I like most of his philosophy, but his views on limiting civilians' rights concerning firearms and self defense do not appeal to me.
He's not the first member of the military who I have heard or read say that non-military and non-police shouldn't have weapons, because we don't train the way they do. I will refrain from commenting about some police departments' less-than-stellar marksmanship scores.
He's not the first member of the military who I have heard or read say that non-military and non-police shouldn't have weapons, because we don't train the way they do.
I covered this issue quite extensively in the comments here over the years.
To the military, civilians are basically loose cannons. In the military, and more later on for police, they are given kill on order conditioning, psychologically and physiologically, with a "safety trigger" (sometimes that doesn't work well).
In the military, having loose cannons on deck is a big no no. No matter what service branch you are in, if you decide to pull the trigger or push a button, and you have no Authorization, you could start a war, kill a bunch of civilians, or wipe out your own Blue buddies in a Blue Falcon incident.
To civilians like me, the military are conditioned using a method that the individuals have no control over or even knowledge of. They are indoctrinated and conditioned with certain rules of engagement which they often cannot bypass. This is why there are statistics for rape on military bases during war, in which women with access to firearms refuse to fire (blue on blue) on their attackers. The conditioning process to prevent blue on blue and unauthorized use of firearms or lethal force, is quite heavy in the military (not so much in the police, as civilians=criminals ROE wise). This conditioning process can only be counter manded or de activated by a commanding officer. The free will of the person themselves, cannot override it because they are often unaware of it.
To civilians like me, the military is not very useful of a standard. Because the wars I have to support and plan, often involve... how shall I say this, not necessarily "legal" under military Rules of Engagement, so to speak.
The police have another issue entirely. Their problem is that they often don't have safety triggers. And they can't differentiate very easily criminal threats from civilian threats, or non threats from civilians or non threats from criminals.
Civilians are trained with a very different array of ROE and decision making process. Instead of being told or commanded who to shoot and kill, the civilian has to become a warrior first, a soldier last. The warrior determines who needs to live and who needs to die. The whole room? Part of the room? The warrior, by virtue of their culture or beliefs, determines for themselves who they will fight, who they will save, how they will do, and when they will do so.
Warrior=loose WMD
Soldiers=kill according to chain of command authorization
This topic also covers WW2 "fire to kill" rates and PTSD ratios, vs Vietnam "fire to kill" and PTSD rates. A very interesting topic for students of war in general.
Vietnam was the first major war that utilized the new military conditioning process which worked wonders. And the price was the PTSD.
In WWII, if you were a conscientious objector or just did not want to kill anybody, you could always load the rifle for someone that was a good sniper or killer.
Crenshaw is clearly intelligent and well-spoken. But any politician that forgets why we have a Second Amendment in the first place, has dangerous motivations that cannot be ignored - it's a deal breaker. Too bad, because he does seem to have a lot of good things to say on a wide range of subjects.
Crenshaw has a problem with the Second Amendment, so I have a problem with Crenshaw.
ReplyDeleteI like most of his philosophy, but his views on limiting civilians' rights concerning firearms and self defense do not appeal to me.
ReplyDeleteHe's not the first member of the military who I have heard or read say that non-military and non-police shouldn't have weapons, because we don't train the way they do. I will refrain from commenting about some police departments' less-than-stellar marksmanship scores.
LittleRed1
Yeah, I like Crenshaw, but I am an absolutist in the citizens’ right to bear arms department.
ReplyDeleteMe too. If they don't trust me with a rifle, why should I trust them with a ICBM?
ReplyDeleteGovernments are the holders of the all time mass murder awards.
He's not the first member of the military who I have heard or read say that non-military and non-police shouldn't have weapons, because we don't train the way they do.
ReplyDeleteI covered this issue quite extensively in the comments here over the years.
To the military, civilians are basically loose cannons. In the military, and more later on for police, they are given kill on order conditioning, psychologically and physiologically, with a "safety trigger" (sometimes that doesn't work well).
In the military, having loose cannons on deck is a big no no. No matter what service branch you are in, if you decide to pull the trigger or push a button, and you have no Authorization, you could start a war, kill a bunch of civilians, or wipe out your own Blue buddies in a Blue Falcon incident.
To civilians like me, the military are conditioned using a method that the individuals have no control over or even knowledge of. They are indoctrinated and conditioned with certain rules of engagement which they often cannot bypass. This is why there are statistics for rape on military bases during war, in which women with access to firearms refuse to fire (blue on blue) on their attackers. The conditioning process to prevent blue on blue and unauthorized use of firearms or lethal force, is quite heavy in the military (not so much in the police, as civilians=criminals ROE wise). This conditioning process can only be counter manded or de activated by a commanding officer. The free will of the person themselves, cannot override it because they are often unaware of it.
To civilians like me, the military is not very useful of a standard. Because the wars I have to support and plan, often involve... how shall I say this, not necessarily "legal" under military Rules of Engagement, so to speak.
The police have another issue entirely. Their problem is that they often don't have safety triggers. And they can't differentiate very easily criminal threats from civilian threats, or non threats from civilians or non threats from criminals.
Civilians are trained with a very different array of ROE and decision making process. Instead of being told or commanded who to shoot and kill, the civilian has to become a warrior first, a soldier last. The warrior determines who needs to live and who needs to die. The whole room? Part of the room? The warrior, by virtue of their culture or beliefs, determines for themselves who they will fight, who they will save, how they will do, and when they will do so.
Warrior=loose WMD
Soldiers=kill according to chain of command authorization
Police=have both problems
This topic also covers WW2 "fire to kill" rates and PTSD ratios, vs Vietnam "fire to kill" and PTSD rates. A very interesting topic for students of war in general.
ReplyDeleteVietnam was the first major war that utilized the new military conditioning process which worked wonders. And the price was the PTSD.
In WWII, if you were a conscientious objector or just did not want to kill anybody, you could always load the rifle for someone that was a good sniper or killer.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Houston-Rep-Dan-Crenshaw-irks-both-the-left-and-14287697.php
ReplyDeleteI looked up this DC guy. He does not look like someone against the second amendment.
As for Red Flag laws... the things is, a lot of things sound reasonable... if people don't know certain things that they aren't briefed on.
Crenshaw is clearly intelligent and well-spoken. But any politician that forgets why we have a Second Amendment in the first place, has dangerous motivations that cannot be ignored - it's a deal breaker. Too bad, because he does seem to have a lot of good things to say on a wide range of subjects.
ReplyDelete