Politics

Busting misconceptions

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

It’s always healthy to bust misconceptions. Truth is stronger and better.

When it comes to violence, there are lots of misconceptions out there.

“Why couldn’t the police shoot the knife out of that guys hand? Why did they have to kill him?”

“Why did they pile on top of him with five cops? Poor guy got crushed! Police brutality!”

“Why did you hit him first? He was only yelling,he didn’t even touch you!”

“Why did he hit me? All I did was say that he’s an idiot!”

Or my favorite, that he was unarmed, implying that he wasn’t or couldn’t be a threat.

I think it was through a “like” by BobG that I found this article: “Everything you know about violence is wrong“.

Well, that depends on who “you” is, but for the general public, yes in fact everything you know about violence is wrong. It wasn’t until some years ago that I became more educated on the topic.

The article works to bust the four misconceptions presented above. Why? Because education and truth are better than ignorance, especially if you’re going to discuss — and make policy — relative to the issue.

Be honest [with yourself] in admitting that they [people who deal with violence daily, police officers, soldiers, EMTs, security officers, bouncers, etc.] have relevant experience with a subject that is primarily academical for you. So it would behoove you to consider their responses as more accurate than your uninformed opinions.

There is nothing wrong with that, by the way. It’s a good thing that you haven’t been exposed to violence all that much. I am not promoting people go out and be violent to learn what it is really all about. What I am promoting is that the large majority of modern society has a flawed understanding of the topic. Personally, I blame politicians and Hollywood for creating a false image of it, but that’s another discussion.

What I am also not promoting is a “kill or be killed” attitude. On the contrary, the most practical and useful self-defense tips have nothing to do with punching the other guy’s lights out. But before you can form an opinion on violence and how to handle it, you need to understand the problem first. Doing so means confronting your own biases and views on this subject with what it is actually like in real life.

Indeed. You get all upset when people with a demonstrative ignorance of science attempt to explain or deny global warming. So can you understand how we feel when you talk about “how to stop (gun) violence” when you have a demonstrative ignorance about violence?

Could you look him in the eye and deny him?

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

In a prior posting I linked to this video:

It’s footage from the 1992 L.A. Riots (after the Rodney King verdict). It’s about the Korean shopkeepers arming themselves, standing on the roofs of their stores, defending them from the rioters and looters.

While searching for that footage, an NPR interview with Kee Whan Ha came up. He’s the store owner that organized and motivated the Koreatown shopkeepers to undertake their defensive action.

Why would he do such a thing? I mean, why didn’t he just give the looters what they wanted (because “just give them what they want” is the refrain we’re supposed to abide by):

MARTIN: I understand that, as the disturbance was beginning, you heard hosts on Radio Korea – which is L.A.’s major Korean-American radio station – tell people to leave their businesses and go home and pray. And you told one of our producers that that made you upset. Could you talk a little bit about that?

HA: Yeah. I was so upset. So I know the owner of that Radio Korea, so I brought my handgun and I put it on the table. I told him that we established Koreatown. It’s been more than 20 years (unintelligible) riot, even to be able – insurance and everything, but I want to protect my business, as well as all other Koreatown business.

He was one of the founders of Koreatown. He wasn’t going to see his life’s work, what defines him, be put to ruin.

Oh it’s just property, oh it’s just stuff. That’s true to you, but not to him. It was more than his castle, and it was something that, to him, was well-worth defending. Are you telling me he’s wrong? he’s unjustified in trying to preserve his legacy? his positive contribution to society? That the world would be better off if he gave in to the criminals, the leeches, the destructive forces?

So why didn’t he just call the police? Because the police are supposed to defend and protect us, right?

HA: From Wednesday, I don’t see any police patrol car whatsoever. That’s a wide-open area, so it is like Wild West in old days, like there’s nothing there. We are the only one left, so we have to do our own (unintelligible).

[…]

HA: …I was standing a few feet away, so I see that [our security guard’s] body has fallen down on the ground, but I was so scared. I – we tried to call the fire department. Please help us. But nobody listen. Then maybe after five or six hours in the evening – it start around the afternoon, about 1:00 or 2:00 p.m. But actual – the fire truck coming about 7:00 o’clock, late evening. So five hours, of course, is sitting between us and them.

Five hours with no response. No one could come to save them.

Can you imagine the fear, the stress, tha anxiety felt during that time? One hour goes by and still nothing. Every minute watching the chaos unfolding, wondering when someone will come to save you. How scared would you be if you were in his shoes?

