Massad Ayoob's Blog, page 86

HOW THE GUN PROHIBITIONISTS THINK

In a brief flash of honesty on the issue, or perhaps a Freudian slip, queen of the gun-banners Dianne Feinstein recently admitted that she didn’t think any law would have kept the mad dog at Mandalay Bay from carrying out his depraved murder spree last week.  Others on her side of the issue, however, don’t even have those brief moments of facing reality.

Case in point: a few days ago, a person I’ll call Jim reached out to me at a place where I haven’t worked for eight years and opened a dialogue that began, “I would be grateful to know what you believe policy makers should do to reduce the incidence of gun violence in America. I know this is a topic of great controversy, but surely there are things we can do to insure justice, domestic tranquility and the general defense.  Your experience and expertise merits soliciting your opinion. So, what are your thoughts?”

Seemed like an ordinary person with a logical question, so I gave him the following honest answer: “I don’t see how the black Swan Event in Las Vegas this week could have been foreseen or prevented. For gun violence in general, we have an ample number of gun laws now, but they need to be enforced, and we need more prisons and a return of serious mental institutions.  Unfortunately, there are no simple answers to complex problems.

Cordially, Mas “

Jim’s response was: “Thank you for your reply. While I understand there may not be simple solutions, I remain interested in hearing a pro gun perspective on solving what is undeniably a lethal problem. Therefore, I repeat my request for your suggestion on how society can address the problem of mass shootings in America. It need not be simple, but surely it must withstand scrutiny and at least promise to make people safer than we are with deadly weapons easily available to killers. You may not like the idea of repealing the second amendment, requiring insurance, training and licensing, or disarming citizens. But those are ideas worthy of discussion and absent concrete alternatives, they are the only ones that will be considered. The status quo is unacceptable.”

Huh. Apparently enforcing laws, having enough prisons, and improving the mental health care system are not “concrete alternatives.”  Seeing where this was going, I replied,

“If the solutions you propose are the only ones you will accept, we have nothing to discuss.

Sincerely, Mas”

 

Jim’s answer: “Does that mean you have no solution?  Or do you just want to avoid any discussion? As long as people get killed by deranged gunmen, there are going to be demands for action. I am willing to hear your proposals, if you have any. That is why I asked you to comment.  The statement, “If the solutions you propose are the only ones you will accept, we have nothing to discuss” sounds like a cop out to me.  In fact, had you read my message, it said ‘absent concrete alternatives, they are the only (ideas) that will be considered.’  If you have any ideas worthy of discussion then you have an obligation to present them.  And if you think people sometimes die in a free society and we should get used to it, then have the courage to say so and explain why your ‘freedom’ is worth the lives that will be lost when some crazy gets it in mind to slaughter innocent people.”

“Freedom.”  In quotes.  In today’s parlance, that’s a trigger.  I responded, “Sir, you wrote: ‘You may not like the idea of repealing the second amendment, requiring insurance, training and licensing, or disarming citizens. But those are ideas worthy of discussion and absent concrete alternatives, they are the only ones that will be considered.’  You’ve made up your mind and are not open to dialogue.  I don’t have time for that.”

His reply: “You are not presenting alternative ideas. Are you not concerned about the victims of gun violence? Do you have no solutions? This is your last chance to participate in a meaningful dialogue. Gun control supporters have ideas. Shall we report that pro gun citizens are unable to suggest action, that they think society should just cope with things the way they are, or that they just don’t care? Your failure to address the original question creates a vacuum in which the conversation is ‘absent concrete alternatives’ so speak out or shut up.”

Being told to shut up by the guy who opened the conversation and had completely ignored the “concrete solutions” I had offered right off the bat, pretty much drained my last reserves of BS tolerance.  I wrote back: “Jim, a few things you don’t understand. — You don’t have standing to give people last chances.  — I have no idea who you are. You have no standing to begin a dialogue, particularly since…– Your research thus far has been so poor, it led you to contact me at an email address I left years ago. — You postulated to me a discussion in which the only possible answers were some form of ‘gun control’ long since proven to be useless. This smacks of an internet troll, not someone wishing to begin a meaningful dialogue. — And, since your own correspondence with me indicated you didn’t have a clue about violence beyond gun control, you probably wouldn’t grasp anything I suggested anyway. Don’t bother me anymore, Jim. I don’t have time for this bullshit. Sincerely, Massad Ayoob”

Which prompted Jim’s latest, today: “I’m writing a story and you will feature prominently in it…. big mouth gun advocate who has no idea how to protect society from dangers created of prolific firearms”

Knock yourself out, Jim.  It should be fun.

