A shooting in Kansas.

Reading over a report on the shooting at a Kansas lawn mower manufacturer.

Some interesting points:

1.  "Just 90 minutes after authorities served Cedric Larry Ford a protection order barring him from contact with his girlfriend, he went on a shooting spree that ended in four deaths, including his own, and left 14 others wounded."

Well, there's the power of your paperwork.

2.  "Gov. Sam Brownback (R) said Friday it appears that officer was Hesston Police Chief Doug Schroeder, according to The Associated Press. Instead of waiting for assistance, Schroeder “seized the situation,” Brownback said."

One has to wonder:  If the company had not prohibited concealed carry on the premises, could someone else on scene have "seized the situation" earlier?

Especially given:

"Ford died in a shootout with an officer 26 minutes after the first shooting was reported. That officer is being is being hailed as a hero who saved lives."

Twenty-six minutes after the shooting was reported.  Could it be that someone carrying a firearm could have given Ford something else to think about for many of those minutes, even if the shooting could not be stopped?  As has been noted many times before in previous incidents, most such shooters do not last long once they meet armed resistance.  it can certainly limit their mobility to come under suppressive fire from friendlies.

3.  "Harvey County Sheriff T. Walton said Friday morning that he didn’t know how Ford was able to obtain guns. Ford was a felon and had “been in my jail a couple times before,” Walton said."

Well, it would be good to know this I think since it is clear the gun control folks are going to leap on this one. Mmmm...convicted felon posting videos/pictures to his FB account firing weapons.

Oh - and if you go to Huffington Post to read the link, be sure to read the comments.  This is the fault of every law-abiding person who owns a gun and does not want to hand it over the Hillary or Bernie.

And the one who thinks that the Iowa law means people can give guns to toddler - priceless.

Dark times ahead.

Oh (should I say "Iowa") the outrage!

So, to no one's great surprise, we have seen a few different headlines about the Iowa law that will allow children to learn about and handle firearms with parental supervision.  Most I have run into, because I read a lot of liberal media and have many FB "friends" (whatever that means) who are gun-ignorant and gun-hating liberal democrats, are just completely and totally outraged at the idea that parents might make those kinds of decisions for their children, to teach them safe gun handling.

Let's be clear:  Such individuals hate firearms and, quite frankly, hate those who do not similarly hate them.  They consider us bumpkins, hicks, animals, killers, morons, throwbacks, neanderthals - well, you get the picture. For one such example, see Huffington Post here. Let's also be clear that most of those who are outraged, don't care much about children until they are born - until that time, children are a nuisance to be eliminated at will, since "It is my body, my choice". This relates to sex education which comes up later.

Of course, these same people who want us to pretend our children are not curious, who want us to believe that the best thing we can do is pretend guns don't exist, blow a gasket when a child somewhere finds a gun and a tragedy ensues.  Hence, they apparently want our children to be ignorant, yet suffer for being ignorant. They don't want children to be exposed to guns, to know about guns, to respect guns, to be informed on guns and to learn about gun safety.  They seemingly prefer that the first time a child encounter a gun be their last.

It is more rarely noted in these articles that this law emerged from concerns expressed by RESPONSIBLE gun owning parents who were being denied by law the chance to educate their children on firearms safety.  Yes, these parents wanted to be responsible, to teach their children, and were being denied the chance, much apparently to the pleasure of gun-ignorant liberals.

Do you have kids?  Have you noticed yet that they are curious? Have you noticed that their curiosity is only heightened when you hide things from them, make them forbidden?  Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, sex, Playboys, Christmas presents, make-up, GUNS? Do you really live in a fantasy world where children are not curious and will not be exposed to such things.  I bet you are in favor of sex education in schools and even giving out condoms in schools.  I bet you don't think that providing condoms is likely to increase teen sex.  I bet you believe that teaching about safe sex at least reduces harm in the cases where sex is going to happen. That you want to teach them to understand and respect their bodies so they can use them safely.

Well shit Sherlock - same damn thing is going to happen with gun education.  Kids are going to be kids, so how about we find ways to make them safe with the things they do.  No one is saying that kids should be able to carry guns, have guns without parental supervision.  But kids will, at some point in their lives, encounter guns (just like drugs and sex); it makes sense to be sure they are educated on them and their safe use and handling. Appalled by gun-related accidents? then stop forbidding people fmr teaching about guns.

Remember: "No one is coming for your guns!"

It is a common refrain from gun-control advocates when faced with second amendment supporters who say they will not relinquish their firearms or the right to bear them:  "You're paranoid!  No one is coming for your guns!".  POTUS has said this numerous times.  I just got this response myself this weekend when I noted that I would not vote for anyone who considered the second amendment rights negotiable - this from someone who thinks if Trump were elected (no, I am not a Trump fan) the borders would close the next day: "No one is coming to collect your guns".

