Month: December 2012

A Matter of Perspective

I’m sure you’ve already heard the news regarding the school shooting in Connecticut. As of this writing 27 individuals have lost their lives. Advocates of gun rights are pointing out the fact that this mass shooting, like so many before it, occurred in a so-called gun-free zone while advocates of gun control are howling for more stringent gun control legislation. It’s the age old debate for which no common ground exists. But what about those who are normally outside of the gun rights debate?

After the news hit I did the thing many gun rights and gun control advocates are apt to do, I hit up the discussions occurring across the Internet. Advocates of gun rights have a phrase for gun control advocates who start demanding more gun control legislation immediately after a mass shooting: dancing in the blood. This phrase comes from the fact that they appear to be overjoyed to see a tragedy that can be used to advance their cause. I’m sure gun control advocates view those of us in the gun rights movement in the exact same way. Meanwhile individuals outside of the gun rights debate usually see it as both sides dancing in the blood. In their eyes both sides are exploiting a tragedy to advance their political causes.

I want to offer a though I had when pondering this over lunch. Being involved in the gun rights debate I spend a great deal of time writing about and discussing issues related to gun rights, including mass shootings. It’s a normal conversation for me to have. Because of this when a mass shooting like this occurs I merely continue the discussion I was having yesterday. I don’t believe I’m alone in this regard. In fact I would venture to guess that most people involved in the gun rights and gun control movements are the same way.

It’s not a matter of exploiting a tragedy so much as continuing an ongoing conversation. Although both sides appear to be insensitive, cold hearted, and exploitative to people generally outside of the conversation most of us involve in the conversation are, I believe, none of those things.

I realize that this thought is unlikely to change the opinions of individuals not normally involved in this conversation, and they very well may be right about both sides, but I feel it’s worth bringing up. In the end it’s a matter of perspective.

The Versatility of Firearms

Guns are very versatile tools. Not only can they be used to hunt and defend yourself against an aggressor but they can be used to politely inform an uninvited guest that were mistaken in believing they had been invited:

Police say about 5:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, a man walked into Modern Nails at 2645 E. Second St. and asked a female employee if she wanted to buy some diamonds. The man walked toward the front desk area and the woman replied that she had no money to buy diamonds.

A witness said the man then reached into his coat pocket and began to take out a silver-colored pistol.

At that moment, a woman who was getting her nails done reached into her purse and got her own firearm. Police say the man never fully raised the gun and left the building after seeing the customer had her weapon out.

The mere presentation of a firearm can, and often does, end potentially violent situations before they manage to become violent. What would likely have been an armed robbery turned out to be nothing more than a foot note in a police report because the intended victims demonstrated an ability to greatly increase the cost of performing a violent crime. I do hope that the salon comped the woman’s nail job.

Firearms can also be used to save lives outside of defensive situations. Consider this story, which chronicles a creative man’s employment of a firearm to save a suffocating man’s life:

Jamaryon Middlebrooks was driving along North Emerson on a Sunday night when a frantic person waved him off the side of the road. Middlebrooks found a chaotic scene, as the tow truck driver went unconscious and witnesses described him turning blue.

“He wasn’t breathing. … They felt a pulse but that was about it,” Middlebrooks said.

Middlebrooks made a split-second decision, grabbing his handgun out of his truck and firing nine shots at the chain, eventually dislodging it. Bystanders rushed to help the driver.

Had Middlebrooks not been armed the tow truck driver would likely have suffocated. Fortunately Middlebrooks was armed and had enough gun to destroy the chain that was strangling the tow truck driver. Another life was saved because an armed individual had the means to properly intervene.

According to gun control advocates these stories could never happen. They claim that guns are only good for killing. Their belief is narrow minded because they fail to see that a gun is nothing more than a tool and, like any tool, it’s uses are limited only by the creativity of the individual using it.

Protecting Society from Violent Psychopaths

One of the unfortunate facts in any society is that there are always a few violent psychopaths. Fortunately our society has developed a relatively effective means for the good people in society to protect themselves from the violent psychopaths. The most important aspect in any defensive situation is awareness, you must be able to identify a potential attacker. If you’re able to identify your potential attack soon enough you can usually avoid them entirely.

