Firearms Friday: Continuing The Dialogue

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a “Firearms Friday” post which was requested by a friend. I did what I could to address their original query but had no illusions that it would be an answer to their question. There are simply too many aspects to this whole discussion to offer a definitive response but it was a means to have a respectful dialogue. And so, with that in mind, below is their response to that post:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question seriously. I really do appreciate it. Like you, I'd rather have smart laws and knee jerk reactions. As you say you may not be an expert, but you have more experience on this topic than I do and can point out the flaws in my arguments. My goal is a reduction in gun violence and I don't really care much how we get there, as long as it's a path that works and not a token effort.

Here are my immediate thoughts:

When I've been thinking about the problem of shootings I've been dividing it into three categories: one-on-one (most self defense cases would fall into this category, I imagine), one-on-many (mass shootings) and many-on-many (gang violence maybe?). I'm mostly concerned about the one-on-many, mass shooting case. I'm looking for ways that could render a gun less effective when attacking a crowd that would have minimal impact in the one-on-one case, and thus minimal impact on self defense uses. In our legal system it is considered inhumane to maim. If lethal force is warranted you are supposed to take lethal force. That is a sentiment I support. To be 100% clear: If your family is threatened, I want you to be able to defend yourself with lethal force.

I do think there are ways we can make guns less lethal in the one-on-many case that have little impact in the one-on-one case since. Bullet ricochet increases the number of casualties, whereas (I believe) it is a virtually non issue in most self defense cases. It's my understanding that most (all?) bullets are deadly, but not all bullets are equally effective at passing through a person harming the person behind them. Most one-on-one situations don't require dozens of dozens bullets be fired in mere seconds. This is why the arguments of limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate make so much sense to me. (Guns are machines and it is possible to engineer them to fire no faster than a specific rate, regardless of how fast one can pull the trigger.) For a one-on-one scenario, there is no rushing the shooter/person defending themselves. In a one-on-many such changes might give the crowd a chance. At least the casualty count should be lower.

I was unaware that there was a sport dedicated to conduct speed reloads. How long does it take the average-to-above-average person to reload? If it's non trivial, than limiting capacity sizes still makes sense to me. I think (hope) most would be mass shooters are not in the elite class.

I strongly agree with both your points that gun violence is glorified in the media, and that the way the media reports on shootings encourages copycats. I have no idea how this can be addressed given the first amendment.

I also agree that we as a nation need more support for mental health issues. What's less clear to me is what this kind of approach would look like, especially since mental health status can change. I think it's a noble, but unrealistic goal to catch everyone who would commit a mass killing before they have a chance to follow through. Besides, hate is protected under the first amendment. One cannot be committed saying people of a certain race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else should be executed. (David Duke is a terrifying example of this.)

I know I will not change your opinion on the matter, but I support gun free zones. For what it's worth, I don't think the intention behind gun free zones is to prevent intentional shootings. As you, and others, have pointed out, there's nothing magical about a gun free zone that keeps bad guys with guns out. Rather, I thought gun free zones are intended to limit guns from areas where thinking may be impaired (such as places that serve alcohol) or judgement lacking (schools). They're intended to prevent heated arguments and rash decisions from turning into tragic mistakes. While I agree with you that we should hold the shooter responsible for his or her own actions, it's little solace to the person whose life was lost. In these situations I feel the potential for tragic accidents is so great it warrants special treatment.

In this response I will focus on where we seem to be the furthest apart. Let us begin by discussing “limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate” which, to this person, seem to be the options that make the most sense regarding the prevention of mass shootings while having little to no impact on the ability to defend themselves. Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument as the assumption is that “there is no rushing of the person defending themselves”. On the contrary, in many self-defense scenarios there is immense pressure for quick and effective action as seconds count… if you hesitate you are most likely dead. Further, under duress the use of multiple rounds is commonplace. This makes all three of the above options dangerous in a self-defense situation.  

