Just a brief post to note how those who cry about overreach of government and law enforcement when it involves black protesters can't seem to keep it in their pants when it comes to federal law enforcement shooting white guys. White guys who were not looting or burning people out of house and home, but were "occupying" a large plot of desolate land that no one who is hooting and hollering in happiness over the shooting really gives two shits about.
There was really no reason for this encounter to happen - except for a law-and-order, "I am in charge you redneck morons" mentality that needed to show force. There was no danger here and left alone, these folks would have squatted to no great effect. What happened to the idea, in places like Baltimore, of "Letting the protesters have their space, get out their grievances"?
There just can't seem to be one set of rules that everyone lives by; certain lives have to matter, certain rights have to take precedence.
One has to wonder how the reaction would be different if they were native Americans or the POTUS was white. How much celebration there would be if FBI lives had been lost (then there would have been drone strikes on the "militants" - listen to media with a cynical ear to hear how subtle words are used).
What I find most interesting is that the social justice ghouls who decry gun violence at every turn, anthropomorphize firearms, and want to disarm civilians, are engaging in ghoulish lip-licking in favor of more guns in the hands of government being used against Americans. I would say fellow citizens, but that is a concept lost on them.
Cop killing Michael Browne in Ferguson? Outrage! Cop killing Tamir Rice? Outrage. Cop killing any armed African-American? Outrage ("He was a good boy!"). Militarization of LE? Outrage! No body camera available - then the LEO was lying. Flash forward to Oregon - Of course SJ Ghouls believe every word of the FBI report - Militia/militants (media terms) are evil and deserve to be killed if they step out of line - and no one gives two shits that the FBI killed someone.
Wrong is not wrong and rights are not rights.
Shit just keeps sliding down hill.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
Zeroing Red Dot Sight?
Now a break from my usual musings and rants to throw a
question out there and see if anyone has any ideas about what is going on.
I recently received a Burris Fast Fire 3 red dot sight. Put it on my AR and went to zero it.
Pertinent information:
I am cross-dominant. That, of
course, means that I am right handed but my left eye is dominant. In shooting
handguns this is really a minor consideration, since the handgun is not mounted
to a shoulder – all one needs to do is shift the position of the handgun to the
line of sight of the (cross) dominant eye.
In shooting long guns, as in during my 10 years in the Army, I always
fired right handed but closed my dominant eye so I could sight with my
non-dominant eye. I always qualified as
an expert marksman.
With that as background, I mounted the red dot on my AR and
went to zero it. I used my standard approach
– close dominant left eye, aim with non-dominant right eye. Initial points of impact were about a foot
low and a few inches left –a good group, but off target. Adjusted windage –
shots were now about a foot low, directly below the aiming point – good group
but a foot low. Adjusted the elevation,
no change, adjusted the elevation, no change, took elevation change to its
limit, no change. I never could zero
point of impact and point of aim. Backed off of the limit and still not
change.
So, I decided to shift over the shooting left handed and
using my dominant eye. Good group, 4
inches high (!?!?!). Adjusted elevation
to bring point of impact down and there it was – shooting left handed, using
dominant left eye, rifle zeroed…Shot right handed using non-dominant eye – off target.
Shot right handed, both eyes open, blurry double image, but one dot on target –
bull’s eye.
Another bit of pertinent information: Although I have presbyopia,
I have never had any real vision problems with either eye – no pre-existing
right eye issues have my vision tested every year and had the last exam about 2
months ago. Have zeroed by scope on this same AR using my usual right
handed/non-dominant eye approach before with no issues.
Anyone have any ideas on what is happening here? Why would I be unable to get the red dot to
zero using my usual, if unorthodox and not highly recommended approach, but
then can do so if I fire left-handed and use my dominant left eye? Shouldn't either eye be able to basically adjust
the point of aim (the dot) to match the point of impact?
