Guns and Black Markets
So yesterday in Philadelphia a man with a long gun held off like 50 police officers for hours -- although, it should be said, this was mostly because of their election of restraint. They certainly could have assaulted his position much sooner had they chosen to do so, and I think the whole department deserves praise for their choice to take the time to bring the matter to an end with no deaths. That was a good, moral choice and I appreciate them for having the discipline to carry it out.
Today the politicians are calling for gun control again, because that's always their answer no matter the question. The gunman in this case, though, had priors that prevented him from legally owning a gun. There are strong laws -- Federal laws -- against him possessing a gun. There are also such laws against possession of the narcotics that the officers showed up at that house to arrest people for possessing and distributing. Turns out they had guns and drugs too.
The big story is not that laws don't work, but just why they don't work. Crowds spent the afternoon jeering at the police officers after they were chased off by gunfire. At least one young man got arrested for mocking and harassing the cops. The ability of the police to stop a black market's operation, always limited, depends on their respect and friendship with the community. Here they clearly do not have such friendship, and thus the black market will be unstoppable even if they can manage the occasional raid on good information. What Mao says of guerrillas is as true of gangsters: the population is the sea in which they swim. If that sea is friendly waters to them, there's no way an occupying army (or police force) can finally root them out.
What the gun control politicians don't see is that the ultimate effect of their actions -- should they be successful -- will be to create a much bigger black market, this time for deadly weapons. They'll convert a much larger part of the population into a friendly sea for that black market. They'll alienate the people from the police, and thus make large parts of the nation hostile to their own authority.
More to the point, the People won't be wrong. The People are the sovereigns, after all, and they are free to decide when the government no longer legitimately represents them. It may well be that the drug war itself represents a kind of violation of popular sovereignty, proven by its unenforceability. The 2nd Amendment is encoded in the Constitution. Violations of your right to do what you want with your body isn't as plainly unconstitutional as infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Beware, politicians. Much more than you appreciate is at stake in your lust to take the people's arms.
Today the politicians are calling for gun control again, because that's always their answer no matter the question. The gunman in this case, though, had priors that prevented him from legally owning a gun. There are strong laws -- Federal laws -- against him possessing a gun. There are also such laws against possession of the narcotics that the officers showed up at that house to arrest people for possessing and distributing. Turns out they had guns and drugs too.
The big story is not that laws don't work, but just why they don't work. Crowds spent the afternoon jeering at the police officers after they were chased off by gunfire. At least one young man got arrested for mocking and harassing the cops. The ability of the police to stop a black market's operation, always limited, depends on their respect and friendship with the community. Here they clearly do not have such friendship, and thus the black market will be unstoppable even if they can manage the occasional raid on good information. What Mao says of guerrillas is as true of gangsters: the population is the sea in which they swim. If that sea is friendly waters to them, there's no way an occupying army (or police force) can finally root them out.
What the gun control politicians don't see is that the ultimate effect of their actions -- should they be successful -- will be to create a much bigger black market, this time for deadly weapons. They'll convert a much larger part of the population into a friendly sea for that black market. They'll alienate the people from the police, and thus make large parts of the nation hostile to their own authority.
More to the point, the People won't be wrong. The People are the sovereigns, after all, and they are free to decide when the government no longer legitimately represents them. It may well be that the drug war itself represents a kind of violation of popular sovereignty, proven by its unenforceability. The 2nd Amendment is encoded in the Constitution. Violations of your right to do what you want with your body isn't as plainly unconstitutional as infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Beware, politicians. Much more than you appreciate is at stake in your lust to take the people's arms.
Economics & Politics
I honestly doubt that anyone really understands the economy well enough to discuss it. Here's an article on the weak points of the current economy by a Keynesian.
Meanwhile, the low unemployment levels mean that wages have to keep rising -- at least as long as we can avoid any new globalization agreements, or any amnesty deals that legalize vast sectors of new labor for domestic concerns. In other words, the Trump agenda seems to be arranged around attacking the same basic concern that the first article describes as undermining the economy.