While caliber is something that is thoroughly discussed within the firearms community the simple fact of the matter is that in a self-defense situation accuracy diminishes and stopping power and capacity play critical roles in eliminating the threat. Further, there is no predicting the size of the assailant or how they will be dressed so, personally, I would prefer to have a little more punch than average. Over-penetration is a reality which is why anyone with a reasonable amount of training (and, in my opinion, anyone who owns a firearm) should always be aware of their surroundings and what is behind their intended target. The final point in this is that limiting calibers is a slip and slide that I don’t car to ride as it is nearly impossible to enforce, it would put those who reload in a precarious position, and, most importantly, it is completely against the rights for which I stand.

Rate of fire is something that is already regulated as automatic weapons are classified as Class III firearms and only legal for ownership with those who undergo the scrutiny of the ATF application process (and pay the tax). To regulate rate of fire would not only be dangerous in a self-defense situation but would add over-complication to a rather elegant mechanism. We don’t need to Rube Goldberg firearms… look what that thought process has done to our government.

As for “gun free zones”, the idea that these places are made any safer by eliminating the presence of legal firearms is preposterous. It has proven, time and again, to be a fallacy… nothing more than a means to provide a “warm and fuzzy” feeling for some people. Anyone who has carried a firearm and knows others who carry on a regular basis knows that the one thing that maintains a person’s even temperament is not a sign but the fact that they are carrying a firearm. Those who accept this responsibility also accept the fact that they must go above and beyond when it comes to keeping calm in precarious or stressful situations. This also means that those who responsibly carry will not allow themselves to enter into an altered state of rage or intoxication.

While I would like to say that there is an answer to preventing, as a whole, the practice of mass shootings in this country that is simply not a part of reality. I have already made a few suggestions regarding how we can go about addressing the issue of mass shootings but they are by no means a way to “solve” the problem. The best way that we, as a society, can face this is to come to terms with the fact that this is the reality in which we live. And while the contrary is reported on the daily news, this persons primary objective has already been realized... shooting deaths and gun violence continue to decline while gun sales continue to rise.

However, an important point to remember is that while this person, and many others, continue to make statements regarding the importance of the first amendment and how it limits our ability to address certain statements, stances, and positions that heinous people take, those same people are willing to do anything to limit the second amendment. Remember, the only reason that the second amendment is second is so the first amendment has backup. Why is it that so many people are willing to acknowledge that heinous people are outliers regarding the beauty and effectiveness of the first amendment but those who commit heinous acts are representative of those who support the second amendment? While the person with which I am having this discussion isn’t one of these extremists, the position is all too common.  

If we really want a solution to the situation that we find ourselves in it would be to face the reality that there is evil in this world. Evil people will commit evil acts and we need to confront that evil head on by defending ourselves, defending others, and eliminating the threat when we are threatened. We can’t rely on government in general or legislation in particular. If anything, we need to eliminate the hurdles that continue to plague law abiding gun owners. We must educate ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens about firearms. We must respect what they can do and appreciate the freedom that they represent. So, my advice is simple, go to a range. Understand, appreciate, and respect firearms. Teach one another. And never allow yourself to be helpless and maintain your self-reliance. I’m sure that this is not the response that they were looking for but it is an honest response and one that has proven, time and again, to be the most effective was to address the issues that we are currently facing.

I Think I Agreed With Obama And I Feel Sick!

Yes, I said it. I agree with the President. It occurred a month ago and it felt a little odd, like I was getting sick or passing a stone. I wasn’t sure at the time what to make of the feeling but then I realized that the nauseated feeling churning in the pot of my stomach was caused by me agreeing with one simple statement uttered by Obama at the national prayer breakfast in Washington, DC. During that event he uttered the words "around the world, freedom of religion is under threat."

