The recent incidents involving death by firearm have the nation all riled up. And rightfully so. Though this seems to be a cyclical kind of thing that ebbs and flows according to current events.

Disclosure: I am a firearm owner. That firearm is a Remington Express 870, 12 gauge, pump shotgun. Primarily, this weapon has been used to shoot clay pidgeons, but also has been fired in the general direction of pheasants and ducks to little effect. Let’s say marksmanship is not one of my towering strengths. This legally purchased and registered firearm is stored in my home unloaded with a trigger lock. In other words, I’m responsibly exercising my 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

Since we have repeatedly seen the dark side of weapons mixed with unstable people and have seen it recently with graphic and horrible results, it does bring up the question “Is this the kind of society we want to live in?” A valid question and most reasonable people would say a society where unreliable people can easily be armed with powerful weapons is a stupid society.

The problem we have at present is the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Prior writings of mine (around the Aurora incident for instance) have been misconstrued. My position is that the law of the land unambiguously permits unrestricted firearm ownership and thus we should not be surprised by these incidents and we should adjust our outlook on these incidents to reflect that reality. This latest incident has perhaps created an environment where a change of the law of the land is possible.

Fortunately, the Founders of the United States of America put in place a mechanism to change rules that have outlived their utility or are no longer valid in the present context through the amendment process. As a matter of fact, we’ve seen instances where amendments have been made and then a few short years later repealed as a whoopsie (see the 18th and 21st amendments for instance.)

Since the politicians will now blow a bunch of hot air around this subject, I suggest that we embark upon the simple process of amending the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment and replacing it with the 28th amendment that has more relevance to the age we live in. (And while we’re at it, we should seriously consider repealing the 16th amendment too and replacing it with some caps about how much and from whom the federal government can tax.)

What would the 28th amendment look like? I’d propose something like this: “US Citizens, free from conviction of felony offense or diagnosed mental illness, have the right to own and use firearms for the purpose of recreation and defense. Citizens who choose to exercise these rights bear the full responsibility for the use, storage, and disposal of these firearms. Ownership of weapons with military capabilities or design will not be permitted for Citizens.”

This approach creates a test for ownership, excludes ownership from high risk individuals, places responsibility (legal and civil) on the owner throughout the firearm’s lifecycle, and removes weapons with military applications from the discussion.

Now, we need to be realistic about enforcement. The relatively few regulations we presently have around firearms are routinely flaunted by the criminal element and we have every reason to believe that new, stricter regulations will also be ignored. We have to implement strategies and penalties to correct this situation consistently at the local level.

Furthermore, while this kind of approach could stem the tide of new weapons, it does nothing to address the vast pool of firearms already in the wild so to speak. An acceleration of firearm buy-backs, retirement, and disabling (in the case of a collector who wants to keep say an M-16 as a display item.) Given the sheer number of firearms in existence, this would amount to a multi-generational effort to be able to demonstrate progress and reduce the weapons population to a more reasonable level.

To be clear, I’d like to preserve the right to bear arms. But the 2nd amendment as written needs to be revised for our present context. Comment away.

I’ve been waiting for some of the hyperbole and emotion around the most recent mass shooting incident to quiesce before posting this. Back when the Aurora shooting happened I wrote about some thoughts that devolved into a gun control discussion in the comments. Let’s set that issue aside for a future post.

I’d like to explore the other aspects of this which deal with the culture in which we live. You don’t have to like them, you don’t have to agree with them, but the facts of the matter are these:

• The purchase and possession of guns is legal in the United States.
• The number of incidents where multiple people are killed/injured by a person (often using guns) is increasingly frequent.
• The amount of attention garnered by these incidents is directly proportional to the shock value of the incident.
• 24×7 news coverage of these incidents are big business.

Given these facts, we should as a society own up to the fact that we are unwittingly helping to achieve the objectives of the people who would perpetrate such violence upon others. Our thirst for news as it happens, stoked by television coverage and social media, takes a horrible incident and makes it worse by doing the unintended – seeding the next incident.

A potential perpetrator, someone mentally unstable or ill, who doesn’t “fit in,” who is a “loner,” devoid (at least in their mind) of attention or notoriety, can simply tune in and see the easy formula to change this situation by going out in one event and causing as much shocking damage as possible. It’s effectively domestic terrorism where the terrorist is using our insatiable appetite for media against us.

So what should we do? First, stop watching the news as these events unfold. Seriously, stop. If we stop the ad revenue drops off and we’ll get different programming (admittedly it is likely to be more stupid reality television.) Secondly, we should stop talking about these incidents and the perpetrators on social media. It only feeds into what they wanted in the first place, attention. I won’t mention the details of the latest incident for just that reason.

