Excited Again

For me, writing is a strange thing. I spend my days writing (or doing something else when I should be writing) and have little enthusiasm for it. Unfortunately, this shows in my work. It becomes the proverbial vicious circle, in which I don't want to write because my writing is uninspired and my writing is uninspired because I don't want to write.
     But recently, I had an idea: What if I created a character who was versatile enough to be in a variety of situations. What if I made this character someone I know well enough to know how he or she would act in any given situation? What if I threw in some surprises, things that might work against me writing for this character, just to make things interesting?
     It was a little like creating a character for a role-playing game (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then throwing in some surprises just to keep the player (me) on his toes. I was both player and gamemaster, creating a character who would (I hoped) be interesting in a variety of settings.
     I am very pleased with the results of that exercise. My newest creation (it's hard to type that without feeling a little like Frankenstein) is Akiko, a teenage Asian-American who was blinded in a fire. She has a mysterious past of which she is unaware. Having spent some time in the hospital, Akiko now lives with her foster parents, the Olsens, while the authorities try to locate her parents or a relative. It might sound like an American Girl story, but I promise it will be full of action and adventure. The whole experience of creating Akiko has made me excited about writing again!
     I'd love to tell you more about Akiko, but I won't. Not here, anyway. You see, I promised a very elite group of people I would share things with them first. In an effort to make good on that promise, I will be sharing a short-short story about Akiko with all those who subscribe to my newsletter, Babbling Brook. But you don't have to miss out! Simply subscribe to Babbling Brook by clicking HERE. Hurry, the newsletter goes out on July 4th!

---

Enter and Win!

You can win a FREE COPY of my book! Yes, it is a print copy. Yes, it will be shipped directly to the winner. No, you don't have to buy anything. To enter, CLICK HERE.

Navajo Jems

One of my dearest childhood friends was Cara Zamecki. Though we are no longer children, we are still friends. I recently caught up with her and learned about her business as a jewelry maker. I'll let her tell you about it in her own words.










My childhood home was filled with love, and my mother used to sew my clothes. I always wanted to learn.

I got into making jewelry young from going to summer camp. My first piece was a key chain/necklace.

I have one person who helped me go further into making jewelry. Her name is Mar. I'm inspired by stones and rocks. I find beauty in them. I love creating jewelry because my work is one of a kind. Each piece is made from my mind.

When I'm not making jewelry I'm thinking of what patterns from my mind I can bring to life. My first piece was a necklace made at Camp Singing Waters.

Navajo Jems has a store in Beeville, Texas. We moved this month (January) so I put some pieces online during this time so we might see more online.

Thank you, Bruce, for taking the time to spend with Navajo Jems.

Follow Navajo Jems on Facebook.

---

If you would like to be featured in Bruce's Babbling, CLICK HERE.

Conceal and Carry

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun."

-Wayne LaPierre

Stephanie Claire Rodriguez smiled. The result of the second test was the same as the first: positive.

She and Juan were going to have a baby!

She called him at work. "What are you doing for lunch?" she asked him.

"Eating!" he replied, chuckling at his little joke. "Why?"

"I thought you might want to have a picnic at Lake Park." She didn't tell him about the tests. She would surprise him at the park.

"Sounds fun," he said in his endearing Latin accent. "I probably won't get there until 12:30."

"Then that's when I'll meet you."

They said their goodbyes and Stephanie hung up the phone. She would fix the sandwiches closer to when she had to leave. Meanwhile she thought about their home office. They would have to convert it into a nursery. She wondered if they would need pink paint or blue....

~ ~ ~

It was a gorgeous day, the first truly nice spring day of the year. Sandra Hook decided to enjoy her lunch break at Lake Park. It was a short walk from Livingston Health and Nutrition, where she worked. She grabbed her lunch out of the employee 'fridge and headed out.

Sandra hadn't considered that others might have had the same idea. The park was crowded. Many were on their own lunch breaks, but there were plenty of parents with kids, too. A group of about two dozen in matching T-shirts must have been from a daycare. Leaves had barely begun to sprout on the trees, so the sunlight fell more harshly than it would in later months. But it sparkled on the nearby lake which gave the park its name.