Would love to read any speculation.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Situational Awareness pt. I
Situational Awareness has been defined and described by numerous sources (e.g., Endsley). The consensus among the available definitions reflects several critical common elements. That is, situational awareness involves 1) the ongoing perception of what is happening around us in both space and time (comprised of attention, concentration, tracking, and pattern recognition), 2) the accurate understanding of those ongoing events in relation to ourselves (e.g., accuracy of perception, assessment of relevance, pattern recognition), and 3) the ability to project the status of elements/events into the future based on some level of probability (anticipation, pattern matching). [A last step involves selection and execution of appropriate action, but that is less a component of situational awareness than a result of SA combined with adequate operational training]. Hence, situational awareness emerges from the ability to attend to, recognize, and accurately comprehend/understand ongoing circumstances and to reliably anticipate the movements and meanings of those elements in our area of operation into the near future. These abilities precede the execution of the appropriate actions (e.g., avoid/defend, shoot/no-shoot) taken in self-defense and underlie the awareness of the need to activate selected responses; thus they are crucial to our avoidance of conflict and, ultimately, to our effective response to and resolution of conflict when unavoidable.
Skill in marksmanship and weapons manipulation come to very little benefit if one is caught unawares and fails or is late to initiate defensive action. Out-drawing the drawn weapon is hardly a viable or desirable strategy. Although, as a species we expend great energy into post-mortem evaluations, it often adds little to our ability to prevent lethal encounters. In fact, as has been noted by many trainers, it is clear that well-developed situational awareness can lead to successful problem solving and self-defense through avoidance of the need to take action. The best answer to surviving a fight is not to be in a fight, not to be there when it happens; situational awareness is a major factor underlying this optimal response (of course, there are those professions – LEO and military – which are bound to move toward the sound of gunfire). In the best case scenario, much of this process becomes automatic in nature, although the intricacies of self-defense law make it imperative that some conscious evaluation (i.e., decision making) typically mediate between awareness and action, as a function of the nature, degree, and imminence of the threat. The more unconscious some parts of the process become, the more conscious resources can be dedicated to others.
The end result is that much attention has been paid to the concept of situational awareness because it is, ultimately, our most potent weapon for ensuring personal security. Even in the absence of well-developed action- and survival-oriented skills, awareness increases the probability of survival. It is a necessary, if not always sufficient, condition for effective personal defense. If we can be aware of the presence of potential threats and anticipate their movements, we can avoid them or, if not able to evade or escape, be prepared to preemptively act against them. Such preparation has a number of advantages, the most general of which is to change the action/reaction dynamic. For instance, cognizance of an impending threat allows us, to some extent, to moderate our natural startle response, to mitigate the element of surprise that a successful assault often involves. Expecting a threat, both generally and specifically, can help mediate our level of arousal in response. Such awareness can also allow for physical preparation, such as heightened vigilance, proactively seeking cover and surreptitiously drawing and staging a weapon, again facilitating our ability to act rather than exclusively react, to disrupt the actions of our aggressor. The closer we can come to proactive defense (offense?) the more likely we are to succeed.
A prominent example of the establishment and maintenance of step one in the awareness process – attention – is found in the use of color-coded systems to reflect levels of awareness or alertness. Such systems also provide a structured means of describing our level of attention to the world around us (the most famous of these being the white, yellow, orange, and red – sometimes also black - system attributed to COL Jeff Cooper). Another useful system that encompasses attention, processing of information and responding is the OODA loop, attributed to Boyd, which describes a cycle of observing, orienting, deciding, and acting. Both provide useful tools in that they give the individual a way of evaluating their level of attention as they move through the environment and organizing a structure for conceptualizing the processing of incoming information when the level of attention/awareness is appropriate to the situation. Both constitute a useful template to plan for and execute an aware lifestyle. What both may not readily account for is the fact that so much of our information processing is at a level below consciousness; these operations must be trained to a point of moderate automaticity.
