Kristin Beck is a transgender woman running as an underdog for US Congress, Kurt Mausert is a Hare Krishna devotee and attorney and Chris Cheng is a professional marksman and former Google employee. Although they make up a clear minority in the states, progressive firearms owners are willing to consider new approaches to gun control
Kristin and Kurt’s words have some serious implications. Kristin says:
Groups of people like myself, transgender people, we’re being killed at 1 per week in America. There’s a huge amount of violence against LGBT people, and so I’d say you do need to protect yourself. And if it takes you carrying a weapon, because weapons are being used against you, then that’s what you have to do.
Note as well that Kristin is running for U.S. Congress — as a Democrat.
Kurt is a criminal defense attorney, so he’s seen a side of the world that most people do not get to see. His profession puts him in contact with the ugly realities of the world, and his own life was directly affected when his brother was killed at the hands of an attacker. Yet, he’s a Hare Krishna, as there is no contradiction (it’s about “unnecessary violence”). Kurt points out:
You know, surprisingly enough I find more acceptance among my conservative friends. They can be tolerant of my Democratic socialist views, and my veganism. My liberal friends: you own a gun, and you are a pariah; they just don’t get it.
I live in Austin, Texas. People seem to understand that Austin is a “liberal” city – a blue dot in a red state, if you will.
Plus, having been a firearms instructor in this area for about 7 years, we see all kinds come through our classes. In fact, the “stereotype” of a gun owner (white, male, middle-aged, uneducated, Republican, etc.) is quite the minority, and becomes more the minority every year.
What’s the take-home?
Gun owners are not who you think they are.
For those in the “traditional” gun owning community, be like Kurt’s friends: be more accepting. Welcome folks into the fold, because you have something in common so build upon those shared interests and forge stronger relationships.
For others, realize that oppressed groups usually remain oppressed if they are unable to rise up and rise above. You profess a belief in a right to choose, to live your life as you see fit, that it’s your body, so please extend those beliefs here to something as fundamental as one’s own life. The Pink Pistols understand this. Hopefully you can too.
Look, I understand that being a disappointed idealist can make you bitter. But could you stop with the hate?
You can justify it as much as you want, but things like this are hate and propaganda. And they’re making matters worse. This isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. All it’s doing is reconfirming the self-righteousness and anger of your side and inflaming the anger of those who believe differently than you — because IT IS an attack.
More than that, it’s reinforcing a narrative, NOT demonstrating actual history. But who cares? It gives us the jollies of hating our fellow American and feeling superior. Which is halfway to justifying doing horrible things to one another.
I am terrified with the direction this country is going with our love of our self-righteous hatred of each other. We don’t have to do anything to get along with those rotten bastards. Because they are wrong, they have to suffer the abuse, scorn and hatred we heap upon them. All the will feeling so morally superior because OUR ideology is superior. Or WE were the victims so whatever we do now is justified. Our rage makes us morally superior!
Here’s something to consider. Historically, the reason fascism arises and takes over is because many small groups are so busy fighting each other that things come to a grinding halt. It’s not just corruption, but the fighting and the hatred among the self-righteous takes precedence over — not just getting things done — but even keeping things running.
Our infrastructure is NOT unsinkable. Again, history shows us that when the battle over who runs it becomes more important to the combatants than keeping it going, that’s when fascism (or any other extreme system) takes over. And they can do it on little more than making the trains run on time and giving people jobs. Why? Because the different groups were so busy going at each other tooth and claw that they interfered with people putting food on the table.
If things EVER get to that point in this country, you will see fascism take over. And — at first — people will cheer at brutal suppression of these haters, because it’s their fighting that nearly caused things to collapse.
Right now you think it’s fine to hate and hold your fellow countrymen in contempt and scorn. You think it’s fine and self-soothing to verbally, emotionally, legally and even physically attack them because they are inferior wretches who have caused all the problems.
Try looking in the mirror and see how your hatred, self-righteousness, rage, bitterness, extremism and — not just refusal to reach across the aisle — but pillorying anyone who tries is adding to the problem.
In the Sep/Oct 2015 issue of TSRA Sportsman, Alice Tripp, Legislative Director and Lobbyist at the Texas State Rifle Association, recounts an encounter with a member of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
My first encounter with Moms Demand Action was in Dallas during the check-in and set-up for the 2014 Democratic Convention. I was getting my booth assignment when a member of Moms came up and asked convention staff why there were no armed guards present. The staffer answered that during the convention, as the delegates arrived, there would be more visible security. The concerned lady pointed to her Moms Demand t-shirt and said “When you wear this t-shirt, you need armed security.”