The author of the first piece was "Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University and Chief Economist at the Roosevelt Institute." He's the kind of guy who should understand if anyone does, at least if credentials matter. Economics is so complex, though, I doubt that anyone does. I've touched on just one way in which the fundamentals seem to be shifting in defiance of theory; but that's only one small part of the economy as a whole. Trade wars with China, for example, pose another set of challenges. The national debt poses another, though exactly what sort of challenge it poses is a subject of fundamental disagreement even among theorists. Some seem to think we can print money past Doomsday; others, that debt is going to destroy the whole thing. Both have arguments. Which are right?
The US economy has not been working for most Americans, whose incomes have been stagnating – or worse – for decades. These adverse trends are reflected in declining life expectancy. The Trump tax bill made matters worse by compounding the problem of decaying infrastructure, weakening the ability of the more progressive states to support education, depriving millions more people of health insurance, and, when fully implemented, leading to an increase in taxes for middle-income Americans, worsening their plight.Here's a simple report on conditions:
Redistribution from the bottom to the top – the hallmark not only of Trump’s presidency, but also of preceding Republican administrations – reduces aggregate demand, because those at the top spend a smaller fraction of their income than those below. This weakens the economy in a way that cannot be offset even by a massive giveaway to corporations and billionaires.
Monthly reports on the number of new jobs and the unemployment rate can drown out important trends like these two: After four decades of worsening, wage inequality has started shrinking. And in a twist, America’s blue-collar workers are playing the biggest role in driving that reversal.Now, if 'aggregate demand' is the problem, raising taxes on the rich and redistributing to the working class is taken to be the solution. But what about cutting taxes on the rich, combined with raising the wages of the working class? In principle that should lead to inflation, as there will be more dollars across the board. But these dollars aren't chasing the same things, which is what causes price inflation. The richer are going to spend their dollars chasing things they've been putting off; things like building a second home, or re-roofing their first home, or buying a luxury car, or higher-end foods. The working class are going to be spending their increased wealth on better used cars, mid-range foodstuffs, etc.
This may come as a surprise, because education is classically seen as a ladder up the income scale. Despite blue-collar workers often lacking college degrees, their wages have been accelerating faster than those of their white-collar counterparts.
Meanwhile, the low unemployment levels mean that wages have to keep rising -- at least as long as we can avoid any new globalization agreements, or any amnesty deals that legalize vast sectors of new labor for domestic concerns. In other words, the Trump agenda seems to be arranged around attacking the same basic concern that the first article describes as undermining the economy.
The author of the first piece was "Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University and Chief Economist at the Roosevelt Institute." He's the kind of guy who should understand if anyone does, at least if credentials matter. Economics is so complex, though, I doubt that anyone does. I've touched on just one way in which the fundamentals seem to be shifting in defiance of theory; but that's only one small part of the economy as a whole. Trade wars with China, for example, pose another set of challenges. The national debt poses another, though exactly what sort of challenge it poses is a subject of fundamental disagreement even among theorists. Some seem to think we can print money past Doomsday; others, that debt is going to destroy the whole thing. Both have arguments. Which are right?
SLAM
The big explosion in Russia last week is thought to have been a nuclear-powered rocket. The US developed one in the early Cold War, but never tested it.
SLAM was never built because it was too dangerous to even test. The dangerous levels of radioactivity unleashed by the nuclear engine was a big plus in some apocalyptic wartime scenario, but it couldn't even be tested in the skies over the U.S. SLAM was also overtaken by intercontinental ballistic missile development, which could deliver a thermonuclear warhead against a target in Russia in half an hour.I did just read an article suggesting that similar rockets could be used in space, though, to allow transit around the solar system in a reasonable period of time. Here's another article on the subject of why such rockets offer advantages over traditional designs.
Ten Thousand Rounds
At first this sounds like a very alarming story.
Oh, actually, he didn't own them. His father owned them, and kept them responsibly locked in a safe.
This is somewhat like the red flag laws under discussion, only it turns out you wouldn't actually have to be the red flag yourself. What's the procedure for recovering your property from FBI seizure if it turns out you didn't do anything wrong, nor even contemplate anything wrong?