The topic that is least often addressed in discussion of situational awareness, yet perhaps the most important to acting in either defense or avoidance, is anticipation or the ability to predict and project the status of current events into a probable future so as to act accordingly. This element of the situational awareness process, although crucial, is also the most esoteric and least easily codified, trainable and definable part. It certainly takes the most time to train our ability to anticipate to a level of unconscious competence. The difficulty in understanding this process and training it is, in some ways, strange; it is, after all, the essence of what we are built to do. The human brain is built to learn (not as in reading books, but form experience), to anticipate – it has been referred to as an “anticipation machine” (Dennett). In fact, our perceptual systems are designed to project perceptions a brief time (a matter of milliseconds) into the future; this process is hypothesized to be the basis of several well-known “optical illusions”, such as the perception of parallel lines bending outward, as if we are passing between them. The notion is that our visual-spatial processing system has evolved to account the fact that we are “forward-moving organisms” that we move through space and do so most often in a forward (eyes front –they are there for a reason) fashion – we move most often into our field of vision. Hence, our visual-perceptual system has evolved a built-in correction for the time it takes to process incoming sensory information, a form of perceptual anticipation/projection that is both adaptable and unnoticeable when we are in motion, but can manifest in illusions when we are stationary.
It is also clear that our neurobiology is built to encode experiences and outcomes of our behavior – good and bad – so that these data can be used to anticipate changing situations and highlight behaviors that are most likely to “work” (function) in the future given circumstances that match some template (pattern recognition). This is the basis of learning theory. Lastly, as all of this suggests, most of this process runs most efficiently when it is running occurs outside of our conscious awareness; while it is useful for us to be able to self-talk (as in commentary driving) so as to train/increase self-awareness and build less effortful processing, once a situation is initiated, most of this program is going to run without the aid of conscious commentary.
So what? At this point I am sure you are wondering why you should care about your brain; you’re looking for ways to be better prepared for personal defense. Well, all of this suggests that we are designed to learn – not because learning is fun, will help you pass classes, get a good job someday, get a promotion, or so that we can dazzle our friends with knowledge of trivia or do crossword puzzles – not the kind of learning all of those performances imply - but in order to reliably anticipate requirements and respond accordingly, to prepare, to create the memory traces necessary for efficient and successful reaction. If we think back to where this all started, then that sounds relevant to personal defense to me. Memory is not really built-in so that we can remember all those glory days of our youth, our first kiss (or more); that conscious manifestation of memory is simply a pleasant by-product of our built-in systems for self-awareness and encoding experience. Learning and memory reflect the fact that our machinery is made to gather information for the purpose of more efficient and accurate responding when similar future situations are encountered. That’s what life is all about, is central to all survival; learning to recognize patterns of climate change or local predation so as to prepare is essential to our survival (although modern humans have worked hard to try to overcome this natural tendency). Of course, a major question then is how can we take advantage of this ability, this machinery, to increase our situational awareness – without having to look for and engage in a large number of dangerous assaultive encounters?
The process of anticipation begins early – from the wide range of stimuli encroaching upon our senses, it directs attention to the pertinent details to process recognizable patterns (stimulus templates) and select response templates that include activation of emotional responses as well. Gavin De Becker refers, in his notion of Intuitive processing…intuition, the gift of fear…to this idea that much of our processing of threat information in the environment occurs outside of our awareness and sometimes comes to us as vague feelings of unease and foreboding, and other aversive sensations. In fact, he insists that our conscious intervention in these processes is counter to our safety and security – that we, as noted above, have learned to explain away our concerns as faulty or inappropriate. This is consistent with the fact that, of the thousands to millions of bits of information that impact on our senses on an ongoing basis, only a small percentage can be consciously processed. The rest are not necessarily lost, but are processed outside of awareness. We may only become aware of these stimuli once they have activated certain embodied visceral or physiological systems. Once this happens, they often garner our effortful attention. In such cases, according to De Becker’s ideas, it is our explicit or conscious evaluations of these sensations that often take us awry. That is, as we evolved the ability to consciously monitor our reactions, we have come to talk back to such sensations, explain them away based on explicit lessons we have been taught (“don’t be rude!” “don’t prejudge”), instead of using them as cues to suggest a need to focus attention on the situation and take action. De Becker suggests, in recounting many anecdotal reports of violence, that our tendency to explain away this sense of foreboding as foolish, unfair, or even prejudiced (that’s my word) that can lead to danger. We convince ourselves NOT to follow our sensations and so put ourselves at risk.