Roll that around in your head. Consider this group, what their goals are, then the mentality surrounding their demand. The cognitive dissonance should make your head explode.
Alice continues:
No, I didn’t laugh, but I had to smile as she stomped off. The staffer knew me and said, “I wonder if she would have felt more secure if I’d told her not to worry, most of us are armed.”
Police chiefs usually don’t like the idea of citizens carrying concealed guns for self-defense, but Craig says he had to be realistic about the situation in his hometown.
“It was a well-known fact here in Detroit,” he says. “People didn’t have a lot of confidence that when they dialed 911, that the police were going to show up. In fact, we know they didn’t.”
So he endorsed a trend that was already well under way — the trend toward more people carrying legal guns.
The same NPR article reports:
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of blacks now see gun ownership as a good thing, something more likely to protect than harm. That’s up from 29 percent just two years ago. In places like Detroit, more African-Americans are getting permits to carry concealed weapons.
And again, more pastors are encouraging carrying in vulnerable places like churches:
Detroiters are even taking their guns to church. When Rosedale Park Baptist had trouble with drug dealers and car thefts, Pastor Haman Cross Jr. told his congregants from the pulpit that they should consider getting concealed-carry permits.
“I love the Lord; I’m a Christian,” he says. “But like I told the congregation, let’s send a message right in front. I want the word out in the community, if you steal any of our cars, I’m coming after you.”
At another black church, Greater St. Matthew Baptist, Pastor David Bullock points out the pews that where his armed congregants usually sit.
“The chairman of my deacon board, he carries,” Bullock says. “And then on the west side, there’s a middle-aged woman who also carries.”
I enjoy it when my disparate interests overlap in some way. In this case, powerlifting and personal safety.
In recent years, especially the past some months, it’s become a hot topic to have police body cameras. Basically, people want recordings of every facet of police interactions. This is understandable as it generally works to protect all involved because “video doesn’t lie”.
But does video tell the whole truth?
In powerlifting, squat depth is a big deal. To oversimplify, a legitimate squat is one where your thighs are parallel to the ground, or deeper (e.g your butt touches your heels). People putting massive weights on their back and only moving them about 3 inches then claiming awesomeness — that’s not legit. All sorts of videos come out of lifters making “world record squats”, and the first thing people do is gripe if the lifter squatted to depth or not. Granted some squats (and meet judging) are legitimately up for question, but most often the squat is passed by the meet judges but not the Internet armchair judges — because of the video.
The video may be poor. The video may be at a “wrong” angle. The video isn’t likely to see and reproduce what the 3 meet judges see.
And this could be good, this could be bad. It could give you the proper perspective, or it could give you the wrong perspective.
Is the video lying?
Is the video telling the (whole) truth?
What got me thinking about this was the recent posting of the dashcam video of a controversial police interaction. Commenters took the video as objective proof. Interestingly, some commenters took it as objective proof the cop was in the right, and some commenters took it as objective proof the cop was in the wrong.
Objective?
I thought back to the endless debates on powerlifting videos about their “objectivity”, because if video was in fact objective, if video told the Truth, there should be no debate about someone’s squat depth. But yet there is.
Back in 2014, the well-respected Force Science Institute published a list of “10 Limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection”. Original PDF here, article reprint here. You should read the article for a complete explanation, but here are the 10 points:
A camera doesn’t follow your eyes or see as they see.
Some important danger cues can’t be recorded.
Camera speed differs from the speed of life.
A camera may see better than you do in low light.
Your body may block the view.
A camera only records in 2-D.
The absence of sophisticated time-stamping may prove critical.
One camera may not be enough.
A camera encourages second-guessing.
A camera can never replace a thorough investigation.
I know some are going to read that list, especially because the article is titled “for your [police] protection”, assume there’s bias and these are just trying to give police “outs”, and then dismiss the article.
So let’s go back and look at this list in the context of powerlifting videos.
The camera does not follow the eyes of the judges nor does the camera see what the judges see. There may be bodies blocking the view (happens all the time when the video comes from audience members and there are lots of burly guys crowding around the squatter to spot the lift). One camera isn’t enough, when there are 3 judges precisely to judge multiple angles. Cameras only record in 2-D, and if you’ve seen some powerlifters, these guys are certainly bulging out in many places. Cameras certainly encourage second-guessing (look at all the armchair judges).
It doesn’t matter what you’re filming, these limitations apply.
We must also remember that these videos are often interpreted through the bias of the viewer.