Obviously, I wasn’t motivated at the time to blog about this strange feeling but certain actions by the Department of Justice have motivated me to finally sit down and write about this one moment when the hell was buried by a blizzard. Actually, it was something I read this week, a local news story that has gone international that served as the catalyst for this post. As was reported at United Press International (UPI), the DOJ is doing wonders for the public school budget in Philadelphia:

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint in U.S. District Court alleging that the School District of Philadelphia’s grooming policy is discriminatory.

The federal lawsuit claims that the policy discriminates against employees who don’t trim their beards because of religious reasons. District rules currently prevent school police and security officers from having beards that are more than a quarter of an inch long.

According to the suit, school police officer Siddiq Abu-Bakr’s Islamic faith requires him to allow his beard to grow. He had allowed his beard to grow uncut for 27 years while working for the district before being informed that he had to trim it via a written reprimand. Abu-Bakr was told continuing to violate the policy would result in “further disciplinary action.”

Abu-Bakr filed a religious discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the matter was referred to the DOJ.

“No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs in order to earn a living,” Spencer Lewis Jr., the director of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, said in a statement. “Modifying a dress or grooming code is a reasonable accommodation that enables employees to keep working without posing an undue hardship on the employer.”

While the beard policy is a bit questionable (remember this does apply to religious Jews and Muslims alike) should it really be part of the DOJ’s purview to sue the Philadelphia public schools. Seems more like a waste of time and money, tax payer money. But, in light of my recent revelation, I am moved to support this fight for religious freedom and the expression thereof. While we may not understand many religions it doesn’t mean we should limit them, right? It is a right protected by the first amendment and we know that, as someone who taught constitutional law, the President would do anything to fight for the rights affirmed in the constitution.

Certainly, the DOJ will continue to fight for the religious freedom that we all enjoy and have the full support of this current administration. They would never force someone to do something against their religious beliefs. They would fight for us to make sure those rights are not infringed.

Wait, what’s that? What did you just scream at the screen? Hobby what?  

Oh, that’s right. The DOJ, with the full support of this administration, selectively fights for the religious freedom of the people. Those they don’t agree with they tend to get very angry and judgmental and fight to quash there overly conservative, outdated ideals because if it is not something they believe then it can’t be true and must be suppressed. If that weren’t bad enough, throw in Obamacare and we really have a constitutional CF on our hands. As Ed Whelan write in The National Review:

The pertinent legal question under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause is whether the massive fines that an employer faces for providing an employee health plan that does not comply with the HHS mandate substantially burden the employer’s exercise of religion. As Hobby Lobby spells out (pp. 34-44 of its brief), the answer to that question is clearly “yes” under the Court’s precedents. Indeed, “‘a fine imposed for adherence to religious beliefs is as direct and obvious a burden as one could imagine.” (Brief at 36-37.)… But a victory for Hobby Lobby will not change the fact that the decision whether or not to use embryo-killing drugs or devices will remain entirely with the employees. What it will mean is that employers will not be dragooned to be complicit in conduct that violates their religious consciences.  

Oh, wait, that’s right, Obama doesn’t really care about our rights or the constitution. I am starting to feel much better now. It might have just been gas but I think the origination of the stench was from an external source. All it took was a reminder of how much the President enjoys lying to us all, liberal and conservative alike, as a means to further his own agenda. This is the reason why he picks and choses which amendments to support and which ones he tries to rip from the parchment. And the ones he does ‘support’ only apply to those with whom he agrees.

This is, at the very least, a disturbing stance which has been adopted by both the President and the Department of Justice. We must be vocal in our opposition to such hypocrisy and pay particularly close attention to those who promote ‘ideals’ that are supported by selective adherence to the Constitution! That is our responsibility to ourselves and to our country.

Don’t Assume The Translation Lost In The Debate

Recently a bill in Arizona was vetoed by the Governor, Jan Brewer. That bill, which would have made it legal for businesses to refuse service to same sex couples for religious reasons, grabbed national headlines and was a topic that was heavily debated. In this instance, the Governor was right to quash this bill in the state legislature.

