December Deductions 2020; Day 3

 Day 3: Words Matter Chapter 1 - Vernaculars

No, this is not me trying to get you to realize that the old "stick and stones" rhyme is ridiculous (it is, but that's not for today). There's a big problem with a lot of the dialogues about important issues that can skew our understanding of it very easily, and that's word choice. 

On the surface, word choice seems like a small thing. Using synonyms seems like a good way to keep what you're saying from being repetitive, and an explicative here or there is just emphasis. In a conversation between people that already understand each other, that's pretty accurate, it doesn't matter that much, but a lot of the stuff we're discussing these days happens to be with people we generally don't know that well, who we can't read well, and often who we don't even see, just see what they type. 

There are a lot of tips and tricks I've learned about word choice, so this one is going to be a bit long, but I'm going to try to keep it as simple as possible. This is going to be broken up to a few days because otherwise this would be way, way too long. Each day I'll try to just do one tip about word choice until I've run out of them, and then on to the next concept. They all build on one another so they can't really be put in a good order, so I'm just ordering them based on which one I feel like writing about next. 

Tip 1: learn to identify vernaculars

I'm going to oversimplify this, so if you're intrigued by this concept, please look deeper than what I write. Vernaculars are kind of like different sets of internal dictionaries. If you go to the reference section of a major library, you'll see things like Webster's Modern English Dictionary, but also things like medical dictionaries, legal dictionaries, and dictionaries for just about every professional or academic discipline out there. A vernacular acts as our way of using those without us actually using them. 

Let me clarify a bit. When you're speaking to a friend informally, you're using what I would refer to as a "colloquial vernacular", which basically just means everyday speech. If, however, you were writing an essay for a class or a report for your boss, you'd likely use an academic or professional vernacular, meaning you'd choose different words based on a set of more precise definitions, usually. Every professional and academic discipline that has experts in it has a vernacular, and they often overlap with related disciplines. They're not as scary as I make them sound, either. 

If you got through a significant portion of schooling here in the USA, you're already somewhat aware of different vernaculars, but you wouldn't use that term for it most likely. You're aware that when speaking to your teacher in class, you talk differently than you do when speaking to your friends outside of class. That's a basic version of your own academic vernacular versus your colloquial vernacular. If you went to college and found that you had to use terms differently based on what kind of class you were doing the work for, you came across different academic or professional vernaculars, like using terms in an anthropological context versus using them in a biological context. 

Now, before I go into why this helps, let me be sure to clarify one very important bit: my use of the term vernacular is not universal. So far in my experience, I've also seen the terms "lexicon," "dialect," and even just "word choice" used to describe them. I choose "vernacular" because the term "professional vernacular" is part of the academic vernacular we all are supposed to be taught here in the USA, so it's usually pretty easy to explain what I mean. 

Learning to identify what vernacular a person is using gives you a sort of foundation to better understand meanings that may be more subtle, or may be misleading due to context. A good example of this comes in the form of legally important accusations. You won't see legitimate news organizations refer to someone who shot someone else as a "murderer" until after a trial has concluded, because "murderer" has a legal definition that requires conviction. They may use the term "alleged murderer" or "gunman," so they don't technically misspeak and commit an act of defamation that can get them sued. You will, however, see a lot of people use "murderer," "terrorist," etc. For that same kind of person because in informal speech defamation isn't as big an issue. 

This also comes in handy when you're looking at how experts and media organizations treat various claims. One thing I've seen a lot recently is people claiming that the media or experts are being too soft on someone because they use non-accusatory language, like I mentioned above. That narrative exists to discredit the news for following legal standards that keep them from being liable for any losses the person they're referring to may suffer due to their coverage of the event in question. Just because an expert, whether they be a police officer, a lawyer, a scientist, or a journalist, doesn't call an alleged criminal a "criminal," doesn't mean they're being nice to the accused, it just means that they're following the law. If you're trying to understand how that relates to colloquial speech, just ask yourself the question of "what are they trying to say happened, but can't say directly because there's legal stuff involved?" Usually the narrative of a media organization is pretty clear when you're looking at the full coverage. 

So, to summarize and even further simplify: learn to see what professional or academic context that the other person might be using, because it can help you understand them, and help you choose your own words better. Avoiding miscommunication is the goal there. Also, be aware of common professional vernaculars, like those used by media organizations due to legal concerns. That will help you better understand what is being said, and later on, it'll help you identify bias (that will come much later this month). I know it sounds daunting, but just like everything else I've written about so far and will be writing about, this is not something you need to put a lot of worry into. You're not going to learn it all in one day, in fact a lot of these you can only really get down pat by failing through miscommunication and facing the consequences, but I'm hoping that by having these concepts introduced to you, you'll see those failures as what they are, simple, forgivable failures that you can learn from and grow, rather than something you either have to pretend didn't happen or something to feel deeply ashamed about. 

You're going to be okay. None of what I'm saying is of universal importance. These are just tools that I've found helpful in learning about the world around me, and in learning about myself, so please, be at peace. Take a breath, let it out, and take a moment to try to relax a little. I know this stuff is stressful, I've been where you are, to some extent, when I was learning these myself. If you can, try to see these posts as icing on top of the knowledge and experience you already have that has gotten you so far in life, not something that will save you from a looming absolute destruction. They will hopefully make your life a little easier, but if you don't get them right away, or if you struggle with them for a while, that's not going to cause a huge amount of harm. You'll be okay. 

That's all for today. Please, have a wonderful day, and if you're keeping up with all this, I'll "see" you tomorrow. Goodbye. 

December Deductions 2020; Day 2

 Day 2: Universal and Existential Modifiers. 

OK, the topic name sounds scary, but it's not that bad, I promise. We'll cover the vocab, and then the application. 

A "Universal Modifier" is basically was we use to note a statement about all instances of something. A simple way to put it is that Universal Modifiers come in the form of "In all cases of ____." Like If I said all humans are mammals, that's a universal statement. Likewise, if I said no humans are reptiles, that is also universal. How, because it's still breaking down to "In all cases of [something being a human], it is not also a reptile."

A "Existential Modifier" is what we use to note a statement that is not about all instances. It breaks down to "In at least one case of _____." Examples: There are people that are fat, and there are people that are not fat. Two existential statements. 

Now here's where it comes in more handy: the counter to any universal statement is an existential statement, and vice versa. If you're playing "Never have I ever," you experience this directly. The claim could be, for instance "never have I ever eaten a gumball." To counter that claim, you just need to show that the person claiming it had eaten a gumball at least once. The opposite is true as well. The claim that "I walked on water" can be countered with "no one walks on water." It can also be countered with "no you haven't," which is also a universal. That one breaks down to "In all cases of [me possibly walking on water], I have not walked on water." 