One thing that will be the same across all feds is the fact that the line which separates the champ from the chump, the white lights from the red lights and 9/9 from bombing out is an imaginary and invisible line whose axis through disputed points is in the heads of the three individual judges who preside over your lift. No, it’s not perfect; it’s subjective. Deal with it.
Emphasis added.
Often the armchair judges insert their own interpretation of the rules or what they feel is right or wrong. A great example is Shao Chu’s 400# bench press:
Is that a legit bench press? Sure is, because it’s within the rules of the game. But hopefully even if you don’t know much about lifting weights you can see why that lift might be considered controversial (was it even a lift? did the bar even move?).
And so it goes with police interactions, because everyone is a lawyer and legal expert, right? And even if you know the law, do you know all the laws? That video may have been filmed in a different city, in a different state, in a different country, where laws are different from what you may know. As well, do you know the police’s operating procedure and rules and regulations they must abide by (beyond the law)?
When you view the video, are you viewing it through an objective lens, or the lens of your personal bias, (lack of) experience, and/or (lack of) knowledge? I hate to tell you, but it’s probably the latter no matter how much you strive for it (or believe it to be) the former. Doesn’t matter if it’s a dashcam video or a powerlifting video.
I think video is a good thing. I think video is a solid tool towards helping us preserve history and protect ourselves. Given the proliferation of cameras, either because our governments are putting more out “on the streets” or simply because everyone’s got a smartphone in their pocket, we’re going to see more and more video and relying more on video to help us find Truth.
But in doing so, we must take video for what it is. It is not The One Source, it is not (unbiased) Truth. It has limitations, and we must remember that in our quest for Truth.
There’s been a lot of talk the past couple weeks about Whataburger’s open carry policy, and I wanted to reach out to personally explain our position.
Whataburger supports customers’ Second Amendment rights and we respect your group’s position, but we haven’t allowed the open carry of firearms in our restaurants for a long time (although we have not prohibited licensed conceal carry). It’s a business decision we made a long time ago and have stood by, and I think it’s important you know why.
But first, as a representative of Whataburger, I want you to know we proudly serve the gun rights community. I personally enjoy hunting and also have my concealed carry license, as do others at Whataburger.
From a business standpoint, though, we have to think about how open carry impacts our 34,000+ employees and millions of customers. We serve customers from all walks of life at more than 780 locations, 24 hours a day, in 10 states and we’re known for a family friendly atmosphere that customers have come to expect from us. We’re the gathering spot for Little League teams, church groups and high school kids after football games.
We’ve had many customers and employees tell us they’re uncomfortable being around someone with a visible firearm who is not a member of law enforcement, and as a business, we have to listen and value that feedback in the same way we value yours. We have a responsibility to make sure everyone who walks into our restaurants feels comfortable. For that reason, we don’t restrict licensed concealed carry but do ask customers not to open carry in our restaurants.
As a company serving customers with many different viewpoints, we’re sometimes caught in the middle on controversial issues like this one. We hope you and your members, along with our other friends in the gun rights community, understand our position and will continue to visit us. We appreciate your business. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Preston Atkinson
Whataburger President and CEO
This was posted yesterday (July 2, 2015) to their company website.
Frankly I have to wonder.
Is this a response to open carry? Or a response to the shit-tacular tactics of some open carry groups in the past year or so, trying to “lobby” for “gun rights”?
That is, is Whataburger against open carry? Or are they against dumbassery? Personally, I think the latter (based upon my reading of Mr Atkinson’s remarks).
There’s much over Whataburger’s history that has demonstrated they are very much a “‘murica” type of place. But on the same token, they have a business to run, shareholders to answer to, and the families and well-being of 34,000+ employees — to lose business (and revenue) does not serve their bottom-line nor the people who rely upon Whataburger to feed their families. I do NOT blame Mr. Atkinson one bit for taking this approach.
I don’t have a problem with open carry, but I do have a problem with dumbasses. And especially dumbasses whose actions backfire and wind up causing more harm than good — which is precisely what the actions of so many “open carriers” have done in the past few years.
Gee thanx but no thanx. You’re not helping. Sit down and shut up.
I will still give my business to Whataburger. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the position held here. Come on… you believe in property rights and the right to conduct yourself as you see fit.
But that said, I do wonder… when the new laws in Texas take effect, what will Whataburger do? Will the new 30.07 signs be posted?
And I’ve also wondered, will we see more signage (the 30.07 and then as long as they’re at it, the 30.06 as well) posted now? If so, we have only the open-carry-jackasses to thank for setting us (and themselves) back.
