Sometimes violence is the answer

I already see people reading the title of this article and shaking their head in disagreement. Hopefully they’ll be willing to set their bias aside and read with an open mind.

We are way more ‘civilized’ than we’ve ever been. Enough so that you can say there is a bias against physical violence in this society.

We’ve developed systems were the need for physical violence is greatly reduced. We rely on professionals to do our violence for us and enforce the rules. This is really an amazing development in human history. Realistically, we’ve never had it so good

The problem with this is people take it for granted. They assume this system is the ‘way life is.’ And you get some seriously fucked up and out-to-lunch assumptions about life in general and violence in specific.

The biggest one is that there is some ‘divine right’ about how violence is never supposed to happen to them. (Or that oh-mah-gawd-it’s-some-kind-of-life-long-trauma if it does.) Once someone takes this attitude, they’ve slipped an anchor to reality. Worse, they start making up their own version of reality to fit that imagined ‘right.’

A point that scares me is when they start saying ‘well because I don’t use physical violence, nobody else should either.’

I like to point out that people who say ‘Violence never solved anything’ are both liars and extremists. To begin with, in order for that statement to be proven true, you’re going to have to ask every person on the planet, “Hey, did violence never work for you?” Then you’re going to have to build a time machine and ask every person who has EVER lived, did violence not work for you?” Even without the time machine, you’re going to run into some folks who it worked pretty well for.

The use of the word ‘never’ is an extremist position. But people don’t think of it that way. So they don’t stand up and challenge that stupid statement. Most folks understand that sometimes physical violence is necessary. As a society, we need to have one hell of an argument about when that is. And yes, I like the fact that the bar is held up to a high standard with most folks. But we also need to understand there are folks out there who are rabidly against any kind of physical violence. And they’re willing to let you die to prove they’re right.

When you encounter someone like that you need to know how to point out that they’re position is a barking moonbat one — otherwise they’ll bully everyone who’s trying to find a reasonable compromise or understand WHY violence was necessary.

Because face it, sometimes you gotta use force to solve a situation. The challenge then becomes how to explain to people that it was the right decision given the circumstances and that you didn’t over react. This especially to the cops.

Marc MacYoung

I used to be that way, to say that “violence is never the answer”.

Eventually I came to realize that sometimes violence is the answer.

First, you must accept that, for the most part, we all condone violence as an answer; we just delegate undertaking that violence to someone else – the police, the military, etc.. That’s what enables a lot of people to take the stance of “violence is never the answer” because of this delegation. But note it’s precisely because someone else is willing and able to do violence on their behalf, that they are enabled this “privilege” of being non-violent and espousing non-violence as some sort of ideal to strive for.

Would it be nice if we could eliminate senseless violence from the world? Sure. But it won’t happen, Jack. Violence is a part of life and being throughout history; it’s just part of the human condition. The trick is how you look at that violence.

See, violence in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It just is. The evaluation of good or bad depends upon the people involved and the context. If my daughter is being raped, that violent act is bad (in my book). If my daughter draws a gun and stops the rapist, that violent act is good (in my book). And yes, right there violence is an answer. In fact, it’s likely the only effective answer because begging and pleading, negotiation, curling up in a ball, praying, hoping for someone to come along… those are highly unlikely to stop the bad violence happening now. In fact, if someone else comes along, chances are they will and the victim will want them to undertake a violent act to stop the rape, else we’re back to begging and pleading.

Or consider, as Marc also discusses in his interview, that we all tend to look at violence in some very cut and dry way. That it’s going to be some dude getting up in your face, or that mugger, or a carjacking, or just like you’ve seen on TV and the movies. There are different levels, different contexts of violence. If you’re out somewhere, someone gets drunk, starts acting stupid, and just needs to be sat on until they sober up and stop running their mouth… well, you might have to use some violence on them to get them to shut up. But that doesn’t mean breaking their arm or shooting them; it may just mean a little restraining joint lock to get them to come along with you to another room where they can sober up in private. Was this bad violence? Well, the drunk might think so at the time, but most everyone else will probably be happy to be rid of him so they can go back to enjoying the party.