To facilitate identification and, hopefully, avoidance our society has taken as many violent psychopaths as can be identified and issued them special costumes and badges. Upon seeing an individual wearing one of these official costumes and badge you should do whatever is in your power to avoid contact. If you are unable to avoid contact there is a high probability that one of these violent psychopaths will attack you with a blunt weapon, electrical discharge device, or a firearm. They are also prone to firing upon canines so take extra precautions when walking your dog.

Double Tapping

Most defensive firearm instructors will tell you to fire two shots at your target in rapid succession. This technique is known as a double tap and it seems somebody operating the United States drone fleet has taken this concept to a new and absurd level:

NYU student Josh Begley is tweeting every reported U.S. drone strike since 2002, and the feed highlights a disturbing tactic employed by the U.S. that is widely considered a war crime.

Known as the “double tap,” the tactic involves bombing a target multiple times in relatively quick succession, meaning that the second strike often hits first responders.

In a self-defense situation double tapping is a method of compensating for the generally anemic ballistics of handgun cartridges. I’m not sure what practical aspect double tapping somebody with a $68,000 Hellfire missile has other than posing a threat to first responders and therefore generating a great deal of justifiable animosity and hatred towards the United States.

In a rather ironic twist the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has something to say about double tapping in regards to explosive ordinance:

A 2007 report by the Homeland Security Institute called double taps a “favorite tactic of Hamas” and the FBI considers it a tactic employed by terrorists.

The more you fight the enemy the more you become the enemy.

I Really Hate Being Right Sometimes

I’ve mentioned my interest in the Tavor rifle but expressed concern about the price. Back in April a representative of Israeli Military Industries (IMI) said they were aiming for a manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) of “under $2,000.” As I expected, the rifle will have an MSRP of $1,999.

Thus continues my love-hate affair with bullpup rifles. I like the concept of having a rifle that fires proper rifle cartridges in a compact form factor but I don’t like the prices being asked for any of the currently available options. For $1,999 I can buy a nice AR-15 and AK-47 with change to spare. On to of that the bullpup form factor doesn’t solve enough problems, especially when the problems it introduces are considered, to justify that notably higher cost in my book. Then again value is subjective and I’m sure there are a lot of people who are willing to shell out $2,000 for a bullpup rifle. My only hope is to know one of these fine individuals and ask them to let me fire it a few times.

Enforcing the Laws on the Books

When it comes to gun control there is already a veritable library of laws on the books. Some advocates of gun rights and gun control often make quips about focusing on enforcing current laws. Both sides are making a statement that current gun control laws are not stringently enforced. In the case of gun rights activists they are implying that crimes involving firearms can be addressed by stringently enforcing current laws and that new laws are unnecessary whereas advocates of gun control are implying that current laws aren’t being enforced and therefore a higher rate of crimes involving firearms exists than should.

The concern I have with the idea of enforcing current laws, a concern that should be shared by both my fellow advocates of gun rights and my philosophical opponents advocating for gun control, is that laws can be interpreted different by different individuals. Consider the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) latest victory in Illinois where a judge ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago made the individual state’s prohibition against non-state agents carry firearms illegal. This decision was a boon for advocates of gun rights and a defeat for opponents of gun rights but could have had the opposite outcome.

Remember that the federal appeals court decision actually overturned the decision of a lower court, which held a different interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago. One court believed that the Supreme Court’s decision, which allowed for “reasonable” gun control laws, allowed an individual state could prohibit non-state agents from carrying firearms while a different court believed the opposite. If the defense appeals the case we may see it land in the Supreme Court where a third interpretation of the McDonald v. Chicago ruling could be decided.