Skill in marksmanship and weapons manipulation come to very little benefit if one is caught unawares and fails or is late to initiate defensive action. Out-drawing the drawn weapon is hardly a viable or desirable strategy. Although, as a species we expend great energy into post-mortem evaluations, it often adds little to our ability to prevent lethal encounters. In fact, as has been noted by many trainers, it is clear that well-developed situational awareness can lead to successful problem solving and self-defense through avoidance of the need to take action. The best answer to surviving a fight is not to be in a fight, not to be there when it happens; situational awareness is a major factor underlying this optimal response (of course, there are those professions – LEO and military – which are bound to move toward the sound of gunfire). In the best case scenario, much of this process becomes automatic in nature, although the intricacies of self-defense law make it imperative that some conscious evaluation (i.e., decision making) typically mediate between awareness and action, as a function of the nature, degree, and imminence of the threat. The more unconscious some parts of the process become, the more conscious resources can be dedicated to others.
The end result is that much attention has been paid to the concept of situational awareness because it is, ultimately, our most potent weapon for ensuring personal security. Even in the absence of well-developed action- and survival-oriented skills, awareness increases the probability of survival. It is a necessary, if not always sufficient, condition for effective personal defense. If we can be aware of the presence of potential threats and anticipate their movements, we can avoid them or, if not able to evade or escape, be prepared to preemptively act against them. Such preparation has a number of advantages, the most general of which is to change the action/reaction dynamic. For instance, cognizance of an impending threat allows us, to some extent, to moderate our natural startle response, to mitigate the element of surprise that a successful assault often involves. Expecting a threat, both generally and specifically, can help mediate our level of arousal in response. Such awareness can also allow for physical preparation, such as heightened vigilance, proactively seeking cover and surreptitiously drawing and staging a weapon, again facilitating our ability to act rather than exclusively react, to disrupt the actions of our aggressor. The closer we can come to proactive defense (offense?) the more likely we are to succeed.
A prominent example of the establishment and maintenance of step one in the awareness process – attention – is found in the use of color-coded systems to reflect levels of awareness or alertness. Such systems also provide a structured means of describing our level of attention to the world around us (the most famous of these being the white, yellow, orange, and red – sometimes also black - system attributed to COL Jeff Cooper). Another useful system that encompasses attention, processing of information and responding is the OODA loop, attributed to Boyd, which describes a cycle of observing, orienting, deciding, and acting. Both provide useful tools in that they give the individual a way of evaluating their level of attention as they move through the environment and organizing a structure for conceptualizing the processing of incoming information when the level of attention/awareness is appropriate to the situation. Both constitute a useful template to plan for and execute an aware lifestyle. What both may not readily account for is the fact that so much of our information processing is at a level below consciousness; these operations must be trained to a point of moderate automaticity.
The topic that is least often addressed in discussion of situational awareness, yet perhaps the most important to acting in either defense or avoidance, is anticipation or the ability to predict and project the status of current events into a probable future so as to act accordingly. This element of the situational awareness process, although crucial, is also the most esoteric and least easily codified, trainable and definable part. It certainly takes the most time to train our ability to anticipate to a level of unconscious competence. The difficulty in understanding this process and training it is, in some ways, strange; it is, after all, the essence of what we are built to do. The human brain is built to learn (not as in reading books, but form experience), to anticipate – it has been referred to as an “anticipation machine” (Dennett). In fact, our perceptual systems are designed to project perceptions a brief time (a matter of milliseconds) into the future; this process is hypothesized to be the basis of several well-known “optical illusions”, such as the perception of parallel lines bending outward, as if we are passing between them. The notion is that our visual-spatial processing system has evolved to account the fact that we are “forward-moving organisms” that we move through space and do so most often in a forward (eyes front –they are there for a reason) fashion – we move most often into our field of vision. Hence, our visual-perceptual system has evolved a built-in correction for the time it takes to process incoming sensory information, a form of perceptual anticipation/projection that is both adaptable and unnoticeable when we are in motion, but can manifest in illusions when we are stationary.
It is also clear that our neurobiology is built to encode experiences and outcomes of our behavior – good and bad – so that these data can be used to anticipate changing situations and highlight behaviors that are most likely to “work” (function) in the future given circumstances that match some template (pattern recognition). This is the basis of learning theory. Lastly, as all of this suggests, most of this process runs most efficiently when it is running occurs outside of our conscious awareness; while it is useful for us to be able to self-talk (as in commentary driving) so as to train/increase self-awareness and build less effortful processing, once a situation is initiated, most of this program is going to run without the aid of conscious commentary.
