

[Selene]

Daddy would not have guns to borrow, only Tasers[sic] and old fashioned truncheons. Only the military would have deadly weapons.In my fantasy world.

Philip O. Coleman was an experienced hospice executive who recently earned a master's degree from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

His neighbor Dana Robinson remembers exchanging friendly banter with Coleman in the alley behind their Far South Side homes.

But by Thursday night, Coleman was dead after police say he went on a tirade and had to be restrained twice with a Taser.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-taser-death-coleman-20121215,0,5943125.story

An electrical discharge from a Vermont state trooper’s Taser weapon caused the death of a Thetford man three months ago outside his home, the New Hampshire Medical Examiner’s Office advised Vermont State Police Friday.

Macadam Mason, 39, suffered “sudden cardiac death due to conducted electrical weapon discharge,” Vermont State Police reported late Friday afternoon in a statement relaying the conclusions from Mason’s autopsy in New Hampshire.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120928/NEWS07/309280026/Taser-shock-killed-Thetford-man-medical-examiner-finds?nclick_check=1 <<<<he even has a cute puppy dog!

Uploaded on Nov 15, 2007

this is an absolute atrocity. please be warned that this is the amateur footage that ran on the news and includes video of a graphic and extreme nature that is absolutely not suitable for children. this must be circulated as the arguments put forth by the Vvancouver officers was nauseating.

_______________________________________________________

Carol.

HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THE USE OF THESE DEADLY ASSAULT WEAPON TASERS TO BE USED TO KILL CITIZENS.

WE NEED A TASER ASSAULT WEAPON BAN IMMEDIATELY.

ALL TASERS SHALL BE CONFISCATED NOW!

Shall I continue. There were tons more stories of Taser caused deaths.

A...

[Jonathan]

Indeed. We can now "see" the devastation of Carol's theories and the horrible weapons that exist to cause it.

I hate to mention it, because I'd prefer to keep my hands, but I guess the next step is to ban hands, and therefore to cut everyone's off, because they can be made into fists, and it's pretty easy to find examples where we can "see" the deaths caused by fists.

J

[caroljane]

Indeed. We can now "see" the devastation of Carol's theories and the horrible weapons that exist to cause it.

I hate to mention it, because I'd prefer to keep my hands, but I guess the next step is to ban hands, and therefore to cut everyone's off, because they can be made into fists, and it's pretty easy to find examples where we can "see" the deaths caused by fists.

J

While we are at it we could ban hyperbole and logical extensio et reducio ad absurdam, Dr. Swift.

[Dglgmut]

Indeed. We can now "see" the devastation of Carol's theories and the horrible weapons that exist to cause it.

I hate to mention it, because I'd prefer to keep my hands, but I guess the next step is to ban hands, and therefore to cut everyone's off, because they can be made into fists, and it's pretty easy to find examples where we can "see" the deaths caused by fists.

J

Well, let's not go crazy. She has said that the thing with guns is that their primary purpose is to kill people (depending on the type of gun, of course).

Though the reality is we cannot eliminate guns even if it were better that way... Some people can use their guns to prevent other people from having guns. But the fact that people want guns is what should be discussed...

If you don't feel safe, and people anticipate danger to a degree--which is not necessarily a bad thing, because I mean, danger is a natural part of life--well, is taking away what makes them feel safe really the answer? Is more fear going to prevent tragedies?

Human aggression is just as popular now as it ever has been. People hate, people hate haters, people hate people who don't love them enough... If someone doesn't pay their taxes, the majority of voters would love to throw them in jail. And if they resist going to jail, get out the weapons.

Carol wants her country to have weapons for their military, so she does care about her own safety.

[Jonathan]

Well, let's not go crazy. She has said that the thing with guns is that their primary purpose is to kill people (depending on the type of gun, of course).

And I can just as arbitrarily assert that the "primary purpose" of hands is to kill people.

I've used semi-automatic rifles and handguns, and my purpose in using them has never beeen to kill people. I've used them for target practice and for killing animals.

Btw, would we have to call in the military to deal with rabid critters in small towns? Or might we just send out our local versions of Carol and make them taser or club the critters since Atticus and everyone else wouldn't be stupid enough to do so?

J

[Selene]

Calvin:

I have had a rifle, not a "gun****" in my hands since I was eight (8), or, nine (9) years old. I have never considered that the primary purpose of my rifle was to "kill people," ever.

Well, let's not go crazy. She has said that the thing with guns is that their primary purpose is to kill people (depending on the type of gun, of course).

**** "This is my rifle.

This is my gun.

This is for fighting.

This is for fun."

Do you need pictures also?

Now this does raise an interesting issue. Since we can apparently just create assumptions and theories out of thin air when we are discussing "guns," here is one.

Since many gender feminists have posited that the American "fixation" on "guns" is really an elaborate phallic issue. George Carlin's great skit on "guns" worked on that premise.

Therefore, this attempt to get the "guns" by our metro-sexual, "chickafied" marxist President, is an extension of his need for a father image and his hatred for boys and men.

Hmmm, now we can have a gender feminist firing squad for boys and men who do not control their evil "guns!"

[caroljane]

For the record dggm, I do not hate gun owners, I am one. I except hunting rifles and such which are not designed solely to kill humans. I do not like the cynics who manufacture and sell handguns and assault weapons to civilians, telling you that you are upholding the Constitution.

[Selene]

As a parent, or, just as a citizen walking in the park, what assault weapon would you want to have in this instance?

Answer one:

range, with the maximum at 35 feet (10.6 m).^[18]

Answer two:

Remington Nylon 66.- my favorite weapon and the best rifle ever made for personal use.

It is also an assault weapon based on Carol's "standard" of evaluating weapons.

Range several hundred yards. 15 shot semi-automatic, fires HOLLOW POINT BULLETS THAT SPIN AND EXPAND AS THEY GO THROUGH THE BODY, Assassin's weapon, has quick reloadability with tubular swap magazines and much much more...

A...

[Jonathan]

For the record dggm, I do not hate gun owners, I am one. I except hunting rifles and such which are not designed solely to kill humans. I do not like the cynics who manufacture and sell handguns and assault weapons to civilians, telling you that you are upholding the Constitution.

And what, according to your feelings, makes a weapon a "hunting rifle" and what makes another "designed solely to kill humans"? It sounds to me as if you're giving us an example of what I said earlier about how the gun control issue is often one of cosmetics for certain people. Is it the weapon's paint job that makes you feel that it is "designed solely to kill humans"? The fact that a person could use a military-looking semi-automatic rifle to kill 20 children in one minute upsets you to the point of wanting to ban the weapon, but the fact that the same person could use a hunting-style semi-automatic rifle to kill 20 children in one minute doesn't upset you to the point of wanting to ban the weapon? And you'd feel that there was no need to ban bolt-action hunting rifles because a killer, at best, would only be able to kill maybe 14 children in one minute?

Also, earlier you said that the police would have only tasers and clubs. So you apparently think that the world is going to be a safer place if criminals have access to "hunting rifles" and the police do not?!!!

J

[syrakusos]

WE NEED A TASER ASSAULT WEAPON BAN IMMEDIATELY.

ALL TASERS SHALL BE CONFISCATED NOW!

Shall I continue. There were tons more stories of Taser caused deaths.

A...

I agree 100%, the taser is not a non-lethal weapon. It is a lethal weapon.

Your point that Connecticut's strict gun control laws did not prevent the tragedy is well-made and speaks to the root and rock of social contract. What are laws? Broadly speaking no law ever stopped anyone from doing what they wanted. Most people seem to have an "altruistic" (meaning, "benevolent") view of others and tend to not predate on their neighbors out of simple empathy. For those who feel otherwise, the law is irrelevant. They view it like heavy traffic on a busy street, only a physical thing, not a moral imperative. So, as you know from your work in the courts, laws against domestic violence do not protect against domestic assault. Killers walk through restraining orders all the time. Yet, judges issue restraining orders because not to would be anarchy (or worse).

"The" problem is actually an array of inter-related problems. When you look at the homicide rates in other industrialized nations, you realize that America is practically a third-world society by comparison. However, there is a trade-off. Twenty years ago, one of my Japanese colleagues was disappointed at being sent back home. He wanted his children to go to American schools. "But Hiro-san, what about the violence?" I asked., "Mike-san," he replied, "I can name all of the Nobel Prize winners from Japan." How you get the one without the other is not clear to me.

Anyone can use anything for a weapon. Most people do not assault each other, at least not physically. What I have seen and heard about say in New York City or Rome is that you can use any kind of verbal aggression but you have to keep your hands to yourself. Maybe someday, we will question verbal aggression, also. Back in 2008, we heard Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) give a lesson. Hard to imagine him and the Pope duking it out or calling each other "dumbass.". (Mullahs and rabbis, now, that's a gang war. Identify the reasons why and you will get close the problems we are arguing here.);

Selene re: #472 with the Golden Eagle attempting to take the child, the rifle you selected would only enable someone ready to use it to kill the kid while aiming for the bird. You know that cops are required to goto the range. You know what when they fire off a bunch of bullets, there's no telling where the hits will be. You deny that Lee Harvey Oswald could have done what you expect any Mom or Dad to do. You can't have it both ways. The solution is that there is no solution. The eagle did not take the child, because the chld was too heavy. If the eagle had taken the child, nothing could have been done.

[Selene]

WE NEED A TASER ASSAULT WEAPON BAN IMMEDIATELY.

ALL TASERS SHALL BE CONFISCATED NOW!

Shall I continue. There were tons more stories of Taser caused deaths.

A...

I agree 100%, the taser is not a non-lethal weapon. It is a lethal weapon.

Your point that Connecticut's strict gun control laws did not prevent the tragedy is well-made and speaks to the root and rock of social contract. What are laws? Broadly speaking no law ever stopped anyone from doing what they wanted. Most people seem to have an "altruistic" (meaning, "benevolent") view of others and tend to not predate on their neighbors out of simple empathy. For those who feel otherwise, the law is irrelevant. They view it like heavy traffic on a busy street, only a physical thing, not a moral imperative. So, as you know from your work in the courts, laws against domestic violence do not protect against domestic assault. Killers walk through restraining orders all the time. Yet, judges issue restraining orders because not to would be anarchy (or worse).

"The" problem is actually an array of inter-related problems. When you look at the homicide rates in other industrialized nations, you realize that America is practically a third-world society by comparison. However, there is a trade-off. Twenty years ago, one of my Japanese colleagues was disappointed at being sent back home. He wanted his children to go to American schools. "But Hiro-san, what about the violence?" I asked., "Mike-san," he replied, "I can name all of the Nobel Prize winners from Japan." How you get the one without the other is not clear to me.

Anyone can use anything for a weapon. Most people do not assault each other, at least not physically. What I have seen and heard about say in New York City or Rome is that you can use any kind of verbal aggression but you have to keep your hands to yourself. Maybe someday, we will question verbal aggression, also. Back in 2008, we heard Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama) give a lesson. Hard to imagine him and the Pope duking it out or calling each other "dumbass.". (Mullahs and rabbis, now, that's a gang war. Identify the reasons why and you will get close the problems we are arguing here.);

Selene re: #472 with the Golden Eagle attempting to take the child, the rifle you selected would only enable someone ready to use it to kill the kid while aiming for the bird. You know that cops are required to goto the range. You know what when they fire off a bunch of bullets, there's no telling where the hits will be. You deny that Lee Harvey Oswald could have done what you expect any Mom or Dad to do. You can't have it both ways. The solution is that there is no solution. The eagle did not take the child, because the chld was too heavy. If the eagle had taken the child, nothing could have been done.

Michael:

Good points. Particularly about the Eagle.

I was assuming that the proverbial "citizen" was myself [which I should have stated]. Additionally, I assumed that I would have my nylon 66 with me, open site, and that would have meant that I would probably fired three (3) shots once I quickly assessed the correct lead based on the wing speed and angle of rise. Wind would not be a factor since the muzzle speed of a .22 hollow point and the extremely slim shape of the bullet negates wind cross-speed influencing at that distance.

And yes any experienced shooter makes those calculations virtually instantly.

I guarantee that the eagle would have been hit with one of the three and with at least two feet of safety zone for the child. If I was not sure, I would not take the shots of course.

A,,,