However, as I have written about in previous posts, I would have like to have seen people look at all angles. Not in such a way as to change their views but as a means to try and see all of the ramifications in the passing of such a law but also how it was able to get so far in the process that it was up to one woman to take a stand and kill the bill. The above cartoon, while admittedly stretching the purview, is one of those things that does make you think about the aspects surrounding such a topic. While many would agree with the individual right to refuse service, however, that act is against the law as it would be discriminating against those whose views, while vile and hate filled, are protected.

It really does make you think about the rights of the individual business owner. So, with this topic in mind, I began looking through the law against discrimination on legalzoom.com. True, this is not the most detailed source but it did provide an interesting high altitude overview. The site summarizes the subject matter in the following way:

“Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.”

The angle that was applied in the Arizona bill sought to invoke the ideal of religious freedom. However, that really is a difficult argument to make. Basically, they were trying to assume protection not granted by the first amendment. The portion of the first amendment to which they attempted to leverage states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The amendment prohibits the establishment of laws limiting religion. In fact, many can apply this law against the proposed legislation as the passage of such a bill would, in essence, legally support the imposition of religious beliefs on others. It is an interesting aspect to think about.

What is going to be a more interesting debate is the one that has yet to come to the forefront in Illinois. In summary, the bill states that “no religious organization, including a school, is required to provide religious facilities for a marriage solemnization ceremony or celebration associated with [that ceremony if it] is in violation of its religious beliefs.” This is where there very well could be a much stronger constitutional agreement as it could be stated that the enforcement of laws supporting same sex marriage could be interpreted as violating the first amendment in this instance. It will be interesting if the state would be willing to give a definitive answer in this particular debate.

That dichotomy between the government and religious institutions is an interesting one. While the specific applications within religious institutions is one that has become highly partisan when it comes to the Arizona bill, as was reported in the New York Times, this debate is not one of partisanship. This is a subject that addresses individual views beyond the scope of party lines. It may be a fine line between what is of political and personal view but there are definitely topics of public policy that just go too far such as the aforementioned bill. The New York Times piece summed up that political line of demarcation in the following paragraphs:  

Frank Keating, a former governor of Oklahoma, said that while he opposed same-sex marriage, issues of public accommodation had long ago been settled. He said that he, too, would have vetoed a bill like the Arizona one.

“This isn’t 1964 anymore,” he said. “We’ve moved beyond that. If you open up your doors to the general public, you can’t pick and choose who you are going to deal with.”

Basically, the whole point of this post is simple. We all react one way or another to many different topics, especially one such as the bill that is being discussed above. Unfortunately, with this reaction many people make assumptions and start to generalize different groups of people. We are not all the same. There may have similarities from one person or group to another but there are limits to generalizations when the individual is responsible for their decisions, their views, and their motivations.

We have lost our desire, our drive to understand both subjects and people. Life is not that simple and even when a subject seems clear cut we need to make a better effort to try and look at all sides (many, many, many more sides and aspects then that which is discussed above). Sometimes learning about a subject is not about arguing for or against, it is about trying to see the whole gray picture that gives life its color.

Social Media Disturbances

There were a couple of messages on social media that caught my attention this week for all the wrong reasons. According to a message I received through LinkedIn, I am uninformed because I do not accept the communist ideas as expounded by Marx. On the other side (actually much of the same side), according to someone on Facebook, a person whom I have personally met on numerous occasions, I am a Nazi because I do not support socialized medicine. Essentially, they are both communistic idealists.

First, let’s address the LinkedIn blather. I received this in my inbox and, while I don’t mind being picked for funds , this one is a train wreck:

“Alleanza Kontra l-Faqar (Alliance against poverty) is a pressure group in favour of distribution of wealth in a fairer society. We advocate and give voice to anyone who needs our support on a number of social issues that can include education, minimum wage, basic income for everyone and their fair economic adjustment in view of inflation, purchasing power and cost of living, precarious employment, third age pensioners, disabled persons, health, single parents, the unemployed, and, social housing.