So what? At this point I am sure you are wondering why you should care about your brain; you’re looking for ways to be better prepared for personal defense. Well, all of this suggests that we are designed to learn – not because learning is fun, will help you pass classes, get a good job someday, get a promotion, or so that we can dazzle our friends with knowledge of trivia or do crossword puzzles – not the kind of learning all of those performances imply - but in order to reliably anticipate requirements and respond accordingly, to prepare, to create the memory traces necessary for efficient and successful reaction. If we think back to where this all started, then that sounds relevant to personal defense to me. Memory is not really built-in so that we can remember all those glory days of our youth, our first kiss (or more); that conscious manifestation of memory is simply a pleasant by-product of our built-in systems for self-awareness and encoding experience. Learning and memory reflect the fact that our machinery is made to gather information for the purpose of more efficient and accurate responding when similar future situations are encountered. That’s what life is all about, is central to all survival; learning to recognize patterns of climate change or local predation so as to prepare is essential to our survival (although modern humans have worked hard to try to overcome this natural tendency). Of course, a major question then is how can we take advantage of this ability, this machinery, to increase our situational awareness – without having to look for and engage in a large number of dangerous assaultive encounters?
The process of anticipation begins early – from the wide range of stimuli encroaching upon our senses, it directs attention to the pertinent details to process recognizable patterns (stimulus templates) and select response templates that include activation of emotional responses as well. Gavin De Becker refers, in his notion of Intuitive processing…intuition, the gift of fear…to this idea that much of our processing of threat information in the environment occurs outside of our awareness and sometimes comes to us as vague feelings of unease and foreboding, and other aversive sensations. In fact, he insists that our conscious intervention in these processes is counter to our safety and security – that we, as noted above, have learned to explain away our concerns as faulty or inappropriate. This is consistent with the fact that, of the thousands to millions of bits of information that impact on our senses on an ongoing basis, only a small percentage can be consciously processed. The rest are not necessarily lost, but are processed outside of awareness. We may only become aware of these stimuli once they have activated certain embodied visceral or physiological systems. Once this happens, they often garner our effortful attention. In such cases, according to De Becker’s ideas, it is our explicit or conscious evaluations of these sensations that often take us awry. That is, as we evolved the ability to consciously monitor our reactions, we have come to talk back to such sensations, explain them away based on explicit lessons we have been taught (“don’t be rude!” “don’t prejudge”), instead of using them as cues to suggest a need to focus attention on the situation and take action. De Becker suggests, in recounting many anecdotal reports of violence, that our tendency to explain away this sense of foreboding as foolish, unfair, or even prejudiced (that’s my word) that can lead to danger. We convince ourselves NOT to follow our sensations and so put ourselves at risk.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Not buying it
I simply do not buy the tears. And even if I thought they were real, I would see them as misguided, as a symbol of the emotional logic in play instead of a more rational approach, the sign of someone motivated to do something without thinking.
Let's be clear on this; nothing that your president did - using a decidedly undemocratic process (more on that later) - will make a difference to the incidence of "mass shootings". I have to believe that he knows this - that he is not so stupid (devious perhaps, but not stupid), not unfamiliar with the particulars of the cases about which he is crying and has read research and data reported by federal agencies that our tax dollars support. Given that belief, I can only assume that he is being devious, that he is nibbling away at this right with the intention to set the stage for his successor to further infringe on it.
1. "Gun show loophole". This is, at best, a misnomer and, at worst, a purposeful deception. This "loophole" does not exist. Private individuals, not in business (and there are regulations that define what "being in business" means in this case) can sell their legal and legally-held private property anywhere and at any time. Sometimes that private property includes potentially deadly products (e.g., cars or firearms). In the case of firearms, they do not need a gun show to do this, nor the internet. Having bought firearms at gun shows and over the internet, I can tell you that the vast (really vast) majority of sales at those venues involve dealers (people "in the business") with FFLs and purchasers completing NICS checks. I have always had to complete a background check. Data consistently show that a vast majority (over 99%) of firearms used in crimes are not obtained via gun shows, but are stolen or bought illegally on the street (as in from people who have them illegally themselves) - that is, obtained in a manner that is already illegal. Making law-abiding people jump through hoops to legally purchase legal products is not going to change the illegal commerce committed by criminals - it doesn't work with drugs and will not work with firearms. It is certain that your president knows this - if he is not that well-informed, then he is not qualified to lead.