[H]e went by the name “ArmyOfChrist,” and praised the Oklahoma City bombing, mass shootings and attacks on Planned Parenthood, the FBI says. When the deadly siege in Waco, Tex., came up, he allegedly offered one lesson: “Shoot every federal agent on sight.” “Don’t comply with gun laws, stock up on stuff they could ban,” he allegedly wrote...Wow! Except, where did an 18 year old get enough money to buy all that stuff?
And when agents raided a home where the 18-year-old lived earlier this month, they found about 10,000 rounds of ammunition and a vault full of assault-type weapons and shotguns.
Oh, actually, he didn't own them. His father owned them, and kept them responsibly locked in a safe.
On Aug. 7, agents swarmed Olsen’s mother’s house, but learned that he’d recently moved to live with his father. Later that day, they found Olsen and arrested him. He soon admitted to making the posts, the FBI says, but claimed the comments were all in jest.So what we have here is a father who was a responsible gun owner, and a teenager who liked to run his mouth on the internet. Apparently that's enough to justify seizing the father's firearms and ammunition -- permanently? If the boy is jailed for making threats, it's not likely the father is going to shoot anything up if he's reached middle age without doing so.
“That’s a hyperbolic conclusion based on the results of the Waco siege,” he said of his instruction to shoot federal agents. He added that the “ATF slaughtered families” in the incident, in which 76 people died as federal agencies raided a religious sect’s compound.
Agents found plenty of firepower in Olsen’s father’s home, though it’s unclear how much of it the 18-year-old could access. There were about 300 rounds of ammunition on a stairway, the FBI says, and thousands of rounds of ammo, camouflage clothing and a gun vault in another bedroom in the house. Agents eventually seized about 15 rifles and shotguns and 10 semiautomatic pistols.
This is somewhat like the red flag laws under discussion, only it turns out you wouldn't actually have to be the red flag yourself. What's the procedure for recovering your property from FBI seizure if it turns out you didn't do anything wrong, nor even contemplate anything wrong?
Real News Today
Tulsi Gabbard really has been called up to active duty, just in time to be kept out of the next Presidential debates. She'll be in Indonesia.
Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii and presidential candidate, will be taking a two-week absence from her campaign Monday to report for active duty with the Hawaiian Army National Guard in Indonesia, she said in an interview with CBSN's Caitlin Huey-Burns.Pretty Presidential, if you ask me.
"I'm stepping off of the campaign trail for a couple of weeks and putting on my army uniform to go on a joint training exercise mission in Indonesia," she said. Gabbard has also taken two weeks off to report for active service in 2017.
"I love our country. I love being able to serve our country in so many ways including as a soldier," she said. "And so while some people are telling me, like gosh this is a terrible time to leave the campaign, can't you find a way out of it? You know that's not what this is about."
Fake News Today
DB: "Maj. Tulsi Gabbard Receives Surprise Deployment Orders to Antarctica"
Gabbard will be deploying to Antarctica within the week, and is expected to return next summer, shortly after the Democratic National Convention has concluded.Spectator (US): "Titania McGrath’s Edinburgh Fringe show is the most important live event since the Women’s March"
“It’s unfortunate that Congresswoman Gabbard’s presidential aspirations have been thwarted by her upcoming deployment,” said Sen. Kamala Harris.... winking dramatically and making finger guns long after the cameras stopped taking pictures.
Inevitably, white male critics have entirely misunderstood Mxnifesto. One described it as ‘venomous satire’, another as ‘iconic comedy’. Brian Logan in the Guardian inexplicably awarded the show just one star. This was a crushing blow for me, because Logan is one of my all-time favorite writers and theater practitioners. For over 15years he was co-director of the improvisation troupe Cartoon de Salvo, objectively acclaimed on their own website as ‘storytellers, shape-shifters and theater pioneers’. I mention Logan’s troupe by name only because I know how difficult it must be to maintain a reputation for being a pioneer when no one has actually heard of anything you’ve ever done.TO: "Nation Informs Body-Positive Advertisers It Ready To Go Back To Staring At Unattainably Attractive People"
"We got the message loud and clear, but if I wanted to see a slightly overweight person with frizzy hair and yellow, crooked teeth, I would look in the mirror."Mutatis mutandis, I imagine that last is a very common sentiment.
