So, California - San Francisco - strictest gun laws, most anti-gun government in the county; how does this happen?
It is obvious and a lesson for all such areas to learn - and, damn, how often do people have to say this to get it through your thick head? Laws against guns are just that - laws. Just like laws against theft, robbery, rape, or murder. People who will use a firearm to rob, assault or kill another person are already breaking those laws - so what makes you think that adding another to the list is going to stop them. Do you really think they will decide not to kill another person because they may violate a firearms law?
Laws against guns are just that - laws. And people who follow laws, no matter what they are, will usually follow them (although many have come to feel the laws are unjust, unconstitutional and put them at risk and, so, may not). People who do not, will not. By definition, those who would murder others do not. I thought you people in San Francisco - in California - were supposed to be so damned smart - yet you cannot figure out this simple fact. I am sure the answer to this conundrum - that your gun laws did not prevent this crime - will be to enact even more draconian laws.
Laws against guns are nothing more than laws. Criminals break laws. Law-abiding citizens prefer not to do so. Thus, in general, those laws simply make the prey more helpless and the predator more lethal and dangerous.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Friday, March 21, 2014
A central philosophy
As a veteran, I am no fan of unnecessary war and I believe most of our recent ones have either been unnecessary or incompetent. Incompetent war is worse than not fighting - it diminishes the perception of strength. I am also no fan of the John McCain approach of desperately searching for a war to fight because I personally want to kick someone's ass. It is a shame he never got the treatment he needed. I also think it is a bizarre perversion of cultural sensitivity that leads us to, within our own borders, accept a wide range of cultural perspectives and practices, while insisting that other countries and cultures accept our idea of rights and freedoms (e.g., why are other cultures not free to have their own beliefs about human sexuality?). You know, it is the usual "Rights we want are good, rights you want not so much". It will be interesting to see how the US federal government reacts when a foreign country decides to sanction it for how it treats its citizens.
But most of that is stuff for another day - I came here today to talk about a central philosophy - one of disarmament, of professed helplessness and victimhood, the admission that we are not armed.
NBC and multiple other outlets reported that President Obama noted:
"We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine," he said in an interview with KNSD in San Diego. "What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we've got a strong international coalition that sends a clear message, which is that Ukraine should decide their destiny."
I was struck by the fact that this philosophy, this approach, so closely mirrors the notion of disarmament that underlies the gun control debate - it is a core belief. The President, in essence, is establishing a gun-free zone; this statement differs from a "No guns allowed" sign only in scale, but not in philosophy. It is, at its core, not a lot different than the sign put up by a South Carolina Pub Owner (minus the douchebags comment) or any other sign put up to forbid such carry. Just as such a sign says "No one in here can defend themselves from an armed criminal", Obama's statements says "We will hope that you will not do bad things". Brutish despotic types are criminals in this regard; such a sign tells them that their prey are defenseless and the worst they will have to do is listen to whining and bleating of people pleading with them not to do bad things. In return they smile that Putin grin.
A point of reference; one of the main reasons for carrying a concealed weapon is to create some degree of uncertainty in those who would prey on us; if carry is allowed (or even encouraged) in a given location, then the predator can never be sure whether they will meet armed resistance should they ply their trade there. It seems reasonable to view our military in the same fashion; one need not march in with it for it to have a deterrent effect. But to say, pre-emptively, that it will not be used, to at least, symbolically, disarm at the door, removes any uncertainty. So if we assume that despots think in similar fashion to criminals (indeed, are criminals), that they calculate risk that someone in there might be armed and act accordingly, then hanging that sign is foolish. When one hangs out a sign that says "There are no real threats here" (a discussion of the real might of American sanctions will be left for someone else to ponder, but I fear we may be paper tigers in that regard), there is no ambivalence.