As Marc alludes to, the discussion to have is WHEN violence is the right and necessary answer. And yes, the bar should be held to a very high standard. Our trouble is we’ve become “too civilized” and it’s not politically desirable to talk about violence in a frank and honest way. We think we’re above it, so we’d rather deny it. Or that we’ve move so far away from it, so many people are detached and inexperienced/ignorant of the concept, they don’t even know how to begin to discuss it. This causes our problems because violence is very real, very much exists, and while chances of you being in a bad violent encounter may be slim, when it does happen it’s going to suck, especially if you’re not prepared for it.

Consider as well that when people think about “discussing violence”, most think about physical techniques. They think the discussion is only around how to throw and take a punch, how to shoot a gun, how to use pepper spray, how to knee him in the crotch and yell “NO!” and other such techniques. This is only part of it. Another part of it is how to see that violence is coming, because there are pre-fight cues. How to avoid violence in the first place (e.g. don’t go to stupid places; don’t associate with stupid people; don’t do stupid things). How to manage the aftermath of violence. To learn “emotional self-control” (which would be good for life in general) to keep you out of trouble. “Always Be Cool“. These are topics that are very much part of the discussion of violence, and to know when it’s the right answer… and perhaps how to keep it from needing to be the answer.

To say “violence is never the answer” is either ignorant or disingenuous. I was ignorant. I became educated. I prefer violence to not be the answer, but I accept that sometimes it is the answer. Hopefully we can have open and honest discussions on this topic, as that will serve humanity far more than denial will.

Hypocrite

And these are our kids. This is what they’re thinking about.

And so what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them and shield them from harm and give them the tools they need to grow up and do everything that they’re capable of doing, not just to pursue their own dreams but to help build this country. This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe.

This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change.

President Barack Obama

So…. how about the 3000+ children killed by abortions (census.gov) each day in the US? According to that census.gov data, that’s 1.2 million abortions per year. Compare that to the 543 people that have been killed in mass shootings over the past 20 years. So about 27 people killed in mass shootings per year versus 1.2 million abortions per year. This isn’t minimizing, it’s perspective on the killing of innocent lives (children or otherwise) and what is truly a culprit.

Where is your outrage?

Where is your responsibility to care for them, to shield them from harm, to give them not just the tools to grow up but even the chance to be born to they can pursue dreams to help build this country.

Why is this not your first task?

And yes… this IS how you will be judged.

If you want to talk about how “if it saves just one life then it’s worth it”, then I reckon banning abortion ought to be pretty damn worth it, eh?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — and his guns

Some people keep asking “why would anyone need one of those?”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. needed “one of those”. From the HuffPo:

Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.

Granted King and his supporters didn’t use AR-15’s; they used the current technology of the time, as the AR-15 hadn’t been invented yet. But if it was today, they certainly would have because it’s the current technology of the time. Just like we use the Internet and iPhone’s, instead of black-and-white TV’s and hand-written letters.

In fact, you can see some of the racist roots of gun control because of Dr. King:

As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King’s house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. The local police had discretion to determine who was a suitable person to carry firearms. King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily, surely met the requirements of the law, but he was rejected nevertheless. At the time, the police used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans.

Lordy no! We can’t be letting them filthy niggers have guns! that might allow them to stand on equal footing with us! That might enable them to stand up to our tyranny! Hooray for gun control and its racist roots. *sigh*

Dr. King wasn’t the only civil rights activist that kept a gun:

T.R.M. Howard, the Mississippi doctor and mutual aid leader who founded the pioneering Regional Council of Negro Leadership, slept with a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of his bed. During the murder trial that followed the horrific lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till, Howard escorted Till’s grieving mother and various others to and from the courthouse in a heavily-armed caravan.

Similarly, John R. Salter, one of the organizers of the famous 1963 sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi, said he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the South. “I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” Salter said.

The original HuffPo article ends with:

Whether a broader acceptance of the King’s later pacifism would have made us safer than choosing guns, we will never know.

