What Is "The Dream"?

The timing of this entry is purely coincidental, but being MLK Day, why not talk about a dream of mine?

Having stolen the dream paradigm from Dr. King, let's kype a phrase from a more recent idol -- Bill Gates, who once described Microsoft's mission as "A computer on every desk and in every home, all running Microsoft software..."

OK, so maybe "world domination" or its' kinder, gentler brother "universal service" are hardly novel, but dreams are painted in absolutes, the primary colors of the mind; not the muted tones of degrees.

So here's mine -- "A silencer for every gun that needs one."

Or maybe this -- "No hearing protection? No problem!"

One more for the road -- "Safety without pain."

Certainly further inspirations are possible, but while you're reading this, let's talk about what might prevent the dream from becoming real.

In the US at least, the law presents the most formidable obstacle. Were it removed, silencer technology would probably achieve 50% or greater penetration, instead of the sub-1% it currently endures.

Once I read somewhere (I think it was The Big Moo) that one shouldn't pursue opportunities that require the consent of at least 50% of the population to succeed. But almost all of what Dr. King described as "the promised land" required changing the law.

Changing the law means changing minds. It means changing the ideas that underwrite the law. And for silencers, the idea that underwrites their restriction is that loud guns aid in the detection (and hopefully, capture and prosecution) of gun-using criminals.

Against this belief one might set a "rights" argument, saying that the rights of presumably innocent people outweigh law enforcement considerations, probably throwing in a quote or two from the Founders or other natural rights philosophers.

But given that more people can quote Dirty Harry than Thomas Locke, I'm pretty sure that most people will side with the cops, even when the cops don't quite act like Joe Friday.

We might try another line of reasoning and say "Maybe we've overstated the benefit to law enforcement." To me, testing that assumption means asking questions such as the following: "What proportion of gun homicides were discovered on the basis of gunshot detection?"

I know not all gun crimes end in death. But it's the most serious consequence of gun use, and would likely be given the most attention by not just an audience, but data collectors as well.

I don't yet know the answer to that question. I just found a link from the FBI that says in 2005 about 73% of all homicides where the weapon is known were caused by firearms. The raw number was a little over 10,000.

Maybe there's enough information there to make a reasonable conclusion.

Silencers: A New Marketing Approach

I'm working on a Squidoo lens about silencers and one of the avenues of expression is YouTube. I put an old demo video I made on it and it has attracted a few comments. One of them, taken slightly out of context, goes, "you notice the subsonic rounds only when somebody shoots you and the bullet pass close to you, not when you are shooting". He was presenting a tactical analysis of the video.

Maybe we present obstacles to people getting into this thing by the "tactical" language we use. Because most silencer buyers are government agencies, it makes sense to emphasize how it gives someone "the edge" in a "situation". My audience, the average joe or jane, doesn't want a dissertation on how silencers could have turned around Little Bighorn.

Instead they want their shooting to be as free of problems as possible. A lot of effort has been put into making guns as reliable, light, balanced, powerful, and safe as possible. Why not put some resources into making each shot as quiet as possible also?

It shouldn't pose too many problems for the "tactical" marketer. After all, home defense is just a special tactical situation with two important distinctions -- you're not trying to hide from anyone and you're indoors.

The first distinction frees you from choices that must consider the possibility of detection, but it's a rather minor freedom, as your problem probably already knows whether you're home or not.

The second distinction means reducing your sound signature takes on even more importance because walls echo sound, in essence trapping it, making indoor shooting much more damaging to your ears than outdoor shooting.

It's the homeowner for whom silencer technology can bring the most benefit. It's time to figure out a way to say so that doesn't just attract the SWAT wannabes.