But no one thinks that we will go from where we are to having armed government groups going door to door confiscating firearms.  That kind of change does not happen overnight, it happens slowly, bit by bit.

In evidence of that I submit the latest from Gabby Giffords and her ilk. At each step the cry is for sensible reasonable gun control measures - it starts with "All we need to do is legislate universal background checks. Who can possibly disagree with such a reasonable measure?"  Then, when that idea has been adopted and becomes the "new normal", the next small bite of the elephant is taken. But we know where that leads. No group ever gives up its freedoms in one bite - it is small nibbles until it is all gone.

For those whose hate for guns is so blinding that they cannot see how this works, perhaps it will help to think of it like the case of FBI/DOJ v. Apple  - demanding that Apple create a hack to break encryption "...on just this one cell phone.  We need it for safety and security".  All of the victims families chime in - "Yes, we need to violate rights for the sake of security".  Perhaps for now it is one phone, but once that is done, what will be needed next - a means for hacking into all cell phones of those deemed suspicious? Do you really believe this would not be step one in a slow process to erode your rights? Haven't we already seen that?  Beware cheering it when you agree with it, because it may be at your door next!

Note:  From Huffington Post:  "The filing -- a letter by an Apple lawyer in an unrelated New York drug case -- noted that federal judges across the country have ordered the tech giant to help the federal government unlock as many as 15 iPhones and other Apple devices in a number of ongoing investigations."

So you think it ends there?

Note the similarity:  We need to limit your rights for our safety, we will only do it to criminals.  It is just this one reasonable step, how could anyone deny it?  Think of the victims of such heinous people!  But who is a criminal?  Who defines who is a criminal?  Gun owners, drug users, democratic socialists?  It's all fine and good until the day your name ends up on the list.  But just smile - we fall down one inch at a time and never notice until we hit rock bottom with the weight of tyranny sitting on our chests.

One difference:  Once the content of your phone becomes government property, you're screwed.  Oh, you'll still carry it because it is your lifeline, but when they want what's on it, they'll have it.  As you bite away at the elephant that is gun rights, you may increase restrictions, write laws, amend constitutions, even find ways to restrict access to training and ammunition. But you will not take people's firearms, they will not all be given up willingly.  If they are given it will be muzzle first.  Are you ready for that, do you find great perverse pleasures in the possibility of watching law enforcement or military going door-to-door like in Nazi Germany? Are you ready to watch the bloodshed that will ensue?

Here we go again!

In the wake of another crazy person breaking the law (thus, not a law-abiding gun owner) randomly killing unarmed people, once more POTUS is weighing in:

"We need to do more if we're going to keep innocent Americans safe," Obama said while addressing the National Governors Association on Monday. "I've got to assume that all of you are just tired as I am of seeing this stuff happen in your states. So, that's an area where we also need to partner and think about what we can do in a common sense way, in a bipartisan way without some of the ideological rhetoric that so often surrounds that issue."

So, what is his common sense, bipartisan way and how will his rhetoric not be ideological?  What "sensible" thing will be proposed this time?

Will be waiting to hear how it will be necessary for everyone else to give up a right because some people don't know how to live with it.  What would people be saying if instead of shooting them, this killer had run people down with his car?

Situational Awareness, Pt. 2

One way of describing the process we can use to transfer SA from conscious to less-conscious control is moving from learning to over-learning. One way of achieving over-learning involves a general strategy to engage in repetition in as many contexts as possible, to facilitate generalization of the process, to make it reflexive and, to some extent, independent of context. Fortunately for us, we are blessed with a brain that does not always effectively distinguish between in-vivo and imaginal experience, a characteristic that we can put to good use. Long-term memory is part and parcel of early recognition, anticipation, activation and expert performance – and transfer to long-term memory is an issue of repetition (long-term potentiation). One way we can train this ability up without having to engage in daily dangerous encounters or gunfights is via the use of visualization. But this is most effective when it is not simply thinking personal defense through with eyes closed in our easy chair. As noted in Part I, we move through our day and the many environments we move in are likely to share commonalities with those in which we might one day find ourselves under threat. To quote General James Mattes - a favorite among personal defense advocates; “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet”. Everyone, all the time, no matter where you are. This takes work and mental work can be both effective useful, as we move through our day, allowing us to practice the skill of attending to those around us, evaluating their status in relation to us, and anticipating their movements and actions, and considering high-probability responses to their alternative actions – thus we are training the full sequence of situational awareness and the response cycle on an ongoing basis. We can also visualize alternative actions those around us might take and anticipate our possible responses and their effects. In order to effectively create automatic responding we need repetition – to both move from learning to over-learning, from the need for conscious mediation to more automatic processing and to associate these “habits” of attention, search, evaluation and anticipation with as many different environments as possible (common and specific patterns). We also need to link these processes to some number of stereotypical responses. In the end, this achieves an end state that is often called “unconscious competence”.