Nothing said Dr. King was aggressive about his use of guns. He used them to stay alive in the face of obvious danger to his life. Granted his life was cut short, but how much sooner could he have been taken from us? Might we never have heard his “I Have A Dream” speech? No, we will never know.

But this is why some people need guns. It may be that woman with a crazy ex, because a piece of paper called a restraining order will not keep him away from her. It may be the elderly couple that just cannot stand up to a strong young thug. It may be the black man in fear of his life because as far as we’ve come, we’ve still a long ways to go.

Most gun owners I know are not violent people (conversely it seems lots of anti-gun people are rather violent). They do not wish violence, they do not want violence. They are peaceful people and try to undertake actions and options of peace and avoidance. They would prefer to just go through their lives peacefully and being left alone, and leaving you alone to live your life. The difference is we accept ugly things may happen to us, and we wish to be prepared to contend with them if they do — just like Dr. King was.

Austin Gun Show Ban – next chapter

Austin wanted to ban gun shows.

Much legal precedent, and the Texas AG came out and said “you can’t do that”.

Now it appears Travis County officials have accepted that:

AUSTIN (KXAN) – Travis County Commissioners on Tuesday voted to honor the existing contract with the organizer of the gun shows at the Travis County Expo.

The unanimous vote came after the five-member body met with its lawyers and heard from people with an interest in the topic.

Full story (h/t Tim)

As far as I can tell, it wasn’t a question of if they wanted to or not, but merely a question of if they had any legal ability to do so. And they do not.

“The first thing we ought to do is huddle with legal counsel in executive session for a follow up legal briefing,” Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe said before the vote. “We discussed it in part last Tuesday, and the preliminary determination was that we probably did not have the authority — which is why we didn’t take any action. ”

The angle I took with the Travis County Commissioners as well as the Austin City Council wasn’t that of guns — because it’s evident they have their minds made up on that topic. So, it was better to take the approach of what a politician cares about: money and re-election. If they tried this, they would have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in simple rental revenue, and they would have likely lost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from the resulting lawsuits. Given “these tough economic times” and how it’s been tough for the City and County to manage a budget, all the other cuts they’ve had to make, all the tax increases they’ve done well… to invite revenue loss through severed contracts and lawsuits, that would simply be irresponsible.

Seems they realized this:

Opponents argue the county would lose $128,000 in rental-fee revenues from the pending contracts of the nine Saxet Gun Show events scheduled this year.

[Travis County Judge Sam] Biscoe said if they were to cancel those contracts, it’s more than likely the county would face legal battles for damages.

I doubt this issue has been put to rest, but it seems at least a dose of reality has been taken.

Updated I need to ammend this.

First, it seems the devil is in the details. They are going to honor the existing contract. The implication is future contracts will be “considered”, and you can bet they’ll reject them for whatever reason. And in some respects, that’s their prerogative.

Second, it seems the City of Austin is still going to figure out what they can do regarding city-owned properties. So yeah, the issue hasn’t been put to rest.

Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter

This video, produced by SAAMI, has been going around for a couple months, but because it’s 25 minutes long I didn’t have a chance to watch it until this past weekend. Make the time to watch it, because it’s informative and kinda cool too.

The video was made to address concerns of firefighters regarding sporting ammunition. Things like dropping ammunition, ammo getting crushed, and of course, ammunition being involved in fires.

The main takeaway is that sporting ammunition is difficult to ignite, and when it does it doesn’t propagate (e.g. one round going off doesn’t cause other rounds to go off and chain reaction into a big problem). As well, consider that gunpowder isn’t an explosion but rather an extremely fast burn with an extremely rapid expansion of gas. The gas wants to expand in the path of least resistance. This is why when a cartridge is contained within the chamber of a firearm, things work as they do because there’s only one path of least resistance: down the barrel and out the muzzle. But when the cartridge is “free standing”, there isn’t much to contain it so the brass case shatters, the bullet does fly, it’s nothing you still want to get hit with, but it’s all of such low velocity that it’s not a big problem.

Watch the video, you’ll see.

That said, still take care with storage of ammunition, and don’t be a dumbass and throw cartridges on a fire because you want to hear the rounds cook off.