2. "Increased investigation and prosecution of gun crime". This would be a welcome effort given that recent data indicate that such prosecution has declined over Obama's term. How many cases can we read in the media about straw purchasers who are not prosecuted - even (or especially) when the firearms were used to commit crime. How long did it take to charge Enrique Marquez with the straw purchase of the weapons used in the San Bernardino terrorist shooting? As has been noted many times, the crimes being committed by these killers are already illegal. The problem is that gun laws that are already on the books are not being enforced until tragedy ensues; the result is akin to the "Broken Windows" notion. If you show by your inaction that you do not care and will not enforce, then you implicitly condone lawlessness.
3. "Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system." As a mental health professional, I applaud this to some extent. However, just as with the "No-Fly list", one needs to be on-guard against misuse and abuse of such processes. Again, as a professional, I also know that there is a lot of judgement involved and, quite frankly, I would not want many of my own peers making such decisions, as they are like most liberals and consider wanting to own firearms as a disorder in and of itself.
4. "Smart Guns". I think most of us will believe that such a thing is feasible, really exists and is sufficiently reliable when we see such firearms used by Law Enforcement, Secret Service, and Military. Until you (and your president) think it is reliable enough that you are willing to bet your own personal safety and protection in it, then it is not enough for me to do so.
Lots more in there to parse, but as would be expected those whose philosophical positions are in line with the executive orders will find them reasonable while those who think they are over-reach and meaningless will not. What is clear is that they will not have any effect on crime and I think they are cynical in that they are not really intended to have an effect. They serve two purposes in the short and long term. In the short term, they are political statements and strategies, intended to gin up the liberal base; they are meaningless gestures, just like the tears, meant to have an emotional but not actual effect. Second, in the long term, their most sinister effect is to create an atmosphere that may ultimately lead to larger confiscation efforts - they, at least symbolically, put the government's toes over the line. I know - some who will read this consider it right-wing rhetoric. But I think it is true that your president knows that this will not work - that he is purposefully avoiding making or endorsing effective changes that he is philosophically opposed to (e.g., recognizing that lawful gun ownership decreases crime, that lawful carriers stop crimes every day) and instead making ineffective moves which, when ineffective, he can point to as evidence of the need for more draconian changes.
Lastly, all of this is more evidence of the short-sightedness of Americans. I noted to conservatives, years ago, when GWB and Cheney asserted the notion an imperial presidency, that supporters of this would rue that day when his liberal successors did the same. People always love over-assertion of presidential power when they agree with the president's goals, when they are philosophical sycophants. They always decry it as excessive when they do not.
So, as dangerous or useless as the content of these orders may be, the truth is they are more dangerous as a process. This move effectively violates the nature and structure of our government, the role of check and balances, how the party which is not in power, whoever they may be, is protected against a tyrannical executive. It is a dangerous precedent and those who would cheer it due to agreeing with its goals should consider whether they prefer a government where a president can exercise that kind of power when they do not share its goals. For instance, could similar executive orders be used to curtail and interfere with access to abortion? This is a symptom of a president out of control - has shades of Nixon noting "If the president does it, then it is legal". Applaud it now, but you may abhor it later.
Let's be clear on this; nothing that your president did - using a decidedly undemocratic process (more on that later) - will make a difference to the incidence of "mass shootings". I have to believe that he knows this - that he is not so stupid (devious perhaps, but not stupid), not unfamiliar with the particulars of the cases about which he is crying and has read research and data reported by federal agencies that our tax dollars support. Given that belief, I can only assume that he is being devious, that he is nibbling away at this right with the intention to set the stage for his successor to further infringe on it.