Conspiracy Theories and Fake News
I suppose it's been interesting watching the competing conspiracy theories erupt, and I suppose it represents a kind of challenge to our society that we no longer have a way of determining mutually-agreed facts. Not enough blame is being placed upon the ordinary press for that; as awful as Twitter is, and it is terrible, the fact is that the press cut its own throat through increasingly-partisan activity over decades.
Still, this is not the problem:
However, this time, Occam's razor points toward a conspiracy to commit murder. Corruption happens to be the simplest explanation for the cascade failure of obvious protections against the death of the most valuable prisoner in the entire system. It is much easier to believe that one of the many extremely rich and powerful people to whom he posed a threat called in a favor from the mafia, and that the mafia called in a series of favors (or extended offers of new ones) to its extensive set of contacts within the prison system in New York. If all the payoffs were favors, there will be no money trail, and we'll likely never find out which billionaire or millionaire made the request.
That may not be true, but its plausibility doesn't hang on people being participants in a poisoned information stream. It's more plausible even today than it was two days ago: new details have emerged that he was just recently taken off suicide watch; that his cellmate was just removed, unusually leaving him completely alone; that he happened to have been moved from cells that were constantly monitored by CCTV to cells without any such monitoring; that guards left him alone and unsupervised for hours at a stretch, in spite of procedures calling for 30 minute checks....
This is a problem that is akin to the one that happened when Lee Harvey Oswald was shot down by Jack Ruby, in full view of everyone and while under the direct protection of US officers. We've waited a long time now for better information, but ultimately no better explanation has emerged. It's possible he was really not part of any sort of conspiracy, and there was just a cascade failure of systems in which we had unreasonable confidence. If people choose to believe the simpler explanation, though, it's not irrational to do so. It's an application of a usually-reliable heuristic.
It's just that there are huge consequences to adopting the mental model that follows from the conclusion. Perhaps the best thing is to remain open to both possibilities, as both remain possible. Then you don't have to come to any uncomfortable conclusions with dangerous consequences. You just have to accept an obvious truth, which is that we all live in much greater ignorance than we'd like to think. Ultimately the truth of much of the world is outside our grasp, now and forever.
Still, this is not the problem:
[A] grim testament to our deeply poisoned information ecosystem — one that’s built for speed and designed to reward the most incendiary impulses of its worst actors. It has ushered in a parallel reality unrooted in fact and helped to push conspiratorial thinking into the cultural mainstream. And with each news cycle, the system grows more efficient, entrenching its opposing camps....The problem is that waiting for better information has not made conspiracy theories seem less plausible. It remains possible that Epstein killed himself, just as we are being told: that he was broken-hearted over the loss of a life of wealth and freedom, and the certain prospect of spending the rest of his days in misery. It's possible that every single system that would have monitored him failed, and that they did so all at the same time, and he spotted his moment and used it.
At the heart of Saturday’s fiasco is Twitter, which has come to largely program the political conversation and much of the press. Twitter is magnetic during massive breaking stories; news junkies flock to it for up-to-the-second information. But early on, there’s often a vast discrepancy between the attention that is directed at the platform and the available information about the developing story. That gap is filled by speculation and, via its worst users, rumor-mongering and conspiracy theories.
However, this time, Occam's razor points toward a conspiracy to commit murder. Corruption happens to be the simplest explanation for the cascade failure of obvious protections against the death of the most valuable prisoner in the entire system. It is much easier to believe that one of the many extremely rich and powerful people to whom he posed a threat called in a favor from the mafia, and that the mafia called in a series of favors (or extended offers of new ones) to its extensive set of contacts within the prison system in New York. If all the payoffs were favors, there will be no money trail, and we'll likely never find out which billionaire or millionaire made the request.
That may not be true, but its plausibility doesn't hang on people being participants in a poisoned information stream. It's more plausible even today than it was two days ago: new details have emerged that he was just recently taken off suicide watch; that his cellmate was just removed, unusually leaving him completely alone; that he happened to have been moved from cells that were constantly monitored by CCTV to cells without any such monitoring; that guards left him alone and unsupervised for hours at a stretch, in spite of procedures calling for 30 minute checks....