By the way, folks, Jim’s last name is consistent with a man described thus by the Washington Times: “… a Democratic strategist (who) sent out a tweet from his Twitter account Wednesday afternoon with the hashtag ‘HuntRepublicanCongressmen’ after the shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. ‘I think it speaks for itself,’ (he) said of the tweet on Thursday afternoon. ‘Yesterday’s events are the result of escalating rhetoric and vitriol that has been evident in our political system culminating with the election of our president and the chickens came home to roost, you know?’”

AS THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES…

Only a few days after the atrocity, the investigation into the mass murderer in Las Vegas is bringing more surprises. There is still much to learn about what happened.

The gun-banners, of course, are dancing madly in the blood. It looks as if the bump-fire stocks are going under the bus.  The NRA is, at least, suggesting that if those things go, they get traded for something that will undoubtedly save innocent lives: national concealed carry reciprocity.

Most recently, the antis are screaming about the killer apparently having bought some tracer bullets, and speculating that if he had used them he would have killed more victims with greater accuracy.  It doesn’t seem to occur to them that if he had used tracers, his exact position would have been pinpointed almost immediately, and might have been stopped all the sooner.

Just a few points..

ISIS has publicly taken credit for the killer’s actions. That has been almost summarily dismissed.  I have a feeling that it may have to be revisited. https://mobile.twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/915998590153129984  Some find this unlikely, on the theory that a wealthy American Caucasian “doesn’t fit the profile” of someone radicalized toward violence.  Um…does anybody remember Patty Hearst?  Anyone checked to see how many of those Antifa masks hide the young adult children of privileged white families?
The killer owned private airplanes and had a pilot’s license. Many commentators are now referring to his “secret life.” That secret life apparently included an obsession with homicide. It might be worth the investigators’ while to go back through the files of his flight plans and correlate with unsolved murders in places he’s been.
The demands to take guns away from law-abiding people will continue. The meme of “we have to do SOMETHING, ergo, we have to blame SOMEONE,” will likewise continue.  The gun being the most visible symbol of the atrocity, symbolism over substance will continue too.
Just for perspective, the death toll by guns and explosives was greater in the mass murders in Norway and France, which already have the sort of “gun controls” Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would welcome. Not to mention the 2016 truck run-down in Nice that killed 86 and injured 458. Gun laws are impotent in the face of those already planning to commit the most heinous crimes.

 

Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.

A BLAZE OF SHAME

As we all stand aghast at the atrocity in Las Vegas, one of the many things that grinds my teeth is hearing the talking heads on TV talk about the evil POS who perpetrated it “going out in a blaze of glory.”  A blaze of what?!?

They should call it a blaze of shame, because there can be no glory in the cowardly murder of the innocent.

He literally shot fish in a barrel: from his aerie, with a rifle equipped with a mechanical device to enhance speed of fire, on a bipod on a laboriously-created platform in his hotel suite, to shoot at tens of thousands of people who were packed like sardines in a two-acre venue.

Naturally, the first cries before the blood had dried came from Hillary Clinton and those like her: “Ban silencers, which would have made it worse!”  “Ban private ownership of machine guns,” no legal example of which was used here; only one of which since 1934 has to my knowledge been used to commit murder.  (And that one case involved a police officer, who claimed it went off by accident.) See here.

And of course, the cry is now “Ban bump-fire type stocks, etc.”, even though to my knowledge this is the first time that device has been used to commit murder, too.

It’s human nature when we see a terrible thing happen to feel and say, “We must do Something!”  Unfortunately, that tends to quickly turn into, “We must blame Someone!”

That someone, naturally, is gun owners and the NRA, in the eyes of those committed to left-wing agendas.  At least one pundit from “the port side” has called for NRA to be declared a terrorist organization, and another has called for white males who own a lot of guns and ammunition to be “profiled.”  A CBS attorney was fired for tweeting that she couldn’t feel sorry for the victims at the country music concert in Las Vegas, because she assumed they must be “repugs”… Republicans.  Talk about profiling…

Amidst all this shameful behavior, though, we’ve seen things which make us proud to be Americans. The ordinary American citizens at the concert who shielded other people’s bodies with their own, and risked being killed to drag others out of the field of fire.  The splendid performance of Las Vegas’ emergency services personnel, from the police to the firefighter/paramedics to the staffs at the hospitals.

There is much more to learn about this atrocity. Law enforcement is dealing with one of the most complicated crime scenes in American history, and the background investigation will also take a considerable amount of time.  Doubtless, more examples of American heroism will surface.  So, unfortunately, will more examples of shallow political ambition and “political identity” hatred.