Bullshit

President Obama is starting to talk about his gun control measures:

The Biden task force has “presented me now with a list of sensible, common-sense steps that can be taken to make sure that the kinds of violence we saw in Newtown doesn’t happen again,” he told reporters. “I’ll present the details later in the week.”

He added, “My starting point is not to worry about the politics. My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works, what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing the incidence of gun violence. I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment.”

I hate the phrase “common sense”. Any time anyone drags that phrase out, what they mean is “something that I like, that I agree with”. As humans, we are born knowing nothing. We must learn everything. Consequently, we all can not and will not know the same things. Nor will we have the same experiences in life that will color our perceptions. If “common sense” is defined as “equating to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have”… well, the emphasis is on the latter part, because it’s what people believe you should have.

We’re back to the same old thing of “agrees with me”. That if you don’t know the same things I do, if you don’t hold the same view that I do, then you lack common sense and you are a moron, to be looked down upon and shunned.

How sad that we behave in such a manner. But one people trot out the “common sense” line, this is what the mean, and often it’s meant precisely to demean “the others”.

Not worry about politics? Ha! This is precisely about politics. If you wanted to do things that actually worked, then you would. But you won’t, and you aren’t. You need to show some proof and data that your proposals actually do lead towards reduction in violence — because all the ones the gun control groups tend to trot out endlessly have a demonstrable record of failure.

And a sensible way that comports with 2A? Well, hopefully you remember what 2A actually means — it’s about tyranny, not hunting.

But will Congress adopt proposals like renewing the assault weapons ban? “I don’t know,” Obama acknowledged. Lawmakers opposed to such steps must “examine their own conscience.” In some cases, Congress won’t act but he will, the president said.

Gee… way to make it seem like anyone that doesn’t agree with your proposals must be some sort of unfeeling, heartless bastards.

He added that “responsible gun owners—people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship—they don’t have anything to worry about.”

Bullshit. First, this shows you don’t know what 2A is really about. Second, there are those of us that use AR’s for protection, for hunting, and for sportsmanship. So yeah… we’ve got a LOT to worry about.

True, we haven’t seen precisely what the proposals are. But the track record so far, the words, the actions, the efforts of folks so far, it reeks. Sure, I do think it’s be wonderful to be pleasantly surprised if they actually proposed measure towards reduction of crime. I’d love it! But I doubt that would happen.

I mean, for a start… if you want to stop the senseless killing of innocent children… why not start with banning abortion?

Some of us already knew this…

Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks.

Full story, which I’ll deconstruct a bit.

It’s good that this article is in the USA Today. Not only because their parent company is anti-gun, but USA Today is a fairly mainstream and popular paper. So it’s good to see some facts and realities being printed, even if they might not be popular.

So why are buybacks ineffective?

The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens.

[…]

The relatively small number of guns recovered isn’t the only problem, Scott said. Buyback programs tend to attract people who are least likely to commit crimes and to retrieve guns that are least likely to be used in crimes.

[…]

That means buyback campaigns more often end up with hunting rifles or old revolvers from someone’s attic than with automatic weapons from the trunk of a criminal’s car.

[…]

A buyback in Tucson, Ariz., last week collected about 200 firearms, many of them old or inoperable, in exchange for about $10,000 worth of grocery gift cards. A few hundred feet away, gun dealers set up tables and offered cash for any guns in good enough condition to resell.

“Every gun that came in was an old gun, no assault weapons,” Tom Ditsch, who watched the event, told The Associated Press. “They didn’t even take any weapons off the streets.”

That’s the thing. Criminals don’t participate in buybacks. Those who do participate are generally not involved in crime. The guns turned in tend to be junk (tho sometimes a rare gem comes along), and really have little effect upon things. I know amongst some gun-owners, they are happy to use these buyback programs as a way to clear the crap out of their attic and get more money for a broken gun than the junk is worth. So the program fails to achieve the aim.

Alas, despite the up-front admission of facts, the article goes on grasping for justifications of the practice.