There is one generally applicable kind of universal statement that can be proven, those that are impossible to be false. Often this is stuff that's true by definition, like my universal statements about humans. By definition, a human is a bipedal mammal of the species name "homo sapien." Therefore, by definition, anything that fits that definition is a mammal. It's impossible for it not to be true. The same works for "all squares are rectangles," since, by definition, any square also meets the requirements of the definition of rectangle, but it also happens to have four equal sides. I point this out so you don't get confused when people are able to prove some universals, but remember that generally those that can be proven are proven through reason alone, rather than needing to seek physical evidence of it. Or just forget this paragraph, I fully admit it's confusing, and I apologize for that. 

Now, if you remember yesterday's post, about the burden of proof, these come in especially handy. See, you can't prove a universal, but you can disprove one. You can't disprove an existential, but you can prove one. That will help you figure out who had the burden of proof: who's claim can be proven. If someone claims "I've been robbed!" the counter is obviously "no you haven't." Now, the person who claimed that they'd been robbed just need to prove that they, in fact, have been robbed once, so the burden of proof is on them. 

However, in reality and law things get messier. See, by countering the claim of "I have been robbed" with "no you haven't," you've also implied "you have lied in this case." That's a very specific existential, and in considering how it might affect court of law or even the court of public opinion, things get murky. It's possible that the person can't *prove* that they've been robbed, but they have evidence to support it (missing valuables, injuries, having traveled through an area that experiences a high rate of violent crime, etc.). In your counter, you then have to provide evidence to support your assertion that they have lied. Since you can't disprove that they've ever been robbed, you can try to find evidence that disproves some of the details, (video footage of the alleged time and location, an alibi for the accused, etc.). What I've just described is a very simplified version of how a criminal trial works, with the prosecution being the person alleging that "I have been robbed" and the defense being the person alleging "no you haven't"; or vise versa if the alleged crime is filing a false police report rather than robbery. 

So, the way this particular tip/trick helps is that by learning to identify whether a claim is universal or existential, whether it's about all of something or at least one of something, you can better understand what claims people are trying to prove, and what claims they're not, because they can't. That alone won't necessarily help you get closer to the truth, but it will help you learn how to assess the evidence being presented. And also, please remember, even though in logic we know we can't prove universal statements, often people will ignore logic and insist you can. Please don't fall for it. "Proving a negative" is a form of proving a universal, so don't let people insist that you have to prove something never happened, or something can't happen. 

December Deductions 2020; Day 1

For December, I'm going to try something a little different. I'm going to share with you some of the tips and tricks I've learned and use regularly to help understand what's going on in the world, to help identify biases and bad faith arguments, and to get to the truth on matters that are otherwise controversial. I won't say any one works amazingly, or even that all together they'll all work perfectly, but they've helped me get past some issues that I've seen far too many people get stuck on in recent years. 

Day 1: 

Today I want to explain what "burden of proof" or "onus of proof" refers to, and a basic explanation of how it works in both philosophy and law. Again, this is very basic, especially when it comes to law, the concept becomes much more complex and has a lot more issues involved. 

The Burden of Proof is a concept of who in a debate or argument should actually provide proof for a particular claim or counterclaim. The most basic working version of this is that the person making the claim that something is, has been, or will be, must provide the proof, and so the burden of proof is on them. For instance, if you allege that someone you know committed a crime, you must provide evidence to support that; you cannot merely assert that they must prove it didn't happen. 

This brings up a very important concept that people really do need to know: you can't prove a negative. That literally means you can't prove something never happened, and in most cases, can't even prove that a particular claimed event didn't happen without really explicit detail on that event. Using the example above, the person you claimed to have committed a crime can't prove they have never done so. They can provide evidence that might call yours into question, but they can't prove they never did anything like that unless they have some irrefutable record of their entire existence, which as of yet is still impossible. Saying they need to prove it didn't happen is saying they need to prove a negative, which is impossible. If you ever see someone respond to another person asking for evidence by saying "well prove it's not true!" you can reasonably assume that they lack the necessary evidence to prove their claim, and are hoping that since the other side literally can't prove their claim can't be true, that the possibility of it's truth is enough to carry their argument. 

Just a quick rule of thumb on that last bit: if something is possible, that doesn't mean it's probable/likely to be true. If something is probable that doesn't mean it necessarily happened. Be aware that claims are not black-and-white in this particular area, something can be possible, and even probable, and still not have happened. Look for evidence about what actually is, rather than what could be. 

Let me know if this kind of thing interests you. I'm going to try to keep this up throughout December, or at least as long as I have tips and tricks to share, but if it's really just not going to help anyone, I might not bother. 

In any case, have a great day, and I'll try to post another one tomorrow. 

My (Emotional) Response To 60-Minutes COVID-19 Long-Haulers

 A few people have been sharing the piece by 60 minutes about COVID-19 Long Haulers, linked below. The following are a few reactions I have. They are no researched, they are not based on my usual high standards of sources or even reason, so take it all with a large grain of salt, but I thought it might be helpful for those to understand the perspective of an already disabled person, specifically myself as a disabled veteran, to the information presented. 

My first reaction was essentially bitter irony. These people are describing symptoms that I and other people I love and know have been forced to deal with for years with little or not help from the outside world. A dark, angry part of me thought, "well, maybe now you can understand what it's like to be one of us, disabled in a way that's not easily seen." The fatigue, the inflammation, the headaches, the tremors, the loss of balance, the issues with memory and cognition, I've had to deal with all of these since before my discharge in 2014, and they've only gotten worse since, but the official statements from the parts of the government that are supposed to help me amount to essentially, "we think you're lying." They can't see anything on the MRI's. They can't see anything on the X-rays. They can't understand why I'm not just doing exactly what they say I should be doing, so they deny me any semblance of help beyond what they *can* see clearly. With the VA, that means a partial disability rating. With SSDI, despite my having paid into it and thus being entitled to it legally, I have received nothing but disrespect, discrimination, and denials. My story in that case isn't even remotely unique, tens of thousands of people have died waiting for SSDI or VA benefits to meet their needs, not charity, but stuff they earned. 

My second reaction was one of anger. It doesn't take long while reading the article or watching the video before you realize that the narrative of a "99% survival rate" is bullshit, as is the narrative that "only those at high risk need to be protected." One, I and everyone I live with is at a significantly higher risk than average, though not at the highest risk. Two, I am dead center in the median age for these long-haul symptoms. I can barely function day-to-day as it is, if I end up with symptoms like those described in this piece, I won't be able to do even the barest minimum to keep myself alive. Without a massive amount of help, I'd die slowly, likely due to starvation or dehydration, in my bed knowing that the rest of my family will soon follow. If you think you support the troops and veterans but don't wear a mask, you don't support the troops and veterans. You hate us because you'd rather your comfort over our lives. Even if it's just one veteran you kill, one life is more important than your comfort for the fifteen minutes you spend shopping, Karen. 