This make me a heretic in American public health, where embracing firearms and the rights of gun owners is a gross violation of orthodoxy.
Vik Khanna is “public health professional, educated at the vaunted Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Hygiene and Public Health”. And, as stated above, he likes guns. He writes about it in “Why Public Health Needs a New Gun Doctrine”.
It’s rarely a good thing when everyone is lock-step and unquestioning of doctrine. He takes his field to task on their regard for firearms.
In 2013, the Institute of Medicine, at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control, produced a report on firearms violence that has been ignored by the mainstream media. The upshot: defensive use of firearms occurs much more frequently than is recognized, “can be an important crime deterrent,” and unauthorized possession (read: by someone other than the lawful owner) of a firearm is a crucial driver of firearms violence.
That report went away for political reasons. Translation. Nobody wanted to talk about it because it raised more questions than it answered.
They didn’t get the answer they wanted, so they suppressed it. Is that science? Is that really doing a service to the world?
But even more key is the fundamental assumption:
My public health approach to the problem of gun violence starts with the assumption that every gun owner is not a raving, irresponsible nut, but in fact a person of some seriousness who has a legal right to choose to own a firearm.
What assumptions do you start with? Have you stepped back and honestly examined your own assumptions? Have you questioned and determined where your assumptions came from? What is their founding? Is it based upon biased news reporting (which we should all come to expect is the unfortunate norm of today’s “news” reporting)? Is it based upon Hollywood? Is it based upon a couple interactions you’ve had, and you’ve extrapolated a couple exceptions to apply to everyone?
Or even worse:
As for the claim that gun rights proponents oppose the conduct of legitimate research, consider this. Many years ago, I asked a very powerful anti-gun academic the following questions: What proportion of gun crimes are committed by the lawful owner of a legally purchased firearm, and what percentage of lawful gun owners use their firearm in commission of a crime? He said that he did not know, and that he would oppose conduct of the research to answer both questions.
If we’re going to have honest discussion towards finding real solutions to our problems, we must step back and examine our assumptions. We must be intellectually honest and not cherry picking what suits us or furthers our own blind agenda.
In the latest US Elections, the Republican party made some sweeping gains in terms of seats held, from the Federal level down to local levels. Naturally, in the days after there’s much posing and posturing about winning and losing, but before the election and after the election – and something that seems to exist regardless of election season – is how “gun rights” are positioned.
It seems people want to cut “gun rights” as a “red vs. blue” thing. That if you’re a Republican/conservative you are “pro-gun” and if you are a Democrat/liberal you are “anti-gun” (let’s leave us 3rd party folks out of this discussion for now). Granted, you do tend to find that the “reds” are pro and the “blues” are anti, but we really need to get away from such division and classification because “gun rights” are not directly correlated to “political party affiliation”.
Congressman Nick Rahall (disclosure: I’ve been friends with one of his daughters since high school), is a Democrat, but is a Life Member of the NRA and A-Rated by the NRA-PVF.
I’ve seen it in classes over the years. Many, if not most, of the KR Training study body, comes out of Austin – you know, that little “dot of blue in the sea of Texas red”. While you certainly get students of the “right-leaning” persuasion, we certainly see more than enough people who aren’t.
I know it’s cliché, but there’s truth in “united we stand, divided we fall”. If you care about “gun rights” then care about that and don’t let other labels that claim affiliation cloud the issue and your judgment, or divide you along colored lines. If anything, see it as a way to bridge the gap, to help us find something in common, to bring us together with a little better understanding.
“If an Open Carry bill is passed by the House and Senate, I will sign it into law,”
The past week I’ve seen many people on both sides of the issue responding to this pledge. One thing that I keep seeing is pro-gun people commenting on the stupidity of such legislation because open-carry is stupid, dangerous, or insert your reason here. The argument tends to be to keep open carry illegal because it’s dangerous tactics.
I think it’s important to separate the legality of open carry from the tactics of open carry.
People tend to prefer options. I’m sure when you’re presented with a problem, you don’t like being forced to solve it by A – you’d be happier if you could choose between A, B, and C especially if B and C are better options, yes? We seem to prefer choice (our consumer patterns demonstrate this), because it provides better opportunity for optimal solutions.
And so, if Open Carry (of handguns) becomes legal in Texas , that provides law-abiding Texans with more options.
But just because it’s legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right and best option for solving a problem. There remain many reasons why concealed carry is a superior tactical option. Yes, some people may choose their options unwisely, but unwise decisions are nothing new in this world and the only solution there is for people to seek further education.