But at least they had guns.

But at least they were able to do something for themselves. To pluck up their courage and stand firm. They weren’t helpless victims.

How would you have fared that day? Would you have been a helpless victim?

I would have been.

In 1992 I was in undergrad. I never was anti-gun, but I sure didn’t understand it. I recall questioning my pro-gun friends as to why anyone needed an automatic rifle to hunt Bambi. Looking back, I can see the many facets of my ignorance.

MARTIN: Did you have to fire your weapon?

HA: Yes. Actually, we are not shooting people. We are shooting the – in the air, so make afraid that these people coming to us. You’re not actually targeting people, so…

MARTIN: Sure. You were trying to create a – sort of a protective barrier, and you did succeed in saving your store.

HA: Yes.

So without guns, Kee Whan Ha and the other families of Koreatown would have lost everything. Not just their stores, but their legacy and contribution towards a better society.

Could you look Kee Whan Ha in the eye and tell him you want to deny him his business? his contribution? his legacy? The banning of effective tools of self-defense is precisely looking into the eyes of people like Kee Whan Ha and saying you will deny him.

 

Fun facts about the AR-15

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Fun Facts About the AR-15

  • The inventor of the AR-15 was Satan, though his patent has since expired.
  • Scientists have confirmed the deadly effects of an AR-15 by giving it to a chimpanzee who then murdered them.
  • Scientists agree that each year the AR-15 will grow more deadly until it kills everyone in the entire world.
  • Some believe that Hitler was in fact an AR-15 in a rubber mask.
  • In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve access to every firearm out there except for the AR-15 which he told them not to touch because it was too evil. But then the NRA, in the guise of a serpent, told Eve that the AR-15 is really fun to shoot. So then Eve took the AR-15 and started shooting all the animals in the garden because she is one awesome chick.
  • The part that makes the AR-15 so extra deadly is the handle on top. The AR-15 would be used in less murders if it were more inconvenient to carry.
  • It was an AR-15 that told Miley Cyrus to dance like that.
  • Bullets that are normally harmless will kill instantly when fired out of the AR-15.
  • The reason AR-15s have that prominent handle on them is because the most requested feature for an assault rifle was to be able to carry it like a Hello Kitty lunch box.
  • If you find yourself surrounded by AR-15’s, know that they will fire automatically if they sense fear.
  • The AR-15 is easily concealable and can fit inside a matchbox.
  • The AR-15 is the leading cause of global warming from how its bullets shoot holes in the ozone.
  • A very small percentage of gun deaths are attributed to the AR-15 because it is very good at disguising itself as other guns to frame them.
  • What are the differences between an M16 and an AR-15? Scientists agree that it is something.
  • The AR-15 can be rendered harmless by giving it only a 10 round magazine as people always miss with the first ten rounds and an AR-15 takes an hour and a half to reload.
  • The AR-15 can shoot through schools.
  • In a battle between Aquaman and an AR-15, Aquaman would break down and buy it so people might think he’s more manly.
    There were no shooting deaths until the invention of an AR-15. No one even considered using a gun to shoot another human being until someone saw an AR-15 and said, “I bet I could use this to kill a lot of people.”
  • There was an assault musket similar to the AR-15 used by the world’s most evil pirates, but it was pronounced “Arrr-15.”
    The Assault Weapon ban was needed because it is well known that an AR-15 with both a pistol grip and a flash suppressor would be unstoppable by any modern military.
  • In Europe there is no such thing as an AR-15 and thus also no such thing as murders. Instead of being violent, people there just drink wine and smoke cigarettes all day.
  • If you are shot by an AR-15, you become one and kill others.
  • The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.

I saw that on Claude Werner’s Facebook page. I have no idea who the original author is (I’ve seen it crop up in other places, no attributions).

 

Mandated training?

/ hsoi / 17 Comments

Back when I wrote my series on “Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol“, the notion of legality kept swimming in my head.

Not if things are legal or not, but rather how minimums should be defined by law, if at all. I mean, here in Texas we have the CHL shooting test, which is what the State considers as acceptable minimum. But as I discussed, is it really a minimum? Or of course, we have to ask the question “minimum for what?”. And if I have a discussion and say it’s not an acceptable minimum (for whatever), does that open the door for changing the minimum? Could someone try to set the bar so high that it puts it out of reach of most or all people, and thus denies the right?