My third reaction was one of sincere awe and inspiration. Hearing the account of the doctor who, while being a long-hauler herself, pushes through everything to keep working and keep helping, was inspiring. What she described as how her day would end, severe headaches, painkillers, and curling up and hoping everything will be okay when you wake up, describes much of my life in the last few years. It's inspiring to me to see that someone is still fighting through all that, possibly as bad as I have to or maybe a bit worse, and still pulls a full shift at her job. I can't even get through more than a couple hours of concentrating on something without being done for the day, but someday I hope to at least be as strong as she is, so that I can go back to work. I hope, but without the help I was promised as a veteran and as someone who paid my share of payroll taxes, hope is all it is, not an expectation. 

My fourth reaction was another set of anger, because they are unintentionally pushing a broken narrative that many "hard science" types have been pushing for much longer than I have been alive. "All in your head" is a dangerous narrative, inaccurate and harmful. It literally kills, because it's the narrative that all too many doctors believe when trying to diagnose someone. Psychological and Neurological symptoms are not separate from one another, nor is the body separate from the brain. There is nothing that is simply "all in your head." Even the things that originate from a problem in the brain, like psychosomatic pain or migraines, are not all in your head. They immediately affect other symptoms, starting with the nervous system, but quickly affecting the endocrine system, the gastrointestinal system, muscles, other organs, even skin. Even if this was "all in their heads," it's not a lie, it's not fake, it's something real that needs to be treated as such. Frankly, any doctor who thinks that they can simply explain something away as a symptom of a psychological disorder and thus refuse to acknowledge it except to tell the patient misunderstood oversimplifications of coping techniques should probably go back to school for a year or two, and learn how psychology and neurology overlap, and how neurology affects the entire body. It's infuriating that in order to be taken seriously, they feel they have to repeat that phrase, "not all in your head," thus making it even harder for people like me to get any form of help. 

The long and short of it can be summed up with a few less than charitable phrases that went through my head: 

 - Congrats, you're dealing with less than half of what I will deal with for the rest of my life as the world refuses to even acknowledge my pain, and you'll get much more help than I ever will because the cause for your suffering is a buzzword. 

- Wear a damn mask. Your idiocy is killing people, and making other people's lives not worth living. Believe me when I say it's better to be dead than to wish you were dead, and it's better still to be neither, and by not wearing a mask you're forcing people into those first two states. Murderer. 

 - Wow, maybe I can get there someday. 

 - Will you please listen!? Your head is part of you, your psychology affects everything about you, stop saying "all in your head" as if that's somehow disqualifying as a problem!

That's all. Again, take this all with a huge grain of salt. This is more emotional than reasonable, but if it helped you or anyone else to better understand the pain a lot of people are going through, whether it be from COVID-19, psychological issues, other disabilities, or anything else, I'll count that as a win. 

Link to the article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-long-haulers-60-minutes-2020-11-22/

Why I'm Optimistic About Microsoft Owning ZeniMax

 Recently Microsoft acquired ZeniMax, which is the parent company of Bethesda, the company that has made many of my favorite games, most notably the new Doom games, the new Wolfenstein games, the first person Fallout games, and the entire Elder Scrolls Series. Almost immediately, there were reactions ranging from "this is the end of good games" to "This is the best thing ever." Now, I'm not an extremist on almost any concept, but I do think this has some really good potential and will actually be pretty good, but let me explain why. 

First, let me admit that I thought this was a horrible idea when I first saw it. I'm not fond of acquisitions for acquisitions' sake, and that's what I thought this was, just a way for Microsoft to get more of the pie. Oh was I wrong. There was an amazing amount of thought put into this acquisition, and I am legitimately excited for what Microsoft is bringing to the table. However, to understand all of that, we're doing to need to explore the other things Microsoft has done in recent years. 

Around a year ago, I got a free trial of "Xbox Game Pass" from Taco Bell. I found out that it works on PC, which is my only mode of gaming for the time being, so I was glad and gave it a shot. It was, by far, the best free trial I'd ever had. Let me explain how this works: for a monthly fee, you get access to pretty much the entire Microsoft Game Studios library, which includes a lot of great games like the Master Chief Collection of Halo games, Obsidian's "The Outer Worlds," and around 100 other titles, all that you can download onto your PC, or Xbox, depending on what you have and what subscription you went for. If you just want the PC-only or Xbox-only versions, it's $10 per month. Back then, they also had the "ultimate" version in its infancy, which allowed for you to have the same games on both PC and Xbox for $15 per month. Like I said, I got to try it for free, and I personally consider it well worth $10-$15 per month if you have time and interest in gaming. That's piece number one, the existence of the subscription-based "Netflix of gaming" Xbox Game Pass. 

As we all know, a new generation of gaming-focused consoles is just on the horizon, literally a few months away. Sony is bringing out their PlayStation 5 in both disc-ready and digital only versions, while Microsoft originally just announced the Xbox Series X, a digital-only console that will have the capability to play next-gen games at 4k resolution with 120fps. If you're not familiar with that terminology, it means they'll run really, really well and look really, really good. It was priced at $500, which makes it a good competitor for the PS5 in regards to price. But a few weeks ago, they switched up their offering. Yes, the $500 Series X will still be available in November, but so will a $300 version called the Xbox Series S, which maxes out just above 1080p at 120fps, and is overall just a bit weaker than the Series X. Clearly, this is meant to compete with the equally priced Nintendo Switch for more casual gamers. I like the idea personally, though I haven't owned a current-gen console in years, and don't exactly think I'd be buying one outright anytime soon. 

Then a couple weeks ago, they released information on what they're calling "Xbox All Access." This is a subscription service, which includes game pass ultimate, which is normally $15. However, for a total of $25 per month, you also get to rent a Series S, or for a total of $35 per month, you get to rent a Series X. No start up costs, just the subscription, though you do need to sign a 24 month contract. So doing the math, if you get the $25 per month series S, you're paying for the Game Pass Ultimate, plus $10  per month, for 24 months. That's $240 for a $300 console, and all you sacrifice is the trade in value of the console, which after two years I would expect to be less than $60 anyway. Mixed with the fact that Microsoft is basically building specialized PCs with a proprietary operating system, rather than extremely specialized hardware like older consoles, and there's a distinct possibility that by the time your 24 months is up, you'll be able to start a new, similarly-priced contract for an updated console. Essentially, it's planned obsolescence without the bulk. 