CHICAGO COPPERS “OUT” A HYPOCRITE

Anyone who thinks all cops are anti-gun needs to talk to real street cops.  One such voice is one of my favorite blogs, Second City Cop out of Chicago.  In the excerpt below, they expose yet another example of the “guns for we, but not for thee” of those of the gun prohibitionists:

Dangerous Hypocrite

Get a load of this ignoramus:

“A gun control activist in Chicago got a gun and justified it by saying her community is too dangerous to live in without one.

The activist–Camiella Williams–got a concealed carry permit too.

According to NPR, Williams grew up living on Chicago’s South Side and was personally impacted by violence at age nine, when she was hit in the head with a brick. She became involved in gang activity, acquired a gun at age 12, and lived violently until she had a son at age 18. At that point she decided to make a change; she moved away from the South Side, got a GED and a college education, and began lobbying the state for Illinois for more gun control.

She also traveled to Washington DC to press members of Congress to pass more gun laws.

And Williams continues to lobby, yet NPR’s Chip Mitchell reports that Williams has two thing most people would not expect a gun control proponent to possess–a gun and a concealed carry permit. Moreover, Williams makes clear she is ready to use her gun if she has too.”

She said, “I mean I just know that I would probably retaliate.”

“Retaliate.” There’s a problem waiting to happen. The purpose of Concealed Carry is self-defense, not “retaliation.” In fact, “retaliation” is a huge no-no in Concealed Carry classes – the threat ends, so does the justification for using the gun. In other words:

 Self defense = defense of self

Someone might want to head this one off before it becomes fodder for her fellow travelers.

Share or Bookmark

POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY

In recent discussions here on police use of force, it has been suggested that since cops know they’re doing a risky job, they should wait longer than a civilian might before using force to defend themselves or effect an arrest.  After all, don’t they have more equipment and training? And didn’t they “assume the risk”?

Um…no.  Here’s why.

First, we all remember Spiderman’s Uncle Ben wisely advising him, “With great power comes great responsibility.” That’s true as far as it goes, but it only goes halfway. As I’ve taught my students for decades, police and civilian alike, power and responsibility must always be kept in a dead-equal balance.

Power without responsibility tends to lead to tyranny.  But responsibility without the power to fulfill it is the very definition of futility.

One commentator here longed for the days when police were “peace officers” instead of “law enforcement officers.”  News flash: Police have always been both. The purpose of law enforcement is keeping the peace, and the peace cannot be kept against violent criminals without the power to enforce the law.

Historically, society has given the cop and the private citizen different standards of justifiable use of force:  “Equal Force” for the so-called “civilian,” and “Necessary Force” for the cop.  Picture Lady Justice holding her scales, with power on one side and responsibility on the other.

It’s “equal force” for the private citizen because their responsibility is only to stop the attack and prevent harm: if, for instance, the suspect flees, they have no duty to capture him and their right to harm him ended when he broke off his assault.  But it’s “necessary force” for the police officer, because his or her duty is not merely to make the “bad guy” stop threatening them anymore: their sworn duty is to pursue, overpower, capture and disarm and restrain him, and transport him to jail.

All of which, the first time you try to do it to a criminal who doesn’t want it done, turns out to be a helluva lot more difficult than simply dissuading him from screwing with you anymore. It is why, for example, in a fistfight with a man his own size the cop is allowed to strike him with a baton and a citizen who did the same would likely be charged with aggravated assault.

We all wince when the cop has to injure or kill a drunk, a mental patient, or someone drugged out of their mind. How the Hell do you think the cop himself feels about that?

But the cop has no way of knowing what has motivated his opponent’s violent behavior, and if he did, it wouldn’t matter. It can’t matter. His duty is to restrain the violent person to protect the public, no matter what triggered that behavior.

Cops should take more risk? They did that already when they became the person others would call to stop violent criminals. Their exposure rate is already vastly higher.

Every cop understands that risk is part of “The Job.”  The public they serve needs to recognize that sacrificing life and limb on the altar of Utopian political correctness is not in the contract.

Share or Bookmark

DAMN, DAMN HURRICANES

Oh, Jesus – here come Mary and Joseph.

Hurricane Jose, with Hurricane Maria coming close behind at an estimated Category Five, are in progress.  What hurricanes do is rather fresh in my mind.

I just got back Saturday evening from Houston, where the recovery from Hurricane Harvey is still going on, to my place in Florida immediately post-Hurricane Irma, where the Internet only came back the night of my arrival and the power, a day or two before that.  There are still lots of Floridians without power, the Keys having taken the worst of the devastation.