It’s a tricky and sticky subject.

Todd Louis-Green recently wrote about this. Like most, he’s not a fan of legislatively mandated training. And yes, it sounds funny to hear that coming from him, who is a trainer. And me, who is a trainer (that stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night).

Do we advocate more education? Of course! Name me any facet of life where you are not better served by more knowledge and education! The more you know, the better life can generally be. Why would that be any different here?

But again, should it be mandated?

How many CNN talking heads would be OK with a state-designed, state-mandated English test that had to be passed before you could become a news reporter? Who would support a mandatory Constitutional law exam before you could exercise your 4th & 5th Amendment rights?

Self-defense is a natural right that was recognized by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and reiterated by two recent Supreme Court cases (Heller and McDonald). Period. Full stop.

I would have used MSNBC instead of CNN, but either way.

What I thought was interesting about Todd’s piece was his suggestion:

Rather than mandatory training, what I would like to see is a two-tiered system. Simply carrying concealed should be legal without a permit (or training). But because it is legitimately in the government’s interest (and the community’s interest) to encourage training, instead create benefits — incentives — for gun owners who get serious training

Incentives. I think that’s an interesting take on things. And wouldn’t it be nice if we could see more of that in our country? Instead of basing everything upon lowest common denominators and penalties for doing wrong, why don’t we do more to incentivize doing right? reward people for doing better and going above and beyond? Help raise people up, help people truly become better. Granted, this happens in certain areas, but gee wouldn’t it be nice to see it more widespread?

Alas, I doubt we’ll see it regarding gun laws, because offering incentives would be seen as legitimizing and accepting, instead of stigmatizing and divisive. It seems all the mainstream folks want these days is the latter… because for all their talk of the joys of “unity” and “diversity” and “acceptance”, they don’t practice it very much.

Oaths and blame

/ hsoi

Jack Donovan is right:

That’s what most of these signatures and oaths are: ways to evade and place blame. You accept responsibility for something based on what you think you know, or what someone thinks you are supposed to know, at the time. When they ask you to sign, they want you to take the blame if something goes wrong.

Really, that’s all they want is for you to accept blame. Not that you assume responsibility, that they have someone to pin blame on. It may look the same on the surface, but the intent is wholly different.

I’m watching the current hot political issue, and that’s all they want to do: pin blame on someone else. No one wants to accept responsibility. No one is willing to look at themselves in the mirror to say what did I do wrong, what could I have done better.

But of course, why would they? That’s not what this is about. This is about doing all they can to make “the other side” look like cruel uncaring assholes, so “our side” can look good and win power. If you step back and detach yourself from your political affiliations, you’ll see they’re all acting like selfish, childish assholes.

Maybe if instead of pointing blame we assumed responsibility. If there were consequences for our wrong actions. And perhaps if when people took their oaths, they took them seriously.

Or at least, made better oaths:

“On the honor of my ancestors, I do solemnly swear that I have picked this frozen fruit puree and these frozen mushrooms. – Jack Donovan”

Deconstructing the argument

/ hsoi

Trends. We look for them, we see them, we read a lot into them. We put a lot of stock in trends, whether it’s hairstyles, clothing, music, the stock market, the business world, or just how people behave.

When you see that pattern emerge, then when you see the pattern repeated again and again, you can gain some insight into the pattern-maker.

I think it was Kathy Jackson that posted this article by Chris Hernandez about Everything that’s wrong with the argument against protecting schools with guns

It’s a good read that deconstructs the common arguments given as to why we shouldn’t use people armed with guns to protect our schools, or why we shouldn’t have lawful concealed carry, or other such topics. I think what’s most insightful is Chris’ examination of where these patterns come from: their assumptions, their bias. He works to go to the root of the matter and address those and how, because of those misconceptions, any argument built on top of them just doesn’t hold. It’s tough to build upon a false foundation.

“Killing a human crosses a line that most people can’t do.”

Standing there and doing nothing before someone kills you crosses a line. Taking no action at all as a murder massacres children crosses a line. You think the resistance to killing another human is so great, people would literally rather watch someone murder dozens of children than take action to stop them?

It’s a good read. Gave me a different perspective. Go read.

Examining the data: are “Stand Your Ground” laws racist?

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Howard Nemerov examines all the data (not just cherry picked numbers) to see if “stand your ground” laws are racist.

You may be surprised by what Howard uncovers.

Or not.

Isn’t using partial datasets to justify an anti-self-defense agenda racist in itself, and especially when restricted self-defense laws create racial disparities by inhibiting blacks’ civil right of self-defense?

Howard used to be anti-gun. Then he examined facts and data and realized that gun control doesn’t work. In fact, he wrote a book about it filled with his data analysis and findings: 400 Years of Gun Control: Why isn’t it Working? It’s not a book to shrug off, no matter what your stance is on guns.

Stop being a dick. You’re not helping.

/ hsoi / 11 Comments

So push came to shove and Starbucks went public with a stance on guns in their stores.

I can’t say I blame them. They got pulled into and caught in the middle of something they didn’t ask to be a part of. And let’s be real here; if you got pulled into a sticky messy issue caught between two warring parties, how would you feel? and how would you react?

Now of course, they could have reacted the other way, but I reckon either 1. they believe this is going to do less damage to their bottom line (they have shareholders to deal with, insurance and lawyers, etc.), 2. they are anti-gun (I do suspect a bit of this given how CEO Howard Schultz worded things), 3. some other third thing. I suspect it’s probably 1 and 2, but I’m guessing.  And yes, they have every right to do what they did.

So an article is going around about how we did this to ourselves. It struck me.

Now let me say, I’m conflicted on open carry. I think there are tactical issues and there are political issues. I can see both sides of it, and I don’t fall squarely in either camp (yet). I would like to see open carry be legal and not prohibited, but remember that legal doesn’t mean “good” or “moral” or that it’s a good thing to do (and illegal doesn’t mean bad or immoral or a bad thing to do). I would like to see a day where people carrying a gun openly isn’t considered a big deal; in fact, it may be seen as a positive and responsible act. But, is it always tactically sound to show your hand? Maybe; I’ve heard anecdotes on both sides that show how it can be good and be bad. And politically it can make a powerful statement, but you’ve got to be mindful of how you make your statement and the message you’re sending (here comes my undergraduate and graduate education in speech and human communication).

One reason open carriers do this as a political statement is to help normalize it. But some say it’s stupid and should be kept hidden. Well, politically or tactically? Tactically? Sure. But politically? Well, are you saying my parents – my white father and Korean mother – should have kept themselves hidden during the late 1960’s? They faced massive rejection and racism (even from within our own family). Should they have let all that stop them? Should they have kept themselves hidden? Granted, racism still exists today, but we can argue that we’re at least a little better than we were back then. To see people of other races, of other cultures, to have it always around… it’s normalizing. And so, yes I can understand why open carriers take this approach in their use of open carry as a political statement and action.

But when you make a statement, you have to choose how you make your statement and craft it in a manner that will make your audience receptive to your message; else, naturally, they will reject it.

And I think that’s really what we gun folk have done to ourselves:

We have turned the debate into a joke. Yes, we are all responsible.

Whether youre an (A) “in your face activist” as previously mentioned, or a (B) gun owner who doesnt agree with them but remains silent and thereby complicit, we are all responsible. Own it.

Personally I fall into the latter category (B). I think the first category are a bunch of fools, and open carry is a piss-poor method of carry outside of a few distinct instances. I have remained silent on the issue, but that ends today. I don’t want to be represented as a gun owner by those who choose to act as those described above. A tactical victory is never worth a strategic defeat. In the end this has hurt us in a battle where we are making progress. If we dont “eat our own” and correct these issues, the OTHER SIDE will. We have lost ground due to tomfoolery, chicanery, and general shenanigans. If we don’t get on the same page, we will continue to give up ground.

Much like how we get irritated when the “not terrorist” muslims dont come out and outright condemn muslim terrorist acts and organizations…we are taking the same track by not raising the bullshit flag when we ought to. We have to police our own. No successful organization, entity, or cause embraces personnel or spokesmen who damage the image and value of the brand.

If I can only choose between camp (A) and camp (B), I’m in (B). But I guess by my present writing, that’s stopping. I’ve felt the following for some time, but for whatever reason opted to be quiet about it.

Here’s the problem.

You’re being a dick.

I see this a lot by the visible pro-gun folk out there.

I see various bloggers, on Twitter, on Facebook. It’s really a problem. It’s really bad on Twitter. I see various pro-gun folk even seeking out anti-gun people, engaging them in “debate”, and being a total fucking asshole while doing it.

Oh sure, you are right. Your facts are sound. The other person is totally irrational and emotional. Yes yes, I’m not going to deny any of that.