Why does this affect me? Like I said, I don't see myself justifying a $300 or $500 purchase all at once, but I could see myself getting Game Pass Ultimate, and if I could afford that, I could probably afford the $10 per month extra for the Series S. Now, my laptop is getting older, and because I'm disabled, I'm not going to be able to replace it to keep up with next-gen games, so it's not likely that I'll be able to play some of the newer games coming out, which makes me a little sad. But the Series S is made for those games. I don't need 4k resolution, I've been playing on 1080p for years, and 120fps is literally four times as fast as my current monitor. That, and the last few Xboxes have all been compatible with keyboard and mouse, so I expect the Series S and Series X to work similarly, so I get a very similar experience with it. So I could get next-gen gaming without breaking the bank or having a box that's useless to me after two years anyway because a new console comes out and the new games don't work on the old one. 

But, as Billy Mays would say, there's more! Microsoft will be including the vast majority of games in their library in the Game Pass, as we know, but they've also made a deal with EA to get Game Pass Ultimate members a free EA play membership so they can play the 60 game EA library, including the Sims and Titanfall, as an example. But wait, there's still more. Microsoft owns Obsidian, which means that The Outer Wilds and any other Obsidian games come with on their launch day, which is awesome. But wait, there's still more. With the purchase of ZeniMax, Microsoft has pledged that, outside of PS5 exclusives already negotiated with Bethesda, all future Bethesda games, including The Elder Scrolls 6 and Starfield, will be available in Game Pass Ultimate on their launch day, so you get those great games at no extra cost.

That's why I'm excited, I may actually have access to next-gen gaming, and new games, without breaking the bank. There are some caveats, but there are always caveats. It seems like this is going to be a good deal for the consumers, and it's a good deal for Microsoft because they get the Bethesda library in Game Pass Ultimate without having to pay licensing fees. On Bethesda's side, they get steady funding even when they haven't had a game come out in a year or two, and a ready market for their games. 

Finally, I want to cover some fringe benefits for us gamers that may come with this. The first is that the Windows Store is still leagues better than the Bethesda launcher, so I would *love* to see Microsoft just migrate our accounts over and stop making me use that stupid launcher. Still not as good as Steam, but Steam's a juggernaut there. The second is that Bethesda games will be largely cross-platform compatible, which should allow for saves from PC to be transferred to Xbox, and vice versa. And the third, which I am most excited about but also know is the least sure, is the fact that now that Microsoft owns both Obsidian and inXile Studios as well as the Fallout IP, we can get some really great Fallout games that have more of a feel of the originals. Obsidian made Fallout New Vegas, which was a great game because unlike the Bethesda Fallout games, you could literally be anything you wanted to be in New Vegas, at least as far as ethics was concerned. That's not really possible in Fallout 3 or 4. InXile Studios made Wasteland 2, which is essentially what would have happened if the original isometric Fallout games had continued, rather than being turned into first person games. I'd love to see both of these studios get to play with the Fallout IP. 

That's it. That's why I think it's a cool idea. Sure there will be downsides, but for now, it's looking good. 

The Problem With Viral Social Media Math "Problems."

 Alright, it's time for a lesson on mathematics and data analysis. 

If you've been on social media for a while, you've probably seen "math problems" like the one below: 

1+1+1+1 = 4

2+2+2+2 = 16

3+3+3+3 = ?

This is an attempt at what in mathematics is called a "sequence," and claims to have a singular answer. Many people guessing will just be told "no" or "you're wrong." This type of problem has been used a lot in recent years to "prove" how children are often more intelligent than those with a full education in mathematics, which would be very strange if true, if not outright depressing. If children are truly more intelligent than those with educations, then they should be running things, but every time we try that kind of experiment, it doesn't work well. Go ask parents about what happens when kids get to decide what's for dinner, how chores work, or what financial priorities are. 

But I digress, the point here is that this is not a legitimate mathematics problem with a single solution. There are multiple solutions, and in fact multiple versions of this exact problems. The way a sequence problem is supposed to work is that it provides all necessary data to extrapolate a single solution, not provide just enough data to stumble across the one "correct" solution among many. Let's look at this one here. 

So, it's clear the first line is directly accurate, but the second requires more. If we assume the base difference, that there's a multiplication by two, then we have to look at the first line and see how that compares. If we simply assume that each line is multiplied by the number present within it, then the solution would be 36, as (3+3+3+3)3 = 36. However, another solution that allows for the first and second lines is not to simply multiply by the same number, but rather to break down each line from x+x+x+x to (x+x)(x+x). The first two lines remain the same, but the solution becomes 81, as (3+3)(3+3) = (9)(9) = 81. 

Many such problems also claim to require one to extrapolate nonexistent previous lines, or extrapolate based on that lack of existence, so we could consider the rule to be (x+x+x+x) * (1/2 * previous sum), which would give us the answer of 48. Or perhaps (x+x+x+x)+(2 * previous sum), which would give us an answer of 44. And the problem is, due to the lack of mathematical logic common to these problems, those are all equally likely solutions. When these questions are asked, those asking them are given a solution that is not the most simple, which in this case would have likely been 36. If I had to guess, I would say that those using this particular "problem" would insist on 81. It's completely arbitrary. 

Why does this matter? Because otherwise well-meaning, but under-educated, teachers have been known to use this kind of problem in the classroom. This teaches the students that the rules of mathematics are not logical, but arbitrary. There *are* ways to use problems similar to this to teach students about the many different ways mathematics can work, but none of them involve a single arbitrary answer with no leeway. As proof, I will explain how to fix this problem so it's actually useful. 

Instead of it being as shown above, remove the operators, in this case, the plus signs, add in your arbitrarily chosen solution, and include necessary instructions, as shown below:

[ ] 1 [ ] 1 [  ] 1 [ ] 1 [ ] = 4

[ ] 2 [ ] 2 [  ] 2 [ ] 2 [ ] = 16

[ ] 3 [ ] 3 [  ] 3 [ ] 3 [ ] = 81

Each row of operators must be the same. 

That will give students the ability to demonstrate their knowledge of the order of operations and all mathematical operators to provide a reasonable solution, a single answer using mathematical logic. On the downside, you don't get to play "gotcha" with college graduates because your 8 year old students got the answer right and they didn't, but at least you're not teaching your students that mathematics only matters when it matches an arbitrary set of rules that depends on the person giving the problem. 

Dunkaroos, The Original, The Remake, And Dollar Store Delights.

 If you were like me growing up, prepackaged snacks like Dunkaroos were part of your childhood diet. Granted, Dunkaroos were not a common thing for my family, but we did get them from time to time as special treats. So, like many of us, I was extremely excited when Betty Crocker, the company that made Dunkaroos and owns the rights to the snack, announced that they would be returning to shelved in 2020. They did, and I bought some to simply enjoy, but with a price tag of around $2.00 per snack container, it was a bit high priced for me to get much more, so I decided to see how I could make them myself with more readily available items. 