1. "Gun show loophole". This is, at best, a misnomer and, at worst, a purposeful deception. This "loophole" does not exist. Private individuals, not in business (and there are regulations that define what "being in business" means in this case) can sell their legal and legally-held private property anywhere and at any time. Sometimes that private property includes potentially deadly products (e.g., cars or firearms). In the case of firearms, they do not need a gun show to do this, nor the internet. Having bought firearms at gun shows and over the internet, I can tell you that the vast (really vast) majority of sales at those venues involve dealers (people "in the business") with FFLs and purchasers completing NICS checks. I have always had to complete a background check. Data consistently show that a vast majority (over 99%) of firearms used in crimes are not obtained via gun shows, but are stolen or bought illegally on the street (as in from people who have them illegally themselves) - that is, obtained in a manner that is already illegal. Making law-abiding people jump through hoops to legally purchase legal products is not going to change the illegal commerce committed by criminals - it doesn't work with drugs and will not work with firearms. It is certain that your president knows this - if he is not that well-informed, then he is not qualified to lead.
2. "Increased investigation and prosecution of gun crime". This would be a welcome effort given that recent data indicate that such prosecution has declined over Obama's term. How many cases can we read in the media about straw purchasers who are not prosecuted - even (or especially) when the firearms were used to commit crime. How long did it take to charge Enrique Marquez with the straw purchase of the weapons used in the San Bernardino terrorist shooting? As has been noted many times, the crimes being committed by these killers are already illegal. The problem is that gun laws that are already on the books are not being enforced until tragedy ensues; the result is akin to the "Broken Windows" notion. If you show by your inaction that you do not care and will not enforce, then you implicitly condone lawlessness.
3. "Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system." As a mental health professional, I applaud this to some extent. However, just as with the "No-Fly list", one needs to be on-guard against misuse and abuse of such processes. Again, as a professional, I also know that there is a lot of judgement involved and, quite frankly, I would not want many of my own peers making such decisions, as they are like most liberals and consider wanting to own firearms as a disorder in and of itself.
4. "Smart Guns". I think most of us will believe that such a thing is feasible, really exists and is sufficiently reliable when we see such firearms used by Law Enforcement, Secret Service, and Military. Until you (and your president) think it is reliable enough that you are willing to bet your own personal safety and protection in it, then it is not enough for me to do so.
Lots more in there to parse, but as would be expected those whose philosophical positions are in line with the executive orders will find them reasonable while those who think they are over-reach and meaningless will not. What is clear is that they will not have any effect on crime and I think they are cynical in that they are not really intended to have an effect. They serve two purposes in the short and long term. In the short term, they are political statements and strategies, intended to gin up the liberal base; they are meaningless gestures, just like the tears, meant to have an emotional but not actual effect. Second, in the long term, their most sinister effect is to create an atmosphere that may ultimately lead to larger confiscation efforts - they, at least symbolically, put the government's toes over the line. I know - some who will read this consider it right-wing rhetoric. But I think it is true that your president knows that this will not work - that he is purposefully avoiding making or endorsing effective changes that he is philosophically opposed to (e.g., recognizing that lawful gun ownership decreases crime, that lawful carriers stop crimes every day) and instead making ineffective moves which, when ineffective, he can point to as evidence of the need for more draconian changes.
Lastly, all of this is more evidence of the short-sightedness of Americans. I noted to conservatives, years ago, when GWB and Cheney asserted the notion an imperial presidency, that supporters of this would rue that day when his liberal successors did the same. People always love over-assertion of presidential power when they agree with the president's goals, when they are philosophical sycophants. They always decry it as excessive when they do not.
So, as dangerous or useless as the content of these orders may be, the truth is they are more dangerous as a process. This move effectively violates the nature and structure of our government, the role of check and balances, how the party which is not in power, whoever they may be, is protected against a tyrannical executive. It is a dangerous precedent and those who would cheer it due to agreeing with its goals should consider whether they prefer a government where a president can exercise that kind of power when they do not share its goals. For instance, could similar executive orders be used to curtail and interfere with access to abortion? This is a symptom of a president out of control - has shades of Nixon noting "If the president does it, then it is legal". Applaud it now, but you may abhor it later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)