Utilizing the interpretation of current laws has played out in the quest to advance gun rights and I’m not saying we should abandon this strategy. What I am saying is that advocates of gun rights should be careful about advocating for the enforcement of current laws. I believe it would be smarter to recognize the court system for what it is, a convenient tool to advance gun rights, but not imply that current gun control laws are just. If we imply any consent to current gun control laws we could find ourselves at the wrong end of a court ruling. Were this to happen we would be forced with either consent to the law or make hypocrites of ourselves and claim that the law, in this case, shouldn’t be enforced.

A Reminder About Rule Four

Firearm safety are of the utmost importance. We sometime forget that firearms, although enjoyable for recreation, are weapons. In order to avoid tragedy various rulesets regarding firearm safety have been created, the most prevalent of which would be Jeff Cooper’s four rules:

  1. All guns are always loaded.
  2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
  3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
  4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Failure to abide by rule four lead to a tragedy in Rochester, Minnesota when a grandfather shot his granddaughter after mistaking her for an intruder:

A 61-year-old Rochester man shot his granddaughter at the patio door of his home late Monday night, telling police he had armed himself with a pistol to investigate a suspected intruder, police said.

Authorities are still investigating the incident involving the 16-year-old girl, who lives at the house with her grandparents. Shot in the upper torso, she was taken to the hospital in critical condition but was expected to survive, Police Capt. Brian Winters said.

When the couple went to bed Monday night, the girl was at home, Winters said. When they woke to a noise outside around 11 p.m., the man got a 9 mm pistol and went to investigate while the grandmother called police.

The man saw a figure at the patio door and fired two rounds, striking his granddaughter once, Winters said. He declined to give the family’s name.

Luckily the granddaughter is expected to live but this story should remind us all that it is our responsibility to be safe with firearms. Firearms are mere mechanical devices that are incapable of discerning friend from foe. We must make that decision and making it incorrectly could cost an innocent person their life.

The NRA Taking Undue Credit Again

The National Rifle Association (NRA) does a lot of things that really irritate me. On top of being unable to adopt new strategies in the fight for gun rights now that their strategy of political action has become less effective they also like to steal credit for that accomplishments of other gun rights organizations. Read the NRA’s press release regarding the gun rights victory in Moore v. Madigan. Do you notice anything missing? That’s right, the press released doesn’t mention the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Even though the case was initiated and funded by the SAF the NRA is taking sole credit for the victory.

Being dishonest by omitting due credit is a pet peeve of mine. In fact it irritates me to such an extent that I wouldn’t renew my NRA membership if I could do so and still remaining a member of the Oakdale Gun Club. My NRA membership fees would be far more productive in the hands of the SAF. The NRA is continuing to prove itself to be dishonest and incapable of adapting to changing circumstances. Both are unfortunate but I can at least understand the reason for the latter, it’s easy to become fixated on a strategy that has served you well in the past. What I can’t understand is the NRA’s unwillingness to acknowledge the efforts of other gun rights organizations. Far more could be accomplished through mutual cooperation than going it alone.

They’ll Fit Right In

If you’ve been paying attention to Greek politics the name Golden Dawn has likely surfaced a few times. Golden Dawn is Greece’s fascist party that has been slowly gaining political influence. A recent article on the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) has revealed that Golden Dawn plans to expand into the United States:

Golden Dawn members in the United States have told CBC News they plan to open chapters shortly in Chicago, in Connecticut and in Toronto.

All I can say is that they’ll fit right in. The United States is, in a practical sense, a fascist state ruled by two fascist political parties. The marriage between private and state interests is overt, rampant nationalism is apparent, and the use of military power to expand cannot be denied. Golden Dawn should find a great deal of inspiration in this country and may be able to use the history of America’s political system to bypass many mistakes commonly made by aspirant authoritarian regimes.

12/12/12

Although it’s almost over today is 12/12/12. Being the last instance of a day where the day, month, and year will be the same for quite some time I believe it is my duty as a Discordian pope to demonstrate how this most unique of days relates to the undeniable Law of Fives.

If you add 12 to 12 to 12 you get 36. The result of dividing 36 by 5 is 7.2. When you subtract 2 from 7 you get 5. This proves that today, 12/12/12, is like all other things and complies with the Law of Fives.