Let's start by covering the differences between these remake Dunkaroos and the originals. The first is that the remake only comes with one flavor combination: vanilla cookies and vanilla frosting. Or at least that's what it says on the package. In reality, they're more light good quality shortbread cookies with a very specific frosting: Betty Crocker rainbow chip frosting. In comparison, the original Dunkaroos came in multiple flavors: Chocolate Cookies with Vanilla Frosting, Graham Cookies with Chocolate Frosting, Graham Cookies with Vanilla Frosting, Vanilla cookies with Strawberry Frosting, and Chocolate Chip Graham Cookies with Rainbow Sprinkle frosting. On top of that, there were special versions with media deals, like with Megamind, Shark Tale, and SpongeBob Squarepants. Oh, and there were the Australia-specific Hazelnut Chocolate frosting Dunkaroos. 

Now, I can't tell you how to recreate all of those, mostly because I don't have access to them to taste test, but I can get you close, and for a decent price. I've also found a few that I consider to be particularly good. For most of these, I'm going to be using items from Dollar Tree stores, because I like the added challenge, but let's cover the best way to get a full recreation of the original flavor *and* it's modern remake first. 

The Real Deal

Just get yourself some graham cracker cookies, not actual graham crackers, and that specific Betty Crocker Rainbow Chip Frosting. Teddy Grahams are good, though I personally prefer graham sticks. You can find the latter in Kroger brand all over the U.S.A. You can also use Scooby Snacks. 

The Remake

Same Betty Crocker Rainbow Chip Frosting, but this time get some good quality shortbread cookies. A brand name Walkers has a variety of shortbread cookies, including a mini Scottie Dog, but just about any shortbread cookies that are thin will get you pretty darn close to the taste and texture of the remake. 

From here on out, we're doing Dollar Tree only versions. The biggest failing of Dollar Tree for this particular endeavor is they generally don't carry Betty Crocker frosting, and definitely not the rainbow chip, but they do carry close. At my local dollar tree, they carry Pillsbury Frosting in three flavors: Vanilla, Chocolate Fudge, and Funfetti. Now, the Funfetti does not have the sprinkles mixed in, they're on top, so if you want them mixed in you'll have to do that yourself. Otherwise, feel free to just replace any of these with their Betty Crocker equivalents. 

The Classic

This one I consider classic simply because it most closely matches what we all remember. At Dollar Tree, you will find either 8-12oz bags of Sauffer's animal crackers, or you'll find Grace Snacks 6-ct Animal Crackers packages. Get some of the original style, either brand, and pair them with vanilla frosting. That's it, that's the original Dunkaroos most of us tried as a kid. 

The Chocolate

This one is just an expansion on the same theme. Go back to Dollar Tree, find the Sauffer's Animal Crackers, and look nearby for Staffer's Animal Crackers Chocolate Flavor. Pair those with chocolate fudge frosting. Perfect for the person in your life that can't get enough chocolate, but also wants to remember the 90's in snack form. 

The Switch Ups

Simply Put, switch the animal crackers from the previous two: chocolate crackers with vanilla frosting, and vanilla crackers with chocolate frosting. Both of those flavors were available back in the day. 

The Party Maker

Animal Crackers. Funfetti Frosting. Very classic, very fun. When I was a kid, it would have been a dream. 

The Right Description

This one I just did for fun, but it doesn't taste bad. At Dollar Tree, you can find little containers of mini Nilla Wafers, the actual brand. If they're out of stock, they have an off brand, Bud's Best Cookies, that makes Vanilla Wafers labeled as "bite size." They're not quite as good, but they'll do the trick. Pair those with the vanilla frosting, and suddenly you have the Dunkaroos that are described on the package, rather than what's in the container. 

The Don Quixotes

This one I stumbled across just trying to find good dipping cookies in general. At Dollar Tree, you can often find Lil' Dutch Maid Almond Windmill Cookies. They have an almost gingerbread flavor, but not super strong. If you pair these with a vanilla frosting, it is heavenly. I call them Don Quixotes because you're killing windmills. 

The Tropical Depression

Let's be real here, most of us are overeating right now because we're stuck inside and starting to feel depressed, so while we're at it, let's go ahead and make it fun. Again, I found this combo looking for good dipping cookies in general, and just liked how it turned out. Dollar Tree carries Lil’ Dutch Maid Coconut Bar Cookies, which have a lovely vanilla flavor with a hint of coconut, and they're perfect for scooping up some of that frosting. If you're sticking with the Dollar Tree theme, I heavily recommend the Funfetti with these, but if you're willing to go a little out of your way, try lemon frosting. So good. 

And that's the end of the Dollar Tree ones. There's just one more I want to share with you, because I came across these and figured I'd try them, and they provide a unique experience. They're imported, so I'm gonna name the combo properly. 

Fancy Fingers

There's a brand of cookies called Stella D'oro, and one of their most commonly liked products are Stella D'oro Margherite Cookies. You can get these either in all original, or original and chocolate. I got all original. Margherite cookies are somewhere between Lady Fingers and Biscotti. They are made for dipping in coffee or tea. The original flavor has a bit of lemon in it, but is otherwise very light in flavor. Obviously, with the basic flavors we've already talked about, the best is the chocolate fudge, as they're made to go with something bitter. However, if you feel up to finding some, or making some, some espresso or coffee frosting would be divine. 

Oh, and now I have to tell you the most important information: How to eat them! (yes, I know it seems obvious, but let me talk, it's my post after all). 

Now, if you're like me and just too tired to do prep, you can just grab the package of cookies and a jar of frosting and go ham, but if you're looking to try to have a little bit more of a classic experience, go get yourself some two-compartment snack containers. You can find these at Dollar Tree or just about any grocery store. There are reusable parfait cups that Dollar Tree used to carry that work perfectly, in my opinion. Just fill the larger of the two sections with your preferred cookie, and the smaller with frosting. Then you just take a cookie, dip and scrape up a little frosting on it, and enjoy. Repeat as necessary. 

If you're looking to impress, bring the elegance of being an adult to your nostalgia, or hosting a "90's kids remember, but millennials adult" party, get yourself some disposable shot glasses or condiment cups, and bowls for all your different kinds of cookies. Fill the cups with frosting, make sure there's enough for everyone to get to have at least one cup of each flavor (this is why I suggest condiment cups, you can get 2oz ones with lids in case you have leftovers), and have tongs or something so people can pick out cookies they want to try, put them on a plate, grab some frosting, and enjoy your fancy dinner party with treats to make the 90's kid inside your smile.

I know this isn't a super important thing to talk about, it's not important at all really, but I figured sometimes you've got to take the time to enjoy yourself, and help others find some enjoyment, especially now. So please, try some of these out, have a little fun. A couple bucks can give you enough "treats" to last you well over a week, believe me, and sometimes it can give you that little extra something to look forward to at the end of the day. 

And incidentally, since they've done such a great job providing us with our snacks and nostalgia, maybe go ahead and spend your $2.00 on the actual remakes. Betty Crocker obviously did not sponsor this, but they make nice treats, and if you're like me, they helped make your childhood a little more worth remembering. 

God bless if you'll let Him, and otherwise have a great day. 

- Draknus

Was Kyle Rittenhouse Legally Allowed To Protect That Business?

Disclaimer: Do not consider this post to be legal advice. Do not consider this post to be an official statement of law. This is an analysis of the law and facts of the case as I understand them.  

Alright, a lot of people are saying that Kyle Rittenhouse was right to be bearing a firearm to defend his "friend's" property, specifically a business. Wisconsin law does not agree, not when it comes to deadly force. Note: this does not necessarily directly affect his self-defense claim for the homicide charges, only the legality of his presence. If requested, I can explain how the legality of his presence can influence his self-defense claim, but that's a different legal issue. 

Wisconsin has actually codified the Castle Doctrine in State Statute 939.48. 

If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.

2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.

The "sub. (1)" mentioned above is Subsection 1 of the same law, which allows a person to use force to terminate or prevent what the person reasonably believes to be illegal actions against their body, meaning you can fight off someone who's attacking you and claim self-defense. It also says that you can only use force that is "intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm" if you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent your own death or great bodily harm. Basically, you can't shoot someone for trying to pick your pocket, but you can use some force, but if they're trying to kill or heavily injure you, you can intentionally kill or heavily injure them, assuming there's no other reasonable way out. 

The Castle Doctrine, at least in Wisconsin, basically allows a person to use that same level of force to protect themselves and property they are presently within. Meaning for your house, your car, or your place of business, if you're inside, you can defend it. However, this isn't a blanket concept, just like the self-defense statute has limitations, so does this, and there's a very specific set of limitations laid out in Wisconsin Statute 939.49. 

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.

(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.

(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

That's not super clear, so let me make it clearer. In subsection 1, it states that if someone is attempting to or actively doing something illegal to or with your property, you may use force to stop them. But it ends by specifically stating that lethal force, or "force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm," to protect property. It's very explicit about that. Subsection 2 defines what properties that a person might be allowed to protect in this manner other than their own, and the limitations here are very, very specific. In order for it to be treated as reasonable defense, either the owner has to be an immediate family member or member of your household, your employer, or you have to have a "legal duty to protect" it. That last one was a little vague, so I looked around and found in an official Wisconsin DOJ document, the "Wisconsin Prosecutor's Domestic Abuse Reference Handbook, 2nd edition," and it explains that in order for this particular defense to apply, the legal duty to protect, it must be "legally owned or occupied by the defendant." 

So, one can question whether or not it's justified to use a rifle at all when protecting property given 939.49 Sub. (1), as firearms are generally intended to cause dead or great bodily harm if used, but so long as the firearm was not fired to protect that property, technically it's not using deadly force. However, the right and authority to defend a property by force, deadly or otherwise, is reserved for the owner of that property, an operator of that property, and employee of either of the same, or an immediate family member or member of the household of the owner of the property. According to Rittenhouse's lawyers' statement, he was not any of those things. He essentially heard that the owner had requested help. 

The conclusion is simple: Kyle Rittenhouse had no authority to carry a firearm in defense of that property. Even if a firearm can be considered non-lethal force, despite Kyle himself saying he didn't have a non-lethal option that night, he didn't have the right or the authority to actually defend that property. 

Now, many are arguing that because Kyle Rittenhouse was part of a self-identified militia group, that he had the authority through them. That's not the case. In Wisconsin Law, private paramilitary groups are prohibited. Specifically, in the Wisconsin State Constitution, who constitutes a militia must be decided by the state legislature, they can only be called upon by the Governor as Commander-in-chief, and they must be under civil authority. Legal experts point out that anyone in a private militia attempting to exert authority similar to that of a member of the State Militias or law enforcement, including protecting of private property, may be considered guilty of violating Wisconsin Statute 946.69, which makes it a Class I felony to falsely assume to act as a public officer or employee or a utility employee. By claiming it was his "job" to defend that property without proper personal authority as we discussed above, Kyle Rittenhouse may be considered to have violated this law. 

So, no, Kyle Rittenhouse was not "right" to be there that night. His actions were outside his authority and right to act by being there. The actual killing he did may still be ruled as self-defense, but his presence there itself was in violation of the very Law and Order that the militia groups present claimed to be protecting. 

Sources:

Wisconsin Law on Self-Defense and Defense of Others: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/939.48

Wisconsin Law on Defense of Property and Protection Against Retail Theft: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/939.49

Wisconsin Prosecutor’s Domestic Abuse Reference Book: https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/ocvs/vawa/wi-prosecutors-domestic-abuse-reference-book-2012.pdf

Analysis of the Legality of Private Militias in Direct Reference to the Kyle Rittenhouse Case: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/08/Kenosha-Letter-ICAP-08.26.20.pdf 

Why the Rittenhouse thing bothers me.

 I think I am starting to understand why the Rittenhouse issue bothers me so much. 

There's an interview with him, after he was sprayed with what appears to have been mace, where he was asked why, if he was attacked with non-lethal weapons, he didn't respond with non-lethal weapons. 

His response was that "we don't have non-lethal." 

See, I am an infantryman, obviously not professionally anymore, but I still benefit from the memory of that training. According to the Ft. Benning page on infantry heritage, "The role of the American infantryman has remained constant since the earliest days of American military history: to close with and destroy the enemy"

We are not present to deal with our own citizens. We are not trained simply for peaceful action. We are trained to destroy the enemy. So I would understand the concept of not having non-lethal weapons, right? 

I don't. See, every infantryman in the U.S. Army is trained in a concept called "escalation of force." The basics of this concept are simply that we meet the enemy with their level of force, and only escalate as absolutely necessary. If we are facing an unarmed foe, we do not fire. If we do fire, we face court martial. If, in that court martial, we cannot provide good enough reason or evidence that our actions were necessary, we are punished, and for very good reason. Mistakes like that, like shooting an unarmed person, are often what create new terrorist cells. We are the best trained military in the world, not amateurs with guns. We need to act like it. 

So when we face someone with less weapons than we have, and they seem intent to attack us, we don't shoot. We have specific training on what to do if your firearm is grabbed. We have training on how to secure our firearm while we grapple hand-to-hand if necessary. We even have training on how to use our firearm as a close quarters weapon, without firing. There is never a moment in which we do not have non-lethal tools. There are only moments in which the force required is lethal. 

Now, I understand its unfair to treat a 17 year old with a rifle like an infantryman. He doesn't have the training. He definitely doesn't have the psychological conditioning. He's, essentially, just a kid. And yet he's being held up with titles of "patriot," "hero," and "citizen soldier." Because he shot three men. Now, don't get me wrong, I can't think of an infantryman that, if they were on the ground and multiple assailants were coming at them angrily, would not fire. That's not the situation I'm talking about. 

His first kill was the result of a person with whom he'd had an altercation earlier that day. That person, clearly aggressive, honestly probably nowhere near sane, was trying to grab his rifle, and that is the reason given for him firing four rounds in the general direction of that man's head, and he is lucky the three that missed did not hit anyone else. 

An infantryman would have noticed that the rifle was slung. He had what's called a single-point sling. That means it's attached to the firearm only at one point, rather than the two point slings that are standard issue in the Army. Still, unless he undid the point of contact, or used the quick-release buckle that some such slings have, it's attached to his body. He had not only the strength of his arms to maintain control of that firearm, but he had his entire body weight if necessary. I understand how that would not come to mind, and if that's not in your mind, if you're not trained to use that knowledge, someone reaching for your rifle looks like a real threat. But even then, if you adhere to escalation of force guidelines, you have not run out of options.  

See, the simple problem is that in his mind, his actions could only be at either of two levels of force: passive, and lethal. That's a very dangerous mindset to have. Any person with that mindset, as soon as there is a threat of any kind presented, will at the very least be sorely tempted to shift from that passive stance directly into lethal force. 

So why did he have the rifle? Well, he said that the reason he had a rifle was self-defense, because he was going to be putting himself in harm's way by providing medical help. That rings incredibly false to me, because Army medics don't use their firearms, if they carry one, while in harms way taking care of first aid. They may have to use it to defend a position where they are treating wounded, but in doing so they sacrifice their protection under the Geneva convention, so they prefer to have us grunts handle that. 

Even so, a rifle is not a weapon for what I would call self-defense. As with any tool of battle, it can be use defensively and offensively. Defensively, it can be used to provide cover fire, to allow a fellow soldier time to move, or suppressing fire, to keep an enemy at bay, or return fire, to kill an enemy at a distance. I can be used as a physical bludgeon, to keep an assailant off you. It can even be used as a deterrent, though if things are bad enough that you think that might be worth trying, it's probably not worth trying. But none of that I consider self-defense. That's mostly defense of others, or defense of a location. When I think of firearms good for self-defense, I think of weapons that have very high stopping power, which an AR-15 doesn't really have. Shotguns are good for that. Or I think of weapons that are known for being quick to aim and fire, especially at close distances, which an AR-15 is not. It's designed to be fairly versatile, but what some might call "hip fire" is not one of its strengths. For that you'd prefer a firearm that can be brought to bear one handed, like a handgun, or a short barreled shotgun, the latter being illegal to own in Wisconsin. 

An AR-15, much like the M-4 which is very similar in design, is an offensive weapon. If you plan to use it, you should be planning to kill. That's part of why it's so good for hunting, good range, easy to figure out for the most part, and generally effective. But close range reaction fire? I mean, it'll do the job, but that's not its strength. 

Everything I know as an infantryman tells me that he set himself up to kill. Probably not intentionally, but the only other outcome, in his mind, was that no conflict occur that he couldn't run from. If you're armed with an AR-15, that's a bad plan. Just having that rifle on you, especially when you're there reportedly to "protect property" from "violent rioters" that have also been called "terrorists," is an aggressive act. It's asking for trouble. You can see that in the altercations that happen over and over that night between protesters and the various militia groups present. To the protesters, they see it as an intentional threat, a promise of death if the gunmen get the chance. Just by having it, you're escalating force beyond passive. And when your only choices are passive and lethal, well you know where that goes. 

That's why it bothers me. Part of me thinks that someone around him had to have realized that he was going there with no option but to kill, unless he was so lucky no one threatened him. Someone, maybe his mother who drove him up there, maybe his friend that lent him the rifle, maybe the journalists or other militia members, should have told him, "hey, if you think that you don't have a non-lethal means to respond, you should have a lethal means. Put down the rifle." But no one did. He was hung out to dry, and when he found himself, as far as he could tell, alone and unsupported with angry people threatening him, he escalated force from passive to the only other choice he thought he had. And now two people are dead, and a third has permanent damage to one arm. Now, are those people innocent? No. Should that matter? Not as much as people think it should. 

See, the final problem I have is authority. Law Enforcement has the authority to use lethal force to protect property or lives. A civilian only has the authority to use lethal force to protect lives, usually just their own, not property, aside from the castle doctrine. So where did he get the authority to stand there with a rifle, with no choice outside passivity and lethal force, to protect someone's property? He wasn't licensed, wasn't bonded, like some security providers are. He wasn't deputized. He certainly wasn't hired by the police or elected as sheriff. And he wasn't appointed by another elected official. Near as we can tell, he was part of a group that volunteered to do it, though there are some reports of a request from the business owner, but can the business owner provide that authority? This wasn't a home, so the castle doctrine doesn't apply. This was, supposedly, a simple business, with no one inside. They were not protecting lives, they were protecting property. They were going to protect property by taking lives. 

In the FBI database there are two categories of crimes: violent crimes, and property crimes. Violent crimes damage a life, property crimes damage, well, property. Theft, arson, vandalism, these are all property crimes. Manslaughter, homicide, reckless endangerment, these are violent crimes. They're separate because lives outweigh property, for the most part. But not that night. That night, armed men were willing to enforce their belief that property outweighed lives. Why? Because terrorist lives don't matter. Because we destroy enemies. But a 17 year old boy was not an infantryman, was not capable of controlling the escalation of force, and because of that, to put out a fire, he took two lives. 

How many lives do you think your business is worth? How many lives do you think a car is worth? See, to me, those are impossible questions, because I would rather lose a thousand businesses and a million cars than lose one life. But that's where we're at, that's where Rittenhouse was at that night. He was willing to put his life at risk to protect property, which is strange enough on its own, but then, when it came down to it, he'd rather trade multiple lives of others for his own, which is not strange at all. Two lives, and was the fire even put out? Was that business worth two lives? 

I don't think I'll ever know. 

Firearms Violence Side-Post - Milwaukee Molson Coors Brewery Shooting

 On February 26th, 2020, an employee of the Milwaukee Molson Coors brewery came into the plant with two handguns and opened fire. He killed five other employees, and then took his own life before police were able to secure the area. That night, the police thankfully avoided releasing the identities of any of the dead, so that their families might be informed and have some time to process the information before being set upon by reporters and others, who although well-meaning, often make the situation worse. 