This is a problem that is akin to the one that happened when Lee Harvey Oswald was shot down by Jack Ruby, in full view of everyone and while under the direct protection of US officers. We've waited a long time now for better information, but ultimately no better explanation has emerged. It's possible he was really not part of any sort of conspiracy, and there was just a cascade failure of systems in which we had unreasonable confidence. If people choose to believe the simpler explanation, though, it's not irrational to do so. It's an application of a usually-reliable heuristic.
It's just that there are huge consequences to adopting the mental model that follows from the conclusion. Perhaps the best thing is to remain open to both possibilities, as both remain possible. Then you don't have to come to any uncomfortable conclusions with dangerous consequences. You just have to accept an obvious truth, which is that we all live in much greater ignorance than we'd like to think. Ultimately the truth of much of the world is outside our grasp, now and forever.
Can Ethics Be Taught?
Peter Singer asks an old question.
Not to steal Tom's thunder, but Aristotle's ethics is the place where the question really gets answered. Aristotle bridges the gap by showing that virtue is taught by habituation. So it's not knowing what is right that constitutes 'teaching ethics,' but practicing doing what is right. In doing that, one develops a character that does right by habit, and thus crosses the gap that Socrates and Plato and Haidt and Singer are worrying about.
To practice what is right, it is helpful first to know what is right. Ethical theory has a place, even if it isn't the place Socrates and Plato hoped it would hold.
In The Righteous Mind, Haidt draws support for his views from research by the philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel of the University of California, Riverside, and Joshua Rust of Stetson University. On a range of ethical issues, Schwitzgebel and Rust show, philosophy professors specializing in ethics behave no better than professors working in other areas of philosophy; nor are they more ethical than professors who don’t work in philosophy at all. If even professors working in ethics are no more ethical than their peers in other disciplines, doesn’t that support the belief that ethical reasoning is powerless to make people behave more ethically?This is a question that Socrates asked with some desperation, according to Plato; he seems to have died without answering it. Plato tried to answer it himself, but ended up with significant problems. In the Protagoras, for example, he has Socrates defending the weird proposition that ethics is a kind of knowledge but that it can't be taught (teachability being an ordinary characteristic of knowledge). He is debating Protagoras, who is defending the equally weird proposition that he can teach the virtues, but that they are not a kind of knowledge.
Perhaps. Yet, despite the evidence, I am not entirely convinced. I have had a lot of anecdotal evidence that my classes in practical ethics changed the lives of at least some students, and in quite fundamental ways. Some became vegetarian or vegan. Others began donating to help people in extreme poverty in low-income countries, and a few changed their career plans so that they could do more to make the world a better place.
Not to steal Tom's thunder, but Aristotle's ethics is the place where the question really gets answered. Aristotle bridges the gap by showing that virtue is taught by habituation. So it's not knowing what is right that constitutes 'teaching ethics,' but practicing doing what is right. In doing that, one develops a character that does right by habit, and thus crosses the gap that Socrates and Plato and Haidt and Singer are worrying about.
To practice what is right, it is helpful first to know what is right. Ethical theory has a place, even if it isn't the place Socrates and Plato hoped it would hold.
BB Opinion: Why Can't We Return to How Peaceful the World Was Before Guns?
In the long, long ago, people lived in harmony. They had no choice but to, as they had nothing to shoot each other with. Theoretically, they had bows and arrows, but if you’ve ever actually tried to use one, they’re basically impossible to hit anything with. So if they had a problem, they just talked things out. If things got really heated, they’d settle things with a riddle competition. And men were respectful to women, as there were no guns to enhance toxic masculinity....
This all changed, though, when the inventor of guns (Bob Gun, I believe) created guns in his racism laboratory while trying to find ways to enhance racism. Since then, gun deaths have increased infinity-fold, from zero to more than zero.
The Freedom Caucus on Gun Rights and Safety
I have an official letter today from Rep. Mark Meadows, the head of the House Freedom Caucus, on the issue of the day. Since such a letter is a public record, I'll reproduce it here as I would not with genuinely private correspondence. I omit the opening and closing courtesies, though his office did not.