In general then we want to develop general skills of anticipation; it may be that our best approach to this skill on a daily basis is to play a sort of “what happens next” game. To do so, we have to attend, to see what is happening around us, who is in our AO, what they are doing. Second, we need to accurately ascertain their status in relation to us (make a threat assessment); are they moving toward or away, focusing on us or distracted, looking elsewhere, where are their hands, do they appear hostile, making furtive or rapid movement, moving with purpose, aggressive, passive, do they stand out from the baseline? Are there indications they are armed? In most cases, thankfully, the answer will be “No”, but this is a process we need to ingrain into our daily activities. Lastly, ask ourselves “What happens next?” - can we project their movements in relation to us into the near future? Can we predict these with some degree of probability based on our experience? Can we envision an action we would take based on several different projections as a function of probability? [Assess, alarm, avoid, assault] It has been noticed that this type of exercise can often be done while driving and while it does have some inherent limitations (e.g., it is a less likely scenario for an assault, its similarity to a wide range of assault contexts is limited) it can be useful in honing general skills of attention, awareness, anticipation, and, when required, action. One recommendation made when training situational awareness via driving is the use of Commentary Driving – to actually talk our way through our travels, to notice who and what are around us, and to actively recount them in commentary out loud. Of course, it is a small step from this commentary to adding a layer of prediction, not only that we note behavior in our environment, but predict with some degree of probability that this car will likely move into our lane, that car will probably pull out in front of us, this driver is texting, and so on. So we actively observe, predict, prepare, and act if necessary. Our best bet in such practice is to most often focus, in addition to most probable events, on predictions that present the highest level of threat to our own safety. Hence, we would most closely focus on and prepare for the prediction that a car is going to swerve into our lane than that it will not; our predictions reflect both probability and threat. Low probability events become meaningful when the potential threat (harm) associated with them is high. It is the predicted behaviors that have implications for our safety that are paramount in our SA.

Another way to potentially interpret the reactions that de Becker suggested are important for us to attend to is to see them as expectancy violations. There is ample research that, even in rats, when an expectation is violated (in essence, when an anticipated sequence of events does not follow predictions flowing from accumulated experience – what might be called “anomalies” in the system described in Left of Bang), neurons in the brain fire as signals that something is not right, something not expected has happened, and thus attention is directed toward that stimulus. This, again, may be part of that uncomfortable, unusual sensation that must be explored and entertained rather than rationalized away.

Another issue we must contend with when it comes to awareness is the fact that our ability to exert self-control – such as sustained, focused attention - is a limited resource (as noted in several articles by Baumeister). We cannot indefinitely maintain a high level of vigilance without our attention waning to some degree. Most of us have experienced this phenomenon – we go from listening to a lecture or our significant other to all of a sudden finding ourselves day dreaming and realizing we have missed parts of the presentation (often much to the detriment of grades or relationships). Research has shown that self-control – effortful attention and information processing – functions in a manner similar to our neuromuscular system; just as our muscles use large amounts of energy during exertion and can fatigue quickly, so does and can our ability to sustain mental effort. Also similar to a muscle, there is at least some evidence that we can increase or train this ability to some extent – get better at sustaining attention and concentration for longer periods of time. One way that we can avoid this over-burdening of our attention and self-control capacity is via the successful and appropriate modulation of attention to the situation; this, at least in part, underlies the functional utility of a color code system such as that proposed by Cooper. This system codifies the idea that we need not be in a state of alarm at all times; in fact, we can’t sustain those high levels of arousal and focus for long. Although being in condition white (relaxed and unaware) should be a rarity of us, particularly when outside of areas we control, it is clear that we also cannot maintain orange (on alert to an existing threat stimulus) on a continuous basis and, indeed, our ability to remain in yellow (relaxed but aware) may even be strained over longer periods. Thus part of the lesson here is one we might call “meta-attention” – that is, being aware of our current level of attention and the level called for by the current situation. By “attending to our attention” we can maintain necessary levels while moderating the depletion of this limited but valuable resource.

Thus, two lessons are important; one is to maintain the appropriate level of vigilance for the situation, so as not to consume more resources than are necessary at any one time. This can often be difficult in that we are also naturally inclined to believe that one can never be too cautious or too vigilant. However, to the extent that we know our ability to maintain strict focus will be limited by our available attentional energy, it is important that we use those resources when they are most needed and preserve them when they are not. Part of this distinction is knowing when and where one is and recognizing the differential risk involved. In general, most of us know when the more risky times of day are and where the risks are most critical. As has often been said and was noted earlier, the best defense is “not to be there”. How often do we hear of the “innocent person” (often a male adolescent) who was killed in a dangerous part of town at 2 AM and wonder “What was that person doing there at that time?” We can also moderate this effect by being sure those with us are attending as well; in effect, