I love Christmas — the feeling of good cheer, the lights, the trees, the celebrations — why should Christians get all the fun? 
Some holidays have become secular so that everyone can enjoy them. I know plenty of Jews who set up Christmas trees and exchange gifts, for instance. (And, even though I am not Jewish either, I join them for the traditional Christmas Chinese dinner.) Although many of the ideas of Christmas are based in religion, many do not require religion at all.
In fact, you don’t have to be Christian to agree with what Christmas is supposed to celebrate. That Jesus had some damned good ideas. Peace on earth, goodwill to all, caring for those less fortunate, being with your family — how can you be against that? Why wouldn’t you want everyone to share in that, no matter what their beliefs? Not to mention festive lights, presents, mistletoe, jingle bells, Christmas parties, Santa Claus, and “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” (The Chuck Jones one, not the Jim Carey one).
That’s why it’s so frustrating to have angry Christians complaining that we have stolen their religion (“Put Christ back in Christmas!”). Let’s ignore for the moment that Jesus was probably born in the spring (when shepherds watched their fields) and that much of this holiday was stolen from earlier religions. Wouldn’t a true Christian be happy that others are celebrating peace? That others use this season to promote the values they supposedly teach?
I know many Christians who welcome all to celebrate with them, no matter their beliefs. I have a feeling that this Jesus guy would approve.
After a recent debate on Facebook about guns, I told everyone I had enough and was signing off in order to play Fallout 4, a computer game where I could run around a post-apocalyptic Boston shooting mutated zombies with a variety of firearms.
“Aha!” you say. “You’re a hypocrite!”
Well, no. You see, Fallout 4 is fiction. It’s not real.
Weapons in fiction serve a purpose of providing drama, action, adventure. Weapons have featured prominently in my novels, too. They help make a great story. A great fictional story.
That doesn’t mean I think everyone should be running around with one in real life. I know the difference between fiction and reality, you see.
(I’m also against dropping anvils on people’s heads in real life.)
And that’s one of the biggest problems I have when dealing with some of the gun enthusiasts out there: They don’t seem to be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.
In their world, more guns means less violence; people with guns stop mass shootings even when trained police can’t; and gun control doesn’t reduce gun violence.
And that’s all fiction. There’s not the slightest bit of evidence to support any of those beliefs, and plenty to prove otherwise.
So I guess I’m not surprised when some people think I am a hypocrite for hating guns in real life while liking them in fiction — because they can’t tell the difference.
Some of my conservative friends have been complaining about the number of mass shootings we’ve had so far this year, rightly pointing out that it all depends on how you define “mass shooting.” Should you include shootings where people were only maimed and didn’t die? How many deaths are needed before it counts as a mass shooting? And so on.
So let’s be generous and assume that the numbers showing an average of about one a day is unrealistic. 
Sure, let’s cut that in half, and we’ll say it’s only one every other day. Or even one a week.
Just let me know: How many innocent deaths do we need before you will say, “Maybe we should do something about this”?
Fill in the blank for me: “My right to own any deadly weapon free from restriction is worth the lives of _____ people.”
Is there a number? If so, remember: If you haven’t already agreed that maybe we should do something, the number in that blank has to be at least 30,000 a year. If you’ve been an adult for, say, twenty years and have done done nothing to try to prevent all these deaths, then the number in that blank needs to be at least 600,000, or roughly every single person in Seattle, Washington.
No, I don’t want to read another rant about guns. Don’t change the subject, answer the question. If you want to debate guns, search this blog for that topic and you’ll find plenty of threads where your comments will be appropriate and welcome.
So please: Give me a number. Let me know how many innocent dead people it will take before we can sit down and talk reasonably about what we should do about it.
by Guest Blogger M. David Blake
Many years ago in this country, it was possible for anyone with an automobile to visit the filling station, fill their vehicle’s tank with gasoline, and then pay for it.
Weird concept, isn’t it? Nowadays, motorists are almost always required to either authorize a transaction at the pump, or pre-pay the cashier. And the reason for this change in expectation is simple: some motorists—statistically a very small number, but enough to be noteworthy and to ultimately affect the bottom line—figured out how easy it was to drive away without paying for their fuel.
Wait though! Why should you be forced to follow such stuffy rules? You are a responsible motorist, and you might prefer to pump first, and then pay afterward. Anyone should be able to see that you’re good for it. After all, you were able to afford a really nice car, and by golly, you’ve taken care of that sucker too!
Want to try? Good luck, because the cashier is unlikely to turn on the pump based on little more than your appearance as a “responsible motorist,” and you probably won’t be able to argue your case. Whether you are responsible or not, cashiers know, barring that restriction, someone would stiff them for a hefty dose of guzzeline.
Now, some of the open carry advocates out there are responsible gun owners. Statistically, most of them are responsible. If you are a gun owner, you are probably responsible too. I am not questioning your credentials as a responsible gun owner. We’ll take it as a given that you are safe, sane, and trustworthy.
All the same, a few of the people carrying guns around in this country are breaking the social contract. They’ve figured out how easy it is to fire off rounds at whoever the hell irritated them last, or whatever group offended their sensibilities, or anyone/anything they decided didn’t deserve to exist unmolested.
But you’ve been asking us to assume they are all responsible gun owners, because doing otherwise jeopardizes our collective trust in your own personal display of firepower.
Those mass shooters are statistically a very small number of gun owners… but they are enough to be noteworthy, and to ultimately affect the bottom line.
Here’s the bottom line:
After today, if I see weapons, my assumption is not that you are responsible gun owners. It’s that you are about to become active shooters, and that everyone should get as far away from you as possible.
M. David Blake is a science fiction writer, and the editor of STRAEON. This article first appeared on his personal Facebook page, and is reprinted with permission.
ventrellaquest.com 