On August 3, 2019, a gunman cowardly took the lives of 22 innocent people in El Paso, Texas. Sadly, another gunman murdered 9 individuals in Dayton, Ohio. I continue to pray for the victims and their families, who are undergoing terrible, unexpected loss. I am thankful for the brave men and women of law enforcement that selflessly responded to these tragedies.
Violence committed with firearms is a serious problem in our nation, and it must be addressed with common sense solutions that ensure firearms are used according to our founders’ intentions: self-defense and freedom, not murder and terror.
I agree with President Trump when he said, “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America.” As Americans, we must stand up against acts of hatred and violence anywhere. The President also tasked the FBI to identify all resources they need to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism. Earlier this year, the FBI established the Domestic Terrorism-Hate Crimes Fusion Cell to target domestic terrorism influenced by hate. The Department of Justice has launched a centralized website to educate the public on hate crimes and encourage reporting. You may view this website here.
I support proper enforcement of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which licensed gun dealers are required to contact, either directly through the FBI or indirectly through state and local law enforcement, before selling or transferring a firearm. Since its implementation in the 1990s, NICS has stopped over three million-gun sales or transfers from licensed dealers. I have also supported the FIX NICS Act, which improved the federal background checks system. This law requires federal agencies to make annual reports and certifications of compliance regarding the NICS system and it penalizes agencies that fail to comply. It also reauthorized the NICS Improvement Act and increased assistance to states to help them submit complete and accurate records to make the NICS system more thorough. This legislation was signed into law by President Trump on March 23, 2018.
For my part, I have introduced two measures to specifically protect schools in the United States. The Protect America’s Schools Act, which would provide adequate funding to the Community Oriented Policing Services’ School Resource Officer program; and the Veterans Securing Schools Act, which would allow Veterans hired by a state or local agency to serve as School Resource Officer – giving state and local law enforcement agencies greater flexibility in hiring Veterans to protect school campuses. These two bills are the direct results of input from sheriffs and law enforcement officers across Western North Carolina. You can read more about these bills here: https://meadows.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=857.
Additionally, I am a current cosponsor of H.R.1339, the Mass Violence Prevention (MVP) Act of 2019. This bill would establish a Fusion Center at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to better share critical information and intelligence across federal, state, and local channels. The authorities failed to share information about threats at Columbine, Charleston, and Parkland for example. The MVP Act would also strengthen the penalty for a burglary of a Federal Firearms Licensee and authorizes the DOJ to hire attorneys to prosecute cases of violence committed with firearms under Project Safe Neighborhoods. These efforts will give law enforcement additional tools to protect schools and communities and will dismantle gangs and other criminal organizations that trade in violent crime.
Great Moments in American Rhetoric
And that wasn't even the craziest moment that happened in our political discourse today.
As for yesterday, it turns out that "#MassacreMitchMcConnell" is supposed to be a nickname rather than a set of instructions. Like "Cocaine Mitch," only "Massacre Mitch." If you thought they were actually inciting violence instead, you were mistaken (although the one protester at his house calling for him to be stabbed in the heart may have aided your confusion).
I thought the Kavanaugh hearings were going to be a high-water mark for wild-eyed craziness. Apparently they were just getting warmed up.
Correlation
But causation?
Venker goes on to explain that of CNN’s list of the “27 Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History, only one was raised by his biological father since childhood.It's bad news if so. We've been talking about fixing failing families since I've been alive, and the problem has not improved outside of those wealthy and stable elements who were in the least danger to begin. Our culture has turned aside from family, even though family is the source of much of -- and much of the best -- human meaning.
“Indeed, there is a direct correlation between boys who grow up with absent fathers and boys who drop out of school, who drink, who do drugs, who become delinquent and who wind up in prison,” she writes. “And who kill their classmates.”
NYT Accidentally Does Journalism, Repents
New York Times releases a second edition with a different headline after Twitter backlash and liberals announce they’re canceling subscriptions. pic.twitter.com/fxLav5pQHP— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) August 6, 2019
Involuntary Commitment
I think I'd like to get AVI's opinion on this issue.