The first shot didn't register in Sandra's mind, and while she was aware of the second, it was the mass of suddenly screaming people that got her attention. Someone had opened fire on the crowd in the park. Gunfire sounded nothing like it did in the movies. The simplicity of an outdoor lunch or some playtime on the swing set had suddenly turned grim.

Instinctively, Sandra ducked down. There was really nothing behind which she could hide. The closest thing she had to cover were some picnic tables several feet away. People were panicked, screaming, trying to run away from danger and getting into one another's way.

Quickly, she opened her purse. Sandra had a conceal-and-carry permit and a loaded Glock 22 in her purse. (The irony of a woman named Sandy Hook having a licensed gun was not lost on her.) She pulled the Glock out, her heart racing. There was no "safety" on the Glock in the traditional sense. The Glock used a safe action trigger system. Around her people were still scrambling for whatever cover they could find. Time seemed slower, drawn out. Though her heart hammered in her chest, her hand was steady. She felt confident. The two hours a week she put in at the firing range had her ready for this moment.

She stood to a half-crouch, just high enough to see over the fleeing crowd. There he was, wearing a red windbreaker and firing into the crowd with a large handgun She took aim, her finger resting lightly on the trigger. People were still scattering as the man strode through the crowd. In the back of her mind, she remembered something about checking the target. But she had a clear shot. If she hesitated, she might not get another chance!

Aiming for the red windbreaker, Sandra squeezed the trigger.

~ ~ ~

Stephanie had just arrived at the park when the shooting started. The horror in her soul was palpable. Was this the sort of world her child would be born into?

Whoever was shooting was off to her left someplace. Nearby she saw a middle-aged man draw a gun from beneath his red windbreaker. She saw him take aim, and realized he was trying to take down the gunman.

The man fired. Stephanie dropped her picnic basket, pressed her hands to her ears and screamed. Then a bullet tore into her midsection, the force throwing her to the ground.

Stephanie was unaware of the copious amount of blood. She was aware only of searing pain, and of a single, two-word thought: My baby! Then she neither breathed nor thought any more.

~ ~ ~

The bullet Sandra fired had missed. Behind the shooter, a woman hit the ground. For a brief instant, Sandra wondered if she had hit her. But the man still stood, waving his gun and shouting. She couldn't make out the words. He was the problem. This was all his fault.

She took aim and fired again.

The man went down. Dead or wounded, he had stopped firing.

Somewhere to her right, she heard a popping sound that sounded exactly like a gun in a movie does not.

~ ~ ~

Officer O'Malley had arrived with the others at the scene. Lake Park. Shots fired. Those two words had filled him with dread.

When they had arrived it became quickly apparent there were three separate shooters. At least three, O'Malley reminded himself. There was always the possibility another gunman had not been spotted.

O'Malley took up position behind the female suspect, his own weapon drawn and ready. He had already seen her fire into the crowd. He shouted a warning to her, unable to determine if she could hear him or not.

The suspect turned, looking to her right, her gun raised. O'Malley had only an instant in which to consider that she might be searching for another target. He shouted a warning again and, getting no response, took her down with a single shot.

~ ~ ~

Juan Rodriguez drove his silver Elantra to the park. He was later than he had hoped, but he knew Stephanie would be waiting for him.

There were flashing red and blue lights. Police cars. People were scattered about. Some were weeping. Some hugging. Some shaking. Some just lay motionless on the ground.

Madre de Dios, Juan thought. His eyes swept the unsettled crowd, searching for Stephanie.

---

If you like what you read here, be sure to sign up for my free newsletter. You'll get content I don't share on the blog, including sample chapters from upcoming books, advance notice of new titles, coupons and more. Did I mention it's free? CLICK HERE.

Author's Best Choice Awards 2015

Here is a recap of the winners of the Author's Best Choice Awards for 2015. Congratulations to these authors!

Show Me Colour by Rosalind Gibb

Eyes of the Dead by Adam Netherlund

How to Learn Any Language by Nate Nicholson

Click any title above to go directly to my review. You can also read my interview with Rosalind Gibb by clicking HERE.

---

If you like this, be sure to sign up for my free newsletter. You'll get content I don't share on the blog, including sample chapters from upcoming books, advance notice of new titles, coupons and more. Did I mention it's free? CLICK HERE

Issues With the Issue

In a single week in 2015, nine people were killed and 26 more wounded in mass shootings in America. It wasn't a bad week. It was an average week.

According to Mass Shooting Tracker, such shootings occurred more days than not in 2015. Which means a mass shooting in the U.S. is no longer a newsworthy event.

I would think any reasonable citizen would sincerely desire to see the number of mass shootings in America decrease, and drastically. But many disagree as to how to go about making that happen.

I am a gun owner. Technically. I own a single rifle my father built with his own hands. It is a muzzle-loading flintlock, currently in storage in another state. I plan to display it in my home soon. It is both sentimental and a work of art.

If we are going to engage in public discussion about gun violence in America, it is important to have some ground rules.

1. We should agree that our discussion will not change anything. As already stated, some sort of change is required. But we should not see reforming healthcare, decreasing poverty or enacting legislation as the goal of our discussion. While any or all of these may ultimately be required, we should first get a general consensus on what sort of action should be taken.

2. We should agree that we will not change anyone's mind, either. If anyone's opinion does change, it should be because that person has examined the evidence and concluded he or she must change. Our duty should not be to convert, but to inform.

3. Everyone should be heard. Each participant should be allowed to present his or her views and provide support for those views. The discussion is about how to reduce gun violence in America, not about who can yell the loudest.

4. On the other hand, no one should be required to speak. (Or post. You get the idea.) Participants are welcome to simply absorb the information presented. A person's silence should not be confused with either support of or exception to your views.

5. We should not think of "winning" and "losing." It is not a football game. When gun violence in America decreases, we all win.

Now that we have that out of the way, I would like to present some problems I have seen with the "discussion" which has taken place so far. I am talking about logical fallacies.

According to yourlogicalfallacyis.com, a fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Such flaws weaken an argument, although the use of such fallacies sometimes make an argument seem stronger than it really is. Avoiding these fallacies will make your argument stronger, while being aware of them will help you discover when someone else has a view that may not stand up under scrutiny.

The Black-or-White Fallacy
Whenever I mention I favor gun control, someone is bound to offer up some variation of, "You can't take away our guns!" One problem with that response is that it does not accurately represent what I said, but the Black-or-White part of it is that it assumes there are only two options. Either guns in America have minimal restrictions, or they are banned outright.

While there are those who say guns should have no restrictions at all and others who say we must ban all firearms, there are a whole range of possibilities in between. There are no "sides," but there are many different viewpoints.

No True Scotsman (or, in our case, American)
I have actually been told that the Second Amendment and the way it is currently interpreted is embraced by all TRUE Americans. The fallacy here is that it is entirely possible to be an American and believe the law should be changed, or even abolished altogether. But there is a darker side....

Such statements imply one party loves our nation and the other does not. If we are going to have this discussion, we need to recognize that the various views all stem from a love of country, and of humanity itself. It is simply a matter of us not agreeing on what is best for the nation. One of the goals of discussion should be to sort that out, not to determine who is the bigger patriot.

The Strawman Fallacy
This is a case of misrepresenting someone else's argument in order to make it easier to attack. It is, in fact, the other problem with the response listed under The Black-or-White Fallacy above. Here is a popular meme that was recently circulating on the internet:

This looks nothing like what I am proposing. In fact, gun-free zones will only work if we ban firearms nationwide. I am often reminded that Chicago (or, more recently, California) has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and also one of the highest gun fatality rates. But I've driven into Chicago from both the north and the south. It is not a walled city, and there are no checkpoints on the interstate. Where I live in Wisconsin, guns to not even have to be registered. So it would be a piece of cake to bring a gun into Chicago.

Some have pointed out that if we ban guns throughout the U.S., criminals will just get them from other countries. That is true, but they would then have to sneak them through customs. Impossible? No. But it is much more difficult than simply tossing a gun in the back seat and driving into town.

Another problem I have with such memes -- and this is a personal gripe, not necessarily a logical fallacy -- is that it is a cartoon. It implies this issue is something to laugh about.

Yes, in my opinion images like this one don't help the debate, either.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy

If we have stricter gun control, the bad guys will be armed to the teeth and there will be no one to stop them! We'll all be killed, our nation will be taken over, and any survivors will be slaves to the [insert group of people here].

In a valid argument, A implies B, B implies C, and so forth. It is unreasonable to jump from A to Z without considering what comes in between. While you're at it, don't make the mistake of assuming that just because A implies B, B must automatically imply A!

The False Cause Fallacy
"These people died because they didn't have guns of their own!" This does not establish cause-and-effect. If they had had guns of their own, they might have survived. Remove the gunman and it is a certainty they would have.

This is also a form of victim-blaming. It is like saying a seductively-clad woman was asking to be raped. It is much easier to blame the victim than it is to seek out genuine solutions, but such blaming does weaken your argument.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy
Not to be confused with homonym. Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man." It works with women, too. It is simply a case of attacking a person instead of the argument. Referring to another as a "gun nut," a "liberal," or any kind of name-calling are all examples of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. This also includes referring to somebody's mother or a person's appearance, among other things. If you want to convince someone your views are valid, stick to the debate at hand.

The Appeal to Authority
This uses the authority of a person or institution instead of an actual argument. Making claims like, "Many scientific studies show...." without being able to cite them specifically is an example. Another is using "the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment" as your argument, in effect deifying them. Much better to demonstrate why they were right (or wrong) than to point out the fact of their authorship and think that proves your point.

Anecdotal Evidence
This is a case of using an isolated incident instead of a valid argument. It is often used in an attempt to dismiss statistics. I am sometimes sent a link to an article relating the story of an armed civilian who thwarted a violent criminal. Occasionally, someone will send an article entitled something like, "10 Times Armed Civilians Have Thwarted Violent Criminals." These people probably think they have done something clever. But as someone once pointed out to me, "The plural of anecdote is not data." Months or years of data cannot be dismissed with a mere ten examples to the contrary.

Tu Quoque
More Latin, this time meaning, "You, too." While it is fine to point out when someone has resorted to a fallacy, be careful not to fall into this one. Don't use the fact that an opponent has committed a fallacy in place of a valid argument. It is a close relative to...

The Fallacy Fallacy
Don't assume that because someone offers a poor argument that it must necessarily be wrong. Consider the following:

The moon is real. Everyone knows this because everyone can see it in the sky.

This is a poor argument for the reality of the moon. No sources were cited. in fact, the claim, "everyone can see it in the sky" can be proven false. Blind people cannot see the moon. But it would be The Fallacy Fallacy to conclude the moon is a myth based on this argument.

The Personal Incredulity Fallacy
Just because you cannot believe something doesn't mean it is isn't true. In the fifteenth century, it was difficult to believe objects all fall at the same rate, regardless of their weight. It made sense that heavier objects fall faster than light ones. Then along came Galileo, who demonstrated all objects fall at a constant -- and accelerating! -- rate, regardless of weight or mass. Then in 1971, astronaut David Scott again demonstrated that all objects fall at the same rate by dropping a hammer and a feather on the moon (where air resistance was not a factor).

Today, many find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that more guns in the hands of more citizens might actually increase gun violence. But just because such a conclusion is difficult to believe, that is not evidence that the claim is not true.

And, Finally...
This one isn't a fallacy in the formal sense, but it doesn't help the discussion when someone offers up a overly-simple platitude. "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." By definition, that is true. If we outlaw widgets, only outlaws will have widgets. If we outlaw spelunking, only outlaws will spelunk. If you are going to participate in the discussion, please have enough respect for your audience to offer something of substance.

Whew!
That was a lot to cover just to set up some ground rules for reasonable open debate. I'll go into more depth about my particular views on the gun issue in a future post.

In the meantime, some of you may want to participate in the discussion, either in the comments or elsewhere. I would ask that you keep it civil, but I wouldn't want our discussion of Second Amendment rights to impose on your First Amendment rights. So, I'll simply say consider what I've posted above. Remember that things like name-calling and antagonistic memes weaken your argument. If you choose to use such tactics, do so carefully.

Peace.

BOOK REVIEW:Great-Grandma's Gifts

This is a cute book for young children, especially girls. Though short, the story spans generations and focuses on creativity. I especially like that the women in the story use scraps to create new things. This could be a springboard for a discussion about finding new uses for items (better than recycling) or about creativity (though neither is specifically mentioned in the text).

---

I received a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. If you are an author and would like to have your book considered for review CLICK HERE.