“The Alliance against Poverty is not subject to any political or religious bias, and, its members are determined to work collectively towards a social and overall well-being, as a basic fundamental right, in order to live a satisfactory and decent life, whether they are living within poverty lines or not….

“…Karl Marx - economist and sociologist ( born in 1818 ) among others mentioned the need to have a system to take care that the work earn enough money to have to eat , and for Marx this basic need was part of patter that prescribed that wealth should be distributed equally amongst the members of society.

“Unfortunately as sometimes happens even today the day , the politicians did not implement the communism based on principles of solidarity alone, and countries using a communist ideology such as Russia and Cuba seem to have suppressed their notable communist policies in view of the rise of civil wars and the intentional or non-intentional use of the inappropriate political model to support the original philosophy that favours equality in wealth distribution. Wealth distribution remains highly unfair towards the poorer members of society even in modern times, with the increasing numbers of unemployed persons during the double dip (2008).”

The last paragraph should have read something along the lines of “Unfortunately, as sometimes happens even to this day, politicians pander to the people and feel the need to implement government run programs that sap the motivation and incentive from a society. While hiding under the cover of ‘equality’ they hinder the individuality of the people and quash any means to better themselves in the best way that would benefit themselves, their families, and society as a whole.” Equal distribution is not a means to utopia, it is a way to ensure conformity. That is not a tool that should be applied to any society which ascribes to the practice of freedom.

In looking at the profile of this person, I am left with a great sadness for this misguided young person. Too many of those in the younger demographic fall prey to such doctrine. With that said, Facebook quickly reminded me that this is an epidemic that is not just limited to ill informed youths.   

Soon after this Marxist tidbit was read, I went over to Facebook to check on a few messages. In my stream I was confronted with the following post by someone who shall not be named (and no it was not Tom Riddle): “Personal opinion: I believe that the anti-Obamacare crowd is whacked beyond the Nazis. To paraphrase the eminent historian John Lukacs, the Nazis had their half-truths. The tea-partiers don't have diddly-squat!” Needless to say, we have a winner for the WTF Award for the week (also a strong contender for the annual prize).

Don’t get me wrong, I am not calling this person a communist or a socialist. Rather, it is the vulgarity of what they see as a societal norm which brings me to draw the comparison with the previously mentioned message. Essentially, their message is that because I am against the a federally run healthcare system (because we know the federal government is efficient, always on budget, and knows how to shop around for the best deal) I am both a member of the Tea Party and a Nazi. While at first I was shocked by this assertion, I quickly realized that it really isn’t surprising. They are simply regurgitating the messaging that is found on a weekly basis spewed on many of the unbiased news liberal editorial channels.

So, because I don’t fall in line and goose step with that crowd I am the bad guy? Frankly, I would rather have my own opinion based on my own personal experiences and study of the subject rather than simply believing in a program that had to be passed before anyone was told what was in it. This doesn’t mean that all social programs are bad, some are necessary to the health and well being of society, but some are grandiose schemes put in motion by intellectual and societal dictators that live in their own utopian minds with little contact here in the real world.

We can be a self sustaining people if others would get out of the way and let us live. If you would take the time to embrace what you have rather than focusing on what the Jones’ have we would all be in a better place and a better state of mind. Maybe then we could actually work on the problems of our ‘modern’ society rather than encouraging strife and burdening this and future generations with ‘solutions’ that cause more problems than they solve.

I know that won’t happen any time soon and maybe that makes me the idealist in this situation. While I adamantly disagree with the fudge that is smeared on these social media sites, it is their opinion and I believe that is a freedom that needs to be protected even those they don’t support the freedoms that I enjoy and feel should be protected. All I can really do is feel sorry for the state of the people and hope that we return to a time when we can live up to the aspirations that the founders had for this country and for us as a people.