It's hard for me to imagine trusting the government with the power to involuntarily commit people for "mental issues," given that there's no lab test for mental health and our opponents are eager to assign diagnoses to things like conservatism (or reasoning from principles, rather than from feelings). The potential for abuse is obvious and huge.
On the other hand, I hear AVI saying things periodically that suggest that there are clear-cut cases with no vagueness that might be usefully addressed in this way. Whether these kids who engage in shooting up the world are such cases is another question.
It's hard for me to imagine trusting the government with the power to involuntarily commit people for "mental issues," given that there's no lab test for mental health and our opponents are eager to assign diagnoses to things like conservatism (or reasoning from principles, rather than from feelings). The potential for abuse is obvious and huge.
On the other hand, I hear AVI saying things periodically that suggest that there are clear-cut cases with no vagueness that might be usefully addressed in this way. Whether these kids who engage in shooting up the world are such cases is another question.
Hold the Line
I sent the following letter to my Congressmen:
While recent mass shootings receive tremendous media attention, they are statistically a small fraction of gun violence, which is itself a fraction of criminal violence. It would be irrational to react to the spectacle instead of moving in a reasoned way toward the whole spectrum of criminal violence.After I wrote that, I found out that the folks in Hong Kong agree.
The fact is that the 2nd Amendment protects a free state in a crucial manner. International comparisons cherry pick mono-ethnic states with strong central cultures like Iceland or Japan, where violence is relatively uncommon with or without guns. The proper comparisons are to diverse American nations with a similarly troubled history to our own. Mexico has strict gun control, but is overrun by cartel violence. Brazil has until recently strictly forbid private ownership of firearms, but has recently begun re-introducing private arms as a way of addressing similar criminal violence. These states have found that even a large police force can be dominated by criminal organizations; resisting them requires a distributed capacity for defense of liberty among the citizenry as a whole.
Similarly, a free citizenry can protect itself against tyrannical government if it is properly armed. The people of the Philippines endure extrajudicial killings; the Uighur population in China is undergoing ethnic cleansing and "re-education" because they cannot resist. The people of Hong Kong, though engaged in a noble and enviable defense of their liberty, are likely soon to feel the weight of the People's "Liberation" Army. If they had rifles, they would have less to fear.
The Founders were correct. The militia, meaning the ordinary citizenry's capacity to defend its liberty, is the first and best defense of a free state. I mean to pass every single liberty to my children that was passed to me by our fathers. Hold the line.
OODA Loops
Instapundit today carries a piece from Shooting Illustrated, which describes a five-step attack cycle. As the title of this post is meant to suggest, that's too many steps. John Boyd's OODA loop only needs four: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The SI piece collapses "orient" into "observe," and then adds two more steps: stalk and close.
The SI piece isn't terrible, but bear in mind that it's about a subset of criminal violence. You don't have to stalk a victim, or take care in choosing a victim, if you are merely interested in chaotic violence. If you want to get inside an attacker's OODA loop, you have to get inside the first three steps. Once they've made their decision, action follows.
It's important to remember, in these moments of heightened emotion, that mass shootings are a tiny fraction of gun homicides; and that most of America is perfectly safe, with a county-level homicide rate that is most likely (54%) exactly zero. Not 'near zero,' not 'zero percent rounded down,' but zero: no murders whatsoever.
Make decisions about how to respond to threats advisedly, and rationally: 'stop feeling, start thinking.' If you decide to carry a weapon and be prepared to respond to threats, do that rationally too.
The SI piece isn't terrible, but bear in mind that it's about a subset of criminal violence. You don't have to stalk a victim, or take care in choosing a victim, if you are merely interested in chaotic violence. If you want to get inside an attacker's OODA loop, you have to get inside the first three steps. Once they've made their decision, action follows.
It's important to remember, in these moments of heightened emotion, that mass shootings are a tiny fraction of gun homicides; and that most of America is perfectly safe, with a county-level homicide rate that is most likely (54%) exactly zero. Not 'near zero,' not 'zero percent rounded down,' but zero: no murders whatsoever.
Make decisions about how to respond to threats advisedly, and rationally: 'stop feeling, start thinking.' If you decide to carry a weapon and be prepared to respond to threats, do that rationally too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)