I know some will ask what I will do. Will I Open Carry? Generally speaking, no – I will continue to carry concealed. But having the option is something I will appreciate because there may come a time when it will be the better option and I appreciate having the choice.
When making arguments for or against Open Carry, do separate out the legal aspects from the tactics aspects. They are both valid areas of discussion, but we shouldn’t use “bad tactics” as justification for “bad laws”.
So the latest “gun rights” ruckus is a group in Texas did an “open carry” meeting at a Chipotle restaurant. And everyone’s got their panties in a wad about it, on all sides of the issue.
Chipotle is asking people to not do this (full statement in this article). While parts of the statement do sound like they “personally” are anti-gun (given their choice of words and phrasing), in the end it seems they ultimately want to stay out of this political issue and want to just focus on selling burritos. I can’t say I blame them, and frankly that’s probably the best stance they can take on this issue.
So please, open carry folks, stop it.
Look I get it. You want to normalize open carry. If we keep it under wraps, how will it ever be normal? Frequently it’s compared to bigotry against blacks or Jews or homosexuals — if you keep it hidden, if you never allow it to just integrate and be part of everyone’s daily life, how will it ever become normal? I get it.
Here’s the problem.
Pro-gun people will see you, nod and smile and move on; but these aren’t the people you’re trying to convince. There will be strong anti-gun people that you will never win over (just like there will always be racists and homophobes that will never be convinced otherwise); so don’t worry about them too much. So who is there to convince? The people in the middle.
Alas, the primary message the people in the middle receive is that “guns are bad”. You know it, I know it. Part of why you’re doing what you’re doing is precisely to counter the notion of “guns are bad”; you’re trying to show people that “guns are normal”. So you KNOW “bad” is the primary message being broadcast and received. It’s because that’s how guns are portrayed in the mainstream media, and thus it’s the dominant message received by the eyes and ears of the masses.
How does you sitting in a restaurant with a rifle on your back convince people that such behavior is normal? Remember, a person defines normal as “what I do/say/believe”, and since they don’t sit around with guns on their backs hanging out with other people who have guns on their backs, therefore what you are doing isn’t “normal” (in their eyes). They don’t know you, if you really are a good person or not, if you’re normal, if you’re trustworthy. And throw in their (irrational) fear of guns, and you’ve made a horrible first impression. And yes, it’s irrational, but the present zeitgeist has made everyone afraid of and skeptical of everything, from the food we eat to the air we breathe to the people we interact with. If people are going to be operating from such an initial state, how do you think they are going to perceive you? Why are you acting surprised that people (the “sheep”, the “grasseaters”), are scared of you?
How does this win anyone over to the cause?
How is this good advocacy?
You have to stop thinking about the message you think you’re sending, and start thinking about the message being received. If you want to show people that gun owners are normal, then act normal — or perhaps more importantly, act in a way that others perceive is normal.
What do normal people do when they want to convince someone of a position? They engage them and talk with them in a comfortable manner. If Jane Soccermom sees a big scary guy with a big scary rifle, do you really think she’s going to allow you to walk up to her and engage her in a dialogue? I know, it’s not fair, it’s not right to judge people by the way they look, but it’s how our monkey-brains work, so get over it and learn to use it to your advantage instead of having it perpetually work against you. Again, the message you are sending is failing because the message received is NOT the message you intended to send.
If a co-worker expresses something about guns, don’t get in an impassioned battle with them to shut them down and prove them wrong. Instead, just talk with them — or more importantly, listen to them. Address and validate their concerns. It’s not a time to push agenda, but to listen and understand their point of view. If you can, invite them to the gun range some time to shoot a gun (and make it reasonable, like an outdoor range shooting a .22 at a bullseye paper target; and make it fun).
Look, if Ted Nugent can help Anthony Bourdain gain understanding, then you can too. But until people can see things like Bourdain sees them, they’re going to see them as they see it — and you with an AR strapped to your back looks not-normal, and will only serve to make them think that Bloomberg and Erika Soto Lamb and their ilk are actually right and rational.
The next big “gun rights” issue here in Texas is precisely open carry. If we want to win on this, we need to proceed in a manner most likely to garner positive public support. Because despite what Chipotle thinks, it’s the role of the people — not elected officials — to set policy in this area. So let’s work to win the minds of the people by helping them understand. Help them see what is normal by acting normal. And most of all: stop focusing on the message you are trying to send and instead focus on the message being received. When the message being received is the message you’re trying to send, then you’ve succeeded — until then, you’re not helping.
Stuff From Hsoi 