It seems clear that liberals, due to their aversion to protecting themselves and belief that someone else will do it for them (or that all criminals are angles who have been forced into a life of crime), think in terms of taking options off the table. And it would be fine if it were only liberals' options that were effected by their decisions. But when they decide that we cannot defend ourselves with equal force, they make that decision for us. The good thing is that, in the case of the pub above, we can choose to take our business elsewhere where our rights are respected or even encouraged. We can shop elsewhere or live elsewhere. When it is the government that putatively represents all of us that decides, rather than to leave some sense of ambiguity and uncertainty, to put the sign up that says "No one will use armed resistance here" it makes the decision for all of us.
No, I have no desire to see us waste more young American lives on policing the rest of the world - we have enough to do here. But such decisions reveal what is likely to be seen as a philosophy of weakness, of a life as prey. As the saying goes "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum" - one need not make war constantly, but being prepared to do so is often a motivator for others to choose peace.
The failure to recognize that strength (not necessarily violence) is respected and allows for peace is at the heart of the failed philosophy.
But most of that is stuff for another day - I came here today to talk about a central philosophy - one of disarmament, of professed helplessness and victimhood, the admission that we are not armed.
NBC and multiple other outlets reported that President Obama noted:
"We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine," he said in an interview with KNSD in San Diego. "What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we've got a strong international coalition that sends a clear message, which is that Ukraine should decide their destiny."
I was struck by the fact that this philosophy, this approach, so closely mirrors the notion of disarmament that underlies the gun control debate - it is a core belief. The President, in essence, is establishing a gun-free zone; this statement differs from a "No guns allowed" sign only in scale, but not in philosophy. It is, at its core, not a lot different than the sign put up by a South Carolina Pub Owner (minus the douchebags comment) or any other sign put up to forbid such carry. Just as such a sign says "No one in here can defend themselves from an armed criminal", Obama's statements says "We will hope that you will not do bad things". Brutish despotic types are criminals in this regard; such a sign tells them that their prey are defenseless and the worst they will have to do is listen to whining and bleating of people pleading with them not to do bad things. In return they smile that Putin grin.
A point of reference; one of the main reasons for carrying a concealed weapon is to create some degree of uncertainty in those who would prey on us; if carry is allowed (or even encouraged) in a given location, then the predator can never be sure whether they will meet armed resistance should they ply their trade there. It seems reasonable to view our military in the same fashion; one need not march in with it for it to have a deterrent effect. But to say, pre-emptively, that it will not be used, to at least, symbolically, disarm at the door, removes any uncertainty. So if we assume that despots think in similar fashion to criminals (indeed, are criminals), that they calculate risk that someone in there might be armed and act accordingly, then hanging that sign is foolish. When one hangs out a sign that says "There are no real threats here" (a discussion of the real might of American sanctions will be left for someone else to ponder, but I fear we may be paper tigers in that regard), there is no ambivalence.
It seems clear that liberals, due to their aversion to protecting themselves and belief that someone else will do it for them (or that all criminals are angles who have been forced into a life of crime), think in terms of taking options off the table. And it would be fine if it were only liberals' options that were effected by their decisions. But when they decide that we cannot defend ourselves with equal force, they make that decision for us. The good thing is that, in the case of the pub above, we can choose to take our business elsewhere where our rights are respected or even encouraged. We can shop elsewhere or live elsewhere. When it is the government that putatively represents all of us that decides, rather than to leave some sense of ambiguity and uncertainty, to put the sign up that says "No one will use armed resistance here" it makes the decision for all of us.
No, I have no desire to see us waste more young American lives on policing the rest of the world - we have enough to do here. But such decisions reveal what is likely to be seen as a philosophy of weakness, of a life as prey. As the saying goes "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum" - one need not make war constantly, but being prepared to do so is often a motivator for others to choose peace.
The failure to recognize that strength (not necessarily violence) is respected and allows for peace is at the heart of the failed philosophy.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Truly tragic, but I have to wonder
This is truly tragic and while I feel for the victims and families, I have to wonder when Al Sharpton is going to blame it on George Zimmerman or Stand Your Ground laws.