“If we can save one life, if we can stop one act of violence, if we can get a gun out of one person’s hands, we have made progress in the fight to end violence in our communities,” said Ennis Tait, pastor of Church of the Living God in Avondale.

I expected someone would trot out the “if we can save one life” line. Given the number of lives saved because of the defensive use of firearms every day — certainly at least one life saved — then I guess that means having guns, concealed carry, and other such actions are worth it then, eh?  I mean, that’s the logic, so if it applies in that realm, it applies in this realm too.

Here’s some more facts from the article:

But some say that energy could be better put to use in other ways. Alex Tabarrok, research director of the nonpartisan Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., said investing in buyback programs makes little sense when study after study shows they don’t work.

A few researchers believe buybacks may even do some harm: A 1999 article in the Law and Order journal found that some people sold guns to police during buybacks and then used the money to buy new guns.

Tabarrok said buybacks consume thousands of dollars, most of it donated, that would be better spent on police overtime to put more officers on the street, or on other law enforcement efforts that are more likely to have an impact.

First, we have unintended consequences. But moreover, what we have is people saying that all this money and effort would be better spent doing things that are demonstrated to work to reduce violent crime. Gee… how novel.

Look, I don’t know any gun owner that doesn’t want to reduce or eliminate violent crime. I mean, the fact some of us carry guns is because we accept the world contains violence and we’d prefer to not be a victim. We wish there wasn’t violent crime, we just accept that there is. Our approach tends to be looking at approaches that work towards the desired end. If the goal is to reduce violent crime, then let’s work on things that reduce violent crime. Just like this article stated: targeted police patrols, intervention efforts, those work. As well:

The most successful efforts involve old-fashioned police work, in which officers, probation departments and other law enforcement agencies work together to identify and target the biggest threats.

So it’s nice to see such a mainstream article presenting facts as they are. Gun buybacks make for sexy photo ops, but they just don’t do anything to reduce violent crime. When we have tools that we know work, we should focus our finite time, energy, and resources on them, instead of failed policies and processes.

Maybe next month

Alas, didn’t make it out to my first IDPA match this past weekend. Older 2 kiddos were sick, so I had to be Dad. Not a problem of course, family first. So it just meant more dry fire practice instead. Oh well… these things happen.

Just as well tho. I registered for an IDPA membership but haven’t heard anything back. I’ve tried contacting IDPA but received no response. It’s possible they have responded, but nothing by US Mail and maybe spam-filters caught email and I cleaned out the filters too quickly and missed it. I figure maybe start of the year, SHOT Show, they just were swamped. I’ll ping them next week and see.

Lead by example

“These anti-gun politicians were not elected to positions of royalty,” [Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation] said. “They are citizens, with no more rights than any other citizen. They were elected to serve the public, not treat the public like serfs. If they want us to put our safety at risk, they should drop the pretense and give up their guns and guards before daring to suggest that anyone else do the same.”

 Full story.

But Alan, the story of the 15-year old boy that defended himself and his 12-year old sister with an AR-15? That actually happened back in 2010. Doesn’t negate the point, just keeping dates straight.

What should we be doing right about now?

With all the talk of gun banning, collapse of our Constitutionally guarded rights, potentials for civil unrest… well….

Take a cue from The Suburban Dad Survivalist on how we should be behaving:

  1. Respect the Constitution.
  2. Pray for our leaders, even if you don’t agree with them.  Pray for God to heal our collective souls.  Pray for wisdom for yourself.
  3. Educate yourself and others.
  4. Remember you get more flies with honey than you do vinegar.
  5. Be vigilant about what’s going on in the news and in politics.  Stay on top of current events.
  6. Reach out to those who disagree with you.  Build relationships with them.  Let them see you are not a bad person or a nut job.
  7. Value truth.  Don’t hide from facts.
  8. Prepare for the possibility of more difficult times ahead, for you and your family.
  9. Support candidates who espouse your values.  This means supporting their campaigns financially.  It also means reaching out to them to let them know what’s on your mind.
  10. Be a nice person.  Don’t be a jerk, even if someone else is being a jerk to you.  Set a good example.

Emphasis on that last one: be nice.