Particle-Transparent(Additive) Grayscale Shader

Use bwBlend to change saturation
Use alpha to fade object in and out

Shader “Custom/BulletDesat” {
Properties {
_MainTex (“Base (RGB)”, 2D) = “white” {}
_bwBlend (“Black & White blend”, Range (0, 1)) = 0
_alpha (“Alpha”, Range(0, 1)) = 0
SubShader {
Tags { “Queue”=”Transparent” “IgnoreProjector”=”True” “RenderType”=”Transparent” }
Blend SrcAlpha One
Cull Off Lighting Off ZWrite Off Fog { Color (0,0,0,0) }
Pass {
#pragma vertex vert_img
#pragma fragment frag

#include “UnityCG.cginc”

uniform sampler2D _MainTex;
uniform float _bwBlend;
uniform float _alpha;

float4 frag(v2f_img i) : COLOR {
float4 c = tex2D(_MainTex, i.uv);

float lum = c.r*.3 + c.g*.59 + c.b*.11;
float3 bw = float3( lum, lum, lum );
float4 trans = float4(0,0,0,0);

float4 result = c;
result.rgb = lerp(c.rgb, bw, _bwBlend);
result.rgba = lerp(result.rgba, trans, 1-_alpha);
return result;

Sensitive Topics

Odd that I should start using this again on a topic like this.  It’s been on my mind all morning though, and I feel an urge to dispense an uneducated opinion.  Time to talk out of my ass-

How would events like Orlando be prevented?
Looking at the most immediate facts, I was surprised that someone who’s been involved in the giving-end of domestic violence was the culprit.  Isn’t that a key point that disqualifies one for gun ownership?  Someone who’s been involved in that, and investigated for ties with terrorists, being able to pass background checks.  I know people should have the right to due process, and the investigation failed to yield any proper evidence, but it still feels wrong reading it.

Tighter Ownership Restrictions

Perhaps he should have been barred from owning firearms as well as holding a job requiring him to be armed on the grounds of prior domestic abuse.  Perhaps people who have any record of violence should be summarily disarmed.  That may fly in the face of ‘shall not be infringed,’ but I think limits should be placed just like any of our other rights.

Strict Process

I’m solidly of the opinion that we need more gun control.  Maybe my views are tainted by living in NJ, but I’d get behind the idea that every gun purchase require a background check, private sale or otherwise, and that everyone have a license, long arms and hand guns alike.  With something so potentially dangerous I think those are fair requests as a minimum.

When applying for my own license, it struck me as odd that I wasn’t required to interact with an officer for any sort of interview.  I’m fairly doubtful my references were contacted at all.  I’m not going to bother reading up again on past cases because all I’m writing is tripe, but I think more thorough interviews by officers may help matters.  4-6 character references and perhaps family interviews should be made available.

The process in NJ is involved in comparison to the rest of the US, but it should be even more involved everywhere than it is here.  Thorough interviews may help, because as it is, the license process felt like more of a formality.

Categorical Bans

While I do believe in gun control, I believe the current state of assault weapon bans are a bit ridiculous.  The term ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ are ineffective when it comes to placing restrictions on weapons capable of mass murder.  The strictest definition in my mind is- a rifle that allows automatic fire (or one patterned in an identical fashion apart from automatic capability) that fires an intermediate rifle cartridge, eg. 7.62x39mm, 223 Rem.  Intermediate cartridges allow for a balance of power, recoil, and ammunition carrying capacity.  Today’s laws include a wide assortment of ‘evil features’ that mark weapons as ‘assault weapons,’ such as collapsible stocks, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, flash hiders, muzzle brakes, etc., and they really miss the point.

These bans are ostensibly to restrict murder-capable weaponry while attempting to leave guns used for sporting purposes alone, but I don’t see the point.  A semiautomatic 308 or  30-06 hunting rifle with none of those features will do nearly as well as the AR-15s that seem common with these events.  There are some legally available semiautomatic shotguns that I feel would be terrifying to face, but are fine to own.  These terrorists chose AR-15s, but they could have just as easily picked up any another semi 223 rifle with less ‘military style’ looks and do just as much damage.  Bans restricted to ‘assault’ weapons seems daft to me.

It’s time to really talk shit now.  If you want to ban guns that you think are mass murder weapons, make a complete ban on all semiautomatic weapons, handguns, rifles, and shotguns alike.  I see no NEED for them, but is the possession of semiautomatic weapons secured as a RIGHT?  I don’t believe in the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a guarantee for any sort of weapons without limit.  I think we need to limit our interpretation that much further.  5 cartridge limits on all magazines, even, leaving revolvers at 6.

The unconditional right to arms isn’t a terribly easy right for me to defend, it seems.  A lot of factors play into the events that occurred, mental instability being a big one.  I believe gun control is by far the easiest factor to control, though.  You can’t ensure someone’s not off their rocker, and taking away guns is a snore in comparison.

‘And on that bombshell’