The purpose of this write-up is to analyze the facts of the case, and note what actions the government could take that might have prevented this, and might prevent further tragedy. I'll take a look at the effects of proposed and theorized laws on this specific event. 

Before analyzing the effects of laws and policies, we need to note the important facts of the case. The shooter was a 51 year old, African American man, who was employed as an electrician for 20 years, the last 17 of which being at the Molson Coors plant. According to witnesses, family members, and coworkers, he had been in the middle of a conflict with a fellow electrician at the plant for quite some time. On top of that, he had expressed a variety of beliefs that seemed to be paranoid in nature, both about his coworkers and the company as a whole. 

When news outlets looked into his personal, medical, and legal history the following facts came to light: He was a United States Coast Guard veteran, discharged in 1991. He had been experiencing back pain likely since his time of service (news sources list it as about 25 years prior to 2010) that was exacerbated by multiple events, including one for which he had been seeking workman's compensation. At one point, insurance assessors were basically staked out in front of his house during weekends to try to find proof that he'd lied about the back pain. 

The back pain was severe. After working 50 hours in a week, he would often remain in bed for the majority of the weekend in order to recover enough to go back to work the following week, according to family members. His doctor prescribed Vicodin, an painkiller that contains a synthetic opioid, as well as Cyclobenzaprine, a muscle relaxant. These were both reportedly prescribed for the back pain, which is not terribly uncommon for chronic back pain. So not only was he most likely constantly in pain, but he was under the influence of two psychoactive drugs, both known to cause issues with cognition that can lead to paranoia. Despite this, no news outlet has reported any history of psychological treatment.

Based on the above information, I believe that his back pain should have been ruled a service-connected disability, resulting in him having access to VA medical and psychological care, as well as some compensation and access to the training and education resources made available to disabled veterans. This assessment will come into play further into the analysis. 

First, let us cover what laws were actually broken. Obviously, homicide is illegal, so the shooter violated that law. According to news reports, a "no gun zone" law was not in effect, though there may have been one in effect and just not mentioned. If so, that law was also violated. The existing firearms control laws were all followed. The shooter was a known "gun collector" according to neighbors, but exhibited no violent tendencies before that day. No outstanding criminal record was noted by news outlets, so it is likely that every firearm he owned, he purchased and maintained perfectly legally. Sources close to the shooter also noted that he used a gun safe, which is above and beyond the current laws. Wisconsin does not require registration of firearms, nor does it have limitations on magazine size, suppressors, or basically anything else aside from minimum age when it comes to handguns. So, aside from homicide, it's likely no applicable laws were broken. 

Second, let's look at the most strict firearms control laws in the USA and discover if any of those had been violated, and what effect they would have had if enforced. California has the most stringent laws when it comes to firearms and magazines themselves. Under California law, it is possible that he would have violated the maximum 10 round magazine restrictions, but as these were handguns, that is unlikely. Outside of special order magazines, even the highest capacity handguns ship with a maximum of 15 round magazine, with most having less than 10. There are some laws that restrict the use of suppressors (erroneously called "silencers"), and one of the handguns he employed had one attached according to witnesses. If he fired the first shots only with the handgun with the suppressor, it's possible that later victims thought that the sound was machine related, rather than a gunshot, and thus did not flee as early. Based on that assumption, the absolute maximum such a ban, if enforced, could have done is slightly reduce lethality. However, it's important to note that suppressors, even on low caliber firearms such as handguns, do not "silence" the weapon, but simply reduce the amount of sound that comes from the barrel. The sound is still quite loud and distinctive. For that noise reduction, the shooter would have paid in accuracy, and possibly fire rate depending on the type of firearm. It is my assessment that, given the targeted nature of the attack, it is not likely that removing the suppressor would have reduced the lethality of the attack. 

Another type of firearms restriction that has been discussed is more strict background checks. Looking at this, Massachusetts has the most wide-reaching restrictions based on background checks. Massachusetts' law bars anyone with nearly any criminal record from owning firearms, as well as anyone who has been ruled unable to handle their own affairs, and anyone who has undergone in-patient psychological treatment. Although I assess the last provision to be a violation of the rights of disabled Americans, we will still apply those restrictions to this case. Based on all information available at the time of my analysis, he would have passed such a background check. Such a law would have had no effect on the lethality of the attack. 

Finally, let's look at the proposed and theorized laws of those lawmakers that are also advocates for firearms control reform. Since these are not detailed, I will endeavor to look at each concept and assess it's affect on the lethality of the attack very briefly: 

Universal background checks barring any criminals from owning firearms: No effect. 

National licensing program and registration for firearms owners and firearms: No effect.

"Red Flag Laws": only those with restrictions already ruled to violate the rights of Americans would have had an effect. Again, the shooter was an otherwise law-abiding citizen with no history of psychological treatment, and that did not express violent tendencies. That wouldn't have even gotten a judge to grand a restraining order, much less an order to remove his firearms. Minimal effect if any. 

Assault Weapons Ban: No effect.

Ban on high capacity magazines under current definition of the term: No effect.

Mandatory Assault Weapons Buyback: No effect. 

Given all of these, it seems clear that no currently proposed firearms control law, whether actually filed, in place somewhere in the USA, or simply proposed as part of a campaign speech would have effected the lethality of this attack significantly. 

There are, however, laws and policies already in place that, had they been implemented more completely and earlier, would have likely reduced the probability of the attack in the first place. Thanks to the Inspector Generals' of the DoD and VA that have been instigated in the last decade or so, new policies requiring all discharged personnel to be entered into the VA system, increased probability of favorable decisions from VA Disability assessors, and increased funding to psychological health programs, it is possible that if he had access and encouragement to seek treatment with the VA, the paranoia he experienced that likely influenced his decision to attack would have been identified and treated. In short: if the government had worked harder to ensure his mental health as a veteran, this might have been prevented. 

On top of this, there is a policy that should have been implemented a simple safety reaction to the opioid crisis that would have likely prevented this attack: Anyone prescribed opioids beyond a very short treatment window should be required to seek out psychological treatment. The details of that treatment should be up to the psychological professionals involved, and not released to the government or other organizations in accordance with privacy law. This simple policy would have likely helped him deal with the psychological effects of the medications he was prescribed, as well as the constant pain he experienced and the fear and anger he expressed as a result of the conflict he had with his coworkers and company. 

The final conclusion is simple: due to the firearms used and the history of the shooter, no existing or proposed gun control laws would have affected this attack, but approaching the issue holistically leads to the inescapable conclusion that the government could have better served him as a veteran, and as a possible victim of the opioid crisis. 

TL;DR: in this one case, just this one, the only actions the government could have taken to prevent this would be to ensure proper medical and psychological treatment to veterans and patients prescribed opioids.