Deductibles and hurricane insurance itself are extremely costly in Florida. A good friend of mine suffered about $10,000 worth of roof damage alone; his deductible is $15,000.  He hasn’t figured out the cost of his downed trees yet, noting that among real estate agents in the Sunshine State, trees on the property are known as “vertical gold.”

Huge kudos to those who have been able to restore as much as they have as quickly as they have in the wakes of Harvey and Irma.  It speaks well of our country.  In Houston last Saturday I was chatting with a gentleman who immigrated here from Ethiopia ten years ago. He was grateful that no weather emergencies of this magnitude ever hit his country…and he noted that if something like that had happened, he didn’t think his country had the wherewithal to ever recover from it.  American spirit – and, yes, American wealth and emergency services – have seldom shown more brightly.  I have always been proud to be an American. I’m even prouder now.

Preparation is critical.  Thoughts and prayers for the dead and their survivors, and for those who suffered through these last two disasters, and for those who are facing more now.  Let me share some snapshots from around me now, and bear in mind that Irma was down around Category One when it hit here.

Gonna have to clear out the pathway between ranges.

Some of the trees that were snapped in two by the wind on my next-door neighbor’s property.

One of the trees down on my property.

There were lots of empty shelves in the grocery stores. The wise were already stocked up.

We escaped flooding at my place, but others were not so lucky.

These folks in my town had way more downed tree problems from Irma than we did…

…like, when the tree comes down on your house.

Lots of debris yet to be hauled away.

And some businesses out of action.

 

Share or Bookmark

ON THE ST. LOUIS VERDICT…

Here we go again. A judge who has thoroughly reviewed the evidence concludes that the prosecution charging premeditated murder will see an acquittal instead, because they have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a shooting was not self-defense.

 

The result: more urban violence. Organized protesters swarming onto highways near a critically located hospital, endangering the lives of patients who because of their blockade may not be able to get there by ambulance on time.  Great potential to become uglier still.

 

And, I’m sure, critics of the verdict not having bothered to look at the judge’s carefully explained opinion, HERE.

Share or Bookmark

DAMN HURRICANES

When my county announced the evacuation order with Hurricane Irma coming on fast, I had the good fortune to be in Illinois teaching a class:  had “pre-evacuated,” as it were, and personally escaped the worst of it.

The house got some external damage, but nothing breached walls or roof with wind and rain. On our end, it could have been a whole lot worse.

Being prepared is A Good Thing even when you yourself aren’t there.  Power is still out, and will be for a while. (Last one was eight days or more; I experienced it as more of an adventure than a disaster.)  That time and this, I was one of the lucky ones.

But with some help from good friends we were able to get the contents of the freezer to a church that has been feeding people a whole lot less lucky than we, a great many of whom are sheltered in our community.  When another friend with seven young kids was desperate for a generator, we had one to lend him.  When yet another friend’s SUV picked the worst possible time – the middle of a monumental Florida hurricane – to go belly up, my personal SUV (with full tank ‘cause I knew Irma had us in the crosshairs before I left for Illinois) was waiting for him at my place to use for the duration.

Me? I’m flying tomorrow to Houston, where the devastation of Hurricane Harvey remains very fresh.  (Yeah, I know.  Why Houston now? Because…reasons. Will get back to you on that.)

Condolences to those less fortunate than we, and best wishes to all who had to go through it.

And for those who didn’t have to go through it, learn and reinforce the lessons of those who did.

Preparation ain’t paranoia.

The recent monster hurricanes have done much to reinforce the wisdom of self-reliance that the Duffy family so long ago, and since, instilled into the Backwoods Home values.

Share or Bookmark

ON RELATIVE VALUE OF LIFE

In the last blog entry below this one, discussion of the Philando Castile incident led to some interesting dialog between two regular correspondents here: retired cop Dennis, and retired attorney Liberal Dave.

Liberal Dave writes, “…your replies imply that nothing can be done about this and since it comes down to officer safety versus safety of innocent impaired persons that the lives of officers have more value than the lives of the innocent.”

I teach armed citizens and cops alike that when they have a reasonable, prudent belief they are dealing with a violent criminal, they should indeed prioritize their life, and other lives present and at stake, over that of the person generating the unlawful deadly threat. That priority is driven, not by self-importance, but by pragmatism and logic.  If you are the one taking the offender at gunpoint, you are probably the only one present who is both trained and equipped to stop him from doing lethal harm.  If you allow him to kill or overpower you, he now has your weapon as well as his own, and no one left to stop him from killing or terrorizing every other innocent person present.