I truly apologise; my only excuse is Sharpton Derangement Syndrome caused by the fact he will say and do anything to capitalize on a tragedy.
I truly apologise; my only excuse is Sharpton Derangement Syndrome caused by the fact he will say and do anything to capitalize on a tragedy.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Please - take this somewhere else
So yesterday the Right Reverend Al Sharpton (of Tawanna Brawley fame) brought his know-nothin' media circus to Florida.
"It's a flawed law," Sharpton said. "Because you don't need an actual threat. All you've got to do is believe a threat and you can use deadly force." Al's wrong and not for the first time (see Tawanna Brawley above). His description is not an issue of SYG, but an issue of the right to self-defense and, although I sure Al does not know it (in fact prefers not to know it), there are elements that must be proven in that belief of threat. the law doe snot allow anyone to kill someone else because I felt threatened - there are matters of fact that are considered. There are elements of ability, opportunity and jeopardy that must be shown and there is the criterion of the "reasonable person" (as in, a reasonable belief). As much as Al might want to make it seem so because it fits his narrative, just saying I felt threatened is not enough; the assailant must have means and opportunity to present lethal force and create jeopardy of loss of life.
Trayvon Martin did all three in attacking George Zimmerman; he had the means based on his size, skill (disparity of force) and the position he had Zimmerman in, he had the opportunity based on being in full mount and banging Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, and the culmination was he placed Zimmerman in lethal jeopardy. Thus, Zimmerman was acquitted because the jury considered it reasonable that, in those circumstances, he was in fear for his life (in essence, they realized that they would be, too). That is the law - but not SYG.
How many times does one have to define SYG; it says that, given all of the above conditions being met (that is, that lethal self-defense is justified), one need not first attempt to flee, to retreat. they can meet force with force. So Al is arguing a law he is not protesting and protesting a law that is not relevant.
Of course, Tallahassee.com is just stupid enough to agree with him; "It allows individuals to use of force to defend themselves if they feel threatened and has been at the root of two high-profile deaths of 17-year-old teens in Florida over the past two years." It is not just a matter of "feeling threatened". That "feeling" must be substantiated by the above elements and criteria. But that is still not SYG.
Of course then they seem to acknowledge that they know what it is: "A full repeal of the law was shot down by the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee in November; other bills, still potentially in play in the Legislature, would tweak Stand Your Ground to include, primarily, a necessary obligation to retreat, using force only after that option has been exhausted."
So, you do know that SYG is about retreat, not about defense. So then, riddle me this; how could Zimmerman have retreated when he was on his back with Martin pounding his head into the pavement? He could not have, hence that option would be off the table, SYG or not. Zimmerman was sucker-punched and mounted; no retreat available.
This all comes down to the same thing I said yesterday: If Zimmerman had been killed that night, no one would know his name or much care. He would be another nameless corpse that died a victim of crime in a crappy neighborhood. Too bad, life sucks, move on. What Sharpton, Martin's parents, and others are telling us is that they value Martin's life more than Zimmerman's, that Zimmerman should have died that night a nameless victim rather than kill Martin in self-defense.
Now the pessimists among us can only imagine that part of this charade is racially motivated; that a young black male is now worth more than an pudgy middle-aged Hispanic male. That somehow we have come to excuse the Martins of the world, that their assault of the Zimmermans is to be allowed, that such behavior is acceptable. Somehow, it seems inevitable that efforts to change the law (whatever ignorance of that law those efforts are based on) are meant to allow young thugs, regardless of color, to do as they wish with impunity and to strip everyone else of the right to defend themselves against them. If that sounds racist, then it is only because the arguments Al and his protesters make are inherently racist in nature, that one life is worth more than another.
SYG or not, the right of self-defense is a basic right not created by the Constitution or our government. As can be seen in reading it, it only says it shall not be abridged; it exists as a basic human right. Those who would take it away do so because they do not value our lives.