There’s another benefit to this approach as well, people seem to be traumatized by the coverage/discussion and incapable of doing anything other than immerse themselves in the drama playing out from the incident. It frightens them, causes them to think, feel, and say things that they probably wouldn’t under normal circumstances. It activates the flight or fight mechanisms and titillates the voyeur in people. Don’t let this happen to you!

People want to focus on the guns, and that’s fine to have a serious discussion about them, but we’ve got to realize that guns are only a part of this and perhaps the least part. The deadliest one of these incidents in US history occurred not using guns but explosives. Google it, you’ll find it. People who are seeking this kind of attention will use any means at their disposal to increase the shock value and insure that they have their day of infamy.

I firmly believe that the way to curb future incidents is to deny the perpetrators what the want. Let’s not talk about them. Let’s ignore them completely. Let’s not give in to 24×7 coverage – this is not good media content. This is the core issue and we can stop seeding these by denying our collective attention.

Meanwhile, I can’t imagine what the victims of the latest incident are experiencing – there are no words. My deepest sympathies are extended to them all and I hope we can work to prevent future incidents like this.

Having spent the vast majority of my business life creating and selling software; the business model I’m used to consists of relatively large expense dollars in the form of Research & Development (R&D) and Sales, Marketing, and Administration (SMA.) Since it’s software, the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) tends to be noise leading to healthy gross margins. If the COGS are <1% of sales, the gross margin is >99%.

The advent of network delivered software model has changed that a bit with COGS as a percent of sales climbing to around 20% to support the investment and operations of the IT infrastructure necessary to deliver the software as a service to the customer. Even with the increase in COGS it still leaves a ~80% gross margin. And that kind of margin supports a healthy R&D and SMA investment on a per dollar sold basis.

The recent foray into the retail world with Oddyssea is a completely different beast. Moving from software to physical products has a huge impact on the COGS aspect of the business. The obvious aspect is the acquisition of the product for sale, but the sourcing, transport, storage, presentation, and eventual disposal of the product and packaging are material costs that all hit the COGS line.

In the retail model, we’re finding that 50% of each dollar is consumed with the life-cycle of the physical products we offer to our visitors. This means we see a 30 point drop to a gross margin 50% which means there are fewer dollars left over to cover costs, investments, and profit. One benefit on the expense side is that R&D is minimal in the retail model. SMA remains a very real set of costs to cover inside the reduced gross margin dollars.

Thus we’ve found ourselves tracking gross margin pretty closely and working to make improvements in that area of the business moving toward a long-term goal of 65-67%. In our first few months we’ve been able to log an average of 1.5 points improvement per month as we optimize our product line for sale and work to move the COGS into the desirable zone. Based upon the early data, we believe that our profit margin will result from the COGS improvement while keeping a tight hold on SMA and working to steadily increase top-line sales.

It’s exhilarating to learn a new way of doing business and taking the bits from the prior 30 years to apply in the new arena. This experience has also served to make me appreciate the simplicity and profitability of software businesses. It is MUCH easier to create a profitable software business than a business in the bricks and mortar world. The 30 points of gross margin make the software business much more flexible, forgiving, and profitable for the owner.

For your viewing/listening enjoyment. Can’t get it out of my head this morning, so I thought I’d share a little Townes Van Zandt with the broader world too……. 😉

I’ve frequently railed against large companies abusing their customers in this forum. There are rants on United Airlines, Allianz Travel Insurance, Honeywell, etc. that detail the specific incidents so you can read them as you like.

Yesterday, as I was fighting my bank for the 47th time on stupidity they’ve inflicted upon me as their customer, it occurred to me what has gone wrong with these institutions: they are simply too large to care. The loss of any single customer is inconsequential to their business so the relationship of customer to vendor has become twisted. They believe you (their customer) exist to serve their interests and the interests of their shareholders. This is 180 degrees incorrect in that customers are the lifeblood of any business and these monster companies are about to re-learn that lesson as more of their customers get fed up with this situation and seek alternatives.

This is what I want to share with all of you too-big-to-fail motherfuckers out there: You Work for Me Dammit. It’s not the other way around. I’m done working through your systems to do your work that you should rightfully be doing for me as a customer. What’s my alternative? Anything or nothing is better than what you offer. Big is not best. Big is not beautiful. Big sucks.

So, in addition to firing United Airlines after 20+ years of loyal patronage this year, I’m about to fire Wells Fargo after 23 years of banking relationship. We have had our personal and multiple business accounts with them over the years and that’s now over. We will be headed to a local bank or credit union with our business. The pain of switching is much less than the pain of staying and PAYING for the right to be an abused customer.

A word of advice for other large companies that want my business? Remember that you work for me and do your damn job. Don’t just do it, do it well. Or, I’ll fire you too. And I’ll enjoy it. That’s something Mitt and I have in common it would appear. 😉

I hope this becomes a trend, customers firing large companies who screw them. If you have fired a company or want to do so, please leave a comment with the particulars, I’m interested to hear your story.