As you sit reading this now, do you have a key to your home on your physical person? And perhaps some government-mandated ID card which lists your street address?  Then think about this, if you haven’t already: the dangerous person you’re facing will have that key to your home and the wherewithal to find it, if you allow him to overpower or murder you.  Do you not owe your family a duty to keep that from happening?

The key to Liberal Dave’s argument seems to be found in the term “innocent impaired persons.”  That covers a lot of ground. Let’s see if we can narrow it down.

Liberal Dave, meet Robert Louis Stevenson. In his famous Victorian novel, kindly Dr. Jekyll commits suicide to save the innocent from the murderous alter ego he has created within himself, Mr. Hyde. In the classic 1931 movie of the same name, Mr. Hyde as played by Fredric March forces the police to shoot him dead to keep him from murdering an innocent person.

And of course, in death, the evil Mr. Hyde transforms back into kindly Dr. Jekyll. Just as happens today when an “impaired” person takes actions that convince reasonable and prudent people that only shooting him will stop his life-threatening acts.

If the impairment of the person in question is due to alcohol or drugs, he becomes, like Dr. Jekyll, responsible for turning himself into Mr. Hyde, and bears responsibility for whatever the impaired Hyde does that causes an innocent, reasonable person to fear him enough to shoot him.  If the impairment was not his fault – organic or traumatic brain damage, for example, or underdeveloped cognitive capabilities, for example – it is certainly tragic, but it is the responsibility of his caregivers to keep him under sufficient supervision that he does not carry out activities reasonable, prudent people will construe as being so lethally dangerous he must be shot to be stopped.

In neither case, in my opinion, does blame fall on the reasonable person forced by the impaired one’s actions to pull the trigger.

But, as noted, that’s just my opinion.

What’s yours?

Share or Bookmark

KAPELSOHN ON CASTILE

I have known Manny Kapelsohn for decades.  We have appeared together on numerous panels at national and international training seminars. We serve together on the advisory board of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.  I consider him one of the top authorities on armed defense on the planet.  He is a very experienced expert witness, and successfully served in that capacity in the recent trial of Officer Jeronimo Yanez for the shooting death of armed citizen Philandro Castile.

In the August/September issue of Concealed Carry magazine, Manny presents a letter explaining why he profoundly disagrees with those who feel the officer panicked or overreacted, as so many have come to believe.

First, he points out, Castile never told the cop he had a license to carry, only that he had a firearm. Kapelsohn notes that Yanez calmly told Castile, “OK, don’t reach for it then.” When Castile disobeyed, Yanez shouted “Don’t pull it out! Don’t pull it out!”  Only when this total of three explicit commands was disobeyed did the officer open fire.

Manny writes, “Yanez described the item Castile was pulling out as dark in color and thicker than a wallet. Officer Yanez said he believes it was a gun. In fact, Castile had a full-sized 9mm pistol in his front right shorts pocket. Castile’s brightly colored wallet with wide stripes of orange and white, did not look like a gun.”

Manny also disputed allegations that the officer’s gunfire recklessly endangered the woman and child who were in the car with Castile. He says, “When Officer Yanez fired, he didn’t back away from the car or use its B-pillar for protection; instead, he endangered himself by remaining in the opening of the car’s window so he could fire downward into Castile with as little danger as possible to Castile’s girlfriend in the front passenger seat, the child in the back seat and his fellow officer on the passenger side of the car. Yanez fired seven shots in a total elapsed time from first shot to last of about two seconds and ceased firing when he saw Castile’s hand being raised with the gun in it.”

Some who criticized the officer claimed he should have waited until the gun was out of Castile’s pocket. Disputes Kapelsohn, “An electronic timing test I video-recorded and testified about at trial showed that, while wearing the same style of shorts and starting with the same model of handgun just becoming visible from the front right shorts pocket, I could draw the gun and fire a shot out the car window in a time that averaged 0.28 seconds (slightly less than three tenths of a second). An officer cannot react to defend himself in that time span.”

Finally, Manny points out that the record shows that in training to get his carry permit, “…applicants were taught that they should keep their hands on the steering wheel, tell the officer they had a concealed carry permit (before telling the officer they were carrying a gun), make no sudden moves and follow the officer’s directions. Unfortunately, Mr. Castile did none of those things.”

I would like to thank Emanuel Kapelsohn for his testimony in the interest of justice (Yanez was acquitted), and thank Concealed Carry magazine for publicizing these important facts.

For background, see also here and here.

Share or Bookmark