Why I shoot.

       Recently a friend on Facebook decided to organize an outing to the range.  A group of people expressed interest that could be accurately called: "diverse".  In a hobby that was, in the past, dominated by old men, I was seeing a change.  Nothing unusual to me.  I grew up with my mother embarrassing the men at both the archery, and trap range.

       Having just been to the range  myself I can say this is no longer a hobby for old men.  About 25-35% of the shooters were female.  About 70% were under 50 years old.  This is a change welcomed by most shooters.  The more accessible the hobby is, the more accepted it becomes.

       I am not a gun nut.  I have a modest collection that is almost entirely comprised of gifts from the enthusiasts that I find myself related to.  I do enjoy shooting though.  Any means of conveying a projectile from where I stand to a point far away with the best accuracy I can muster is a relaxing way to spend time.

       I say any means because I started with a bow.  I am not the kind of person who works at things.  I know that about myself.  If I'm not reasonably good at it the first time around, I typically abandon the hobby.  Archery was different.  I needed to be good at it.  I practiced at least three days a week for years, just to be good enough to suck.

       I eventually became better than the league shooters at the local range who used comically long stabilizers, mechanical releases, and levels.  They would hold each draw for almost a minute before releasing.  I used a finger tab, hunting stabilizer (short), and I drew back and fired in almost one motion.  I was their equal on my bad days.

       When it came time to try pistols I was a fair shot my first time out.  Rifles, the same story.  I assume that the practice in archery taught me the basics of form, consistency, breathing, and most importantly, how to quiet the mind.

       There are countless movie quotes, and idiot celebrities that will tell you how firing a weapon is a "rush" because it gives you the power of life and death.  This is pure idiocy.  Make no mistake, one person shooting another is frequently fatal.  But a "rush" from shooting is counter productive.  Adrenaline makes you shake.  A small twitch at your end of the gun makes for a large miss at 100 yards.  The guy who yells after a good shot is laughed off the line, or told to calm down.

       So why do I shoot?  I shoot because for a second, just a second, there are no problems.  There are no concerns.  There are no other people.  There is nothing but you and the target and the beam of concentration between.  The entire world has been distilled into a perfect, clear, focus. The timing of the breath comes natural at this point.  The form is held, but completely forgotten.

       There is a reason the Zen masters chose archery as a means of achieving focus, rather than say, sweeping.  Either one would work, but the focus to send a projectile to it's mark makes this transition to pure "empty-mindedness" much easier.  The calmness achieved persists long after the guns are cleaned, oiled, and put back into their cases.  This too is part of the ritual.  This too can quiet the mind.

       In today's fast-paced, distraction-filled, mind-scattering world, it is no wonder that a more diverse group of people are taking up the hobby.  Word has gotten out.  We all need a break from the chaos.  Shooting meets that need.

       It also doesn't hurt that shooters have long considered themselves a persecuted out-group; and as such, are the most welcoming, friendly bunch of people you are ever likely to meet.  They are almost as free with lending tools and helping out, as they are with advice.  (Almost).  They make new shooters feel welcome.  In fact my first trip to the rifle range in Eagle WI. someone asked what I was shooting, only so they could give me a key ring made with the correct caliber round attached to it.

       So to the new people at the range: "Welcome.  Good to see a new face.  I hope you enjoy this hobby as much as I do."

The invisible tax and you.

       In discussing school fees today I became agitated.  Both sides, in this two party system, have managed to sneak in "Invisible" taxes.  What I mean is the tax that derives itself from indirect means, thus it is not immediately obvious as a tax.

       For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them.  This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll.  Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents.  Illinois does.  In fact, according to the Illinois constitution:   "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education."  (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
       So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed?  For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education.  (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked).  Let them know how you feel, while you're at it.  (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).

       Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare.  If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount.  (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
       Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay.  Try doing that to the government.  If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
       So how is this an invisible tax?  The hospital needs that money.  Guess who's bill just went up.  Joe and Jane insurance-holder.  The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest.  To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."

       In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two.  The most egregious examples I could find.  There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?)  In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed.  A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this.  "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund"  This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls.  Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no.  No, because you are paying those extra fees already.  Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.

       In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate.  Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values."  Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale.  So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from.  Like you are under the current system.

       But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart.  They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)