"It's a flawed law," Sharpton said. "Because you don't need an actual threat. All you've got to do is believe a threat and you can use deadly force." Al's wrong and not for the first time (see Tawanna Brawley above). His description is not an issue of SYG, but an issue of the right to self-defense and, although I sure Al does not know it (in fact prefers not to know it), there are elements that must be proven in that belief of threat. the law doe snot allow anyone to kill someone else because I felt threatened - there are matters of fact that are considered. There are elements of ability, opportunity and jeopardy that must be shown and there is the criterion of the "reasonable person" (as in, a reasonable belief). As much as Al might want to make it seem so because it fits his narrative, just saying I felt threatened is not enough; the assailant must have means and opportunity to present lethal force and create jeopardy of loss of life.
Trayvon Martin did all three in attacking George Zimmerman; he had the means based on his size, skill (disparity of force) and the position he had Zimmerman in, he had the opportunity based on being in full mount and banging Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, and the culmination was he placed Zimmerman in lethal jeopardy. Thus, Zimmerman was acquitted because the jury considered it reasonable that, in those circumstances, he was in fear for his life (in essence, they realized that they would be, too). That is the law - but not SYG.
How many times does one have to define SYG; it says that, given all of the above conditions being met (that is, that lethal self-defense is justified), one need not first attempt to flee, to retreat. they can meet force with force. So Al is arguing a law he is not protesting and protesting a law that is not relevant.
Of course, Tallahassee.com is just stupid enough to agree with him; "It allows individuals to use of force to defend themselves if they feel threatened and has been at the root of two high-profile deaths of 17-year-old teens in Florida over the past two years." It is not just a matter of "feeling threatened". That "feeling" must be substantiated by the above elements and criteria. But that is still not SYG.
Of course then they seem to acknowledge that they know what it is: "A full repeal of the law was shot down by the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee in November; other bills, still potentially in play in the Legislature, would tweak Stand Your Ground to include, primarily, a necessary obligation to retreat, using force only after that option has been exhausted."
So, you do know that SYG is about retreat, not about defense. So then, riddle me this; how could Zimmerman have retreated when he was on his back with Martin pounding his head into the pavement? He could not have, hence that option would be off the table, SYG or not. Zimmerman was sucker-punched and mounted; no retreat available.
This all comes down to the same thing I said yesterday: If Zimmerman had been killed that night, no one would know his name or much care. He would be another nameless corpse that died a victim of crime in a crappy neighborhood. Too bad, life sucks, move on. What Sharpton, Martin's parents, and others are telling us is that they value Martin's life more than Zimmerman's, that Zimmerman should have died that night a nameless victim rather than kill Martin in self-defense.
Now the pessimists among us can only imagine that part of this charade is racially motivated; that a young black male is now worth more than an pudgy middle-aged Hispanic male. That somehow we have come to excuse the Martins of the world, that their assault of the Zimmermans is to be allowed, that such behavior is acceptable. Somehow, it seems inevitable that efforts to change the law (whatever ignorance of that law those efforts are based on) are meant to allow young thugs, regardless of color, to do as they wish with impunity and to strip everyone else of the right to defend themselves against them. If that sounds racist, then it is only because the arguments Al and his protesters make are inherently racist in nature, that one life is worth more than another.
SYG or not, the right of self-defense is a basic right not created by the Constitution or our government. As can be seen in reading it, it only says it shall not be abridged; it exists as a basic human right. Those who would take it away do so because they do not value our lives.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Therein lies the division
So, Think Progress thinks that the only thing that George Zimmerman is famous for is killing an unarmed teenager. Therein lies the basic division between liberals and conservatives (if I must use those terms); liberals think that George Zimmerman should have been unarmed, should not have fought back, and should have allowed Martin to kill the "Creepy-ass cracker". This is central to modern liberal philosophy; do not defend yourself, expect others to do it for you, be a dependent victim. Juxtapose this with a more conservative approach; conservatives think that it is a good thing that George Zimmerman was armed, that it is good that he was able to defend himself when physically assaulted and that the fact that he survived the assault was a good thing. Believe it or not both sides agree that they wish it had never come to that. But as unpopular as it is to say, it was Martin's choice that night, not Zimmerman's. He thought it was clobberin' time.
I suspect that Zimmerman wishes he was not famous for anything. But if he is seen as a symbol of anything to conservatives, it is of the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms and right to protect ourselves. There is no justice, no great moral victory in allowing one's self to be killed by another man or in killing another. But there is no great crime in defending one's self from lethal force from another. If Zimmerman had been killed by Martin, the tale would never have been told outside of some local report in Sanford Florida - another "creepy-ass cracker" found dead. In the end, Zimmerman's life would not have been worth the the page space to tell the tale. it would have been like every other story we hear on our local news, fading into anonymity. But because he defended himself specifically against Martin, who could serve as a useful poster "child" (a misnomer) for liberal causes, with lethal force, the fact that he did not allow himself to be killed made him famous.
So this is what we get from Think Progress:
"The only thing Zimmerman is famous for is killing an unarmed black teenager. And he is, in many ways, the poster child for Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. “I walk around armed; I walk around with a bullet proof vest; it’s not so much for my safety as it is so much for those around me,” he said. “I can be around my family and something might happen to them. There’s children around me, etc. Those threats… I have to be able to defend myself like any American.”
Please:
1. It would be more accurate if you at least ended the first sentence with "...who was attempting to spatter his brains on the sidewalk". He is famous for defending himself with lethal force. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
2. The case was not a "Stand your ground" case - when will ignorant people figure this out? Stand your ground is solely an issue of duty to retreat. When you are on your back, with a larger man on top of you, pounding your head into the pavement, you have no duty to retreat. This was a clear case of self-defense law with no SYG implications.
3. Sounds to me like Zimmerman would rather he were not famous at all - I bet he wises that Martin had made a better choice that night. But given Martin's choice, Zimmerman was left with only bad options. I hope he prefers his unfortunate fame to an untimely death.
I suspect that Zimmerman wishes he was not famous for anything. But if he is seen as a symbol of anything to conservatives, it is of the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms and right to protect ourselves. There is no justice, no great moral victory in allowing one's self to be killed by another man or in killing another. But there is no great crime in defending one's self from lethal force from another. If Zimmerman had been killed by Martin, the tale would never have been told outside of some local report in Sanford Florida - another "creepy-ass cracker" found dead. In the end, Zimmerman's life would not have been worth the the page space to tell the tale. it would have been like every other story we hear on our local news, fading into anonymity. But because he defended himself specifically against Martin, who could serve as a useful poster "child" (a misnomer) for liberal causes, with lethal force, the fact that he did not allow himself to be killed made him famous.
So this is what we get from Think Progress:
"The only thing Zimmerman is famous for is killing an unarmed black teenager. And he is, in many ways, the poster child for Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. “I walk around armed; I walk around with a bullet proof vest; it’s not so much for my safety as it is so much for those around me,” he said. “I can be around my family and something might happen to them. There’s children around me, etc. Those threats… I have to be able to defend myself like any American.”
Please:
1. It would be more accurate if you at least ended the first sentence with "...who was attempting to spatter his brains on the sidewalk". He is famous for defending himself with lethal force. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
2. The case was not a "Stand your ground" case - when will ignorant people figure this out? Stand your ground is solely an issue of duty to retreat. When you are on your back, with a larger man on top of you, pounding your head into the pavement, you have no duty to retreat. This was a clear case of self-defense law with no SYG implications.
3. Sounds to me like Zimmerman would rather he were not famous at all - I bet he wises that Martin had made a better choice that night. But given Martin's choice, Zimmerman was left with only bad options. I hope he prefers his unfortunate fame to an untimely death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)