But it’s your presentation that’s the problem; and that also cannot be denied.

When you tell someone “you’re wrong”, you force them to double-down more strongly on their (wrong) stance.

When you curse them, call them names, engage in the same childish behaviors that you call them out for, you’re making things worse.

I debated calling out some of these pro-gun folks by name, but I’m not ready to do that yet.

But really, think about it. You want them to see your side of things. How are you going to accomplish that if you treat your audience like shit? If you are rude, mean, condescending, and inconsiderate?

That whole “attract more flies with honey than vinegar” thing.

Or maybe better… learn how to win friends and influence people.

The reason these open carry things aren’t working out is because some of those engaging in the act are being assholes about it all. And so when you do this, when you act like an asshole, when the news reports you being an asshole (because face it, most of the mainstream media is anti-gun and so they will relish any opportunity they can to make gun owners look like stupid evil asshats that need to be controlled and broken and driven out of society)… what do you think that’s going to do? That’s going to reinforce the stereotypes, that’s going to strengthen the anti resolve, and it only makes things worse and more difficult to overcome.

Of course, the same can and should be said for anti-gun folk. When you engage in lies, sensationalizing, blood-dancing, knee-jerk reactions, suggestions that have been proven to not work to solve problems that aren’t there, what do you think that’s going to do? How do you think you’ll be perceived?

Maybe take one from LZ Granderson here.

There is no one enemy.

Thus there is no one solution.

Because like it or not, the folks spraying our cities with bullets are not NRA members or legal gun owners. And despite the tendency to tie it all together, they have nothing to do with the Adam Lanzas of the world.

And it’s too early to know how Alexis fits in the conversation.

According to a count by USA Today, more than 900 people have been killed in mass shootings since 2006. The thousands of other victims of gun violence over the past seven years died from many different circumstances, requiring different conversations.

This is why gun-control advocates need to abandon the routine of using mass shootings to turn law-abiding citizens into social pariahs and instead focus on something that could work.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what you are trying to do, what the debate is about, or what side you are on. You will never convince anyone to see your side of things if you’re a dick.

Stop being a dick. Start being more considerate of others.

Or if your whole point is to be a dick? Please grow up, or go away.

Blind people and guns

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.

The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it’s a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.

Full story (h/t Eric)

I’ve seen numerous people mentioning this story. Of those I know that are in the anti-gun camp, they just see this as more gun lunacy and how the NRA is infiltrating and destroying everything. Of those on the pro-gun side,  I’ve seen them asking  questions and wondering, because this obviously creates some uncertainty and uncomfortableness.

When my friend Eric posted this on Facebook, here’s how I responded:

An interesting notion for sure. Certainly lots of legal implications involved, but setting those aside…

To me it still comes down to a simple thing: should people be denied the ability (right?) to defend themselves. We could even argue that folks with disabilities are, by nature, at a greater disadvantage and thus could be argued have even more need to have “force equalizers” to make up for the greater disparity caused by their disability. To deny them, to leave them in a position of greater vulnerability, would be wrong. It’s such a popular notion to care for and give special dispensation to the vulnerable, to afford them greater protection — especially by and from the state — would it be right for the state and general populace to deny them the ability?

That isn’t to say it may be right for them to actually do it [meaning: blind people shooting guns, blind people having carry permits, etc.]… but that’s different from the state forcing them into a greater state of vulnerability.

I have taught a few deaf people to shoot guns. They’re actually really good shots because there’s no BANG to make them flinch; quite an advantage. We have to do a little different handling of range commands and teaching style, but that’s not a big deal.

Haven’t taught any blind folks tho. I don’t really have a firm stance on this… quite open to discussion. The above is just my gut reaction, because I don’t see why we (or rather, The State) should deny good people the God-given right to self-defense.

Of course, the State denies all sorts of things all the time. Some of them are right, some of them are wrong, and no matter what we shouldn’t be making legislation off knee-jerk reactions and feelings. Furthermore, legality and morality are (should be) two separate things: just because it’s legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, and just because it’s illegal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. As well, just because it’s legal doesn’t always mean it’s a good idea to do, and just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea to avoid.

Because well… you tell me what a blind woman is supposed to do in response to being raped. You acknowledge her blindness puts her at a disadvantage, do you really want to make her more vulnerable? Before you deny her right to self-defense, before you deny her right to life, before you deny her right to choose, before you deny her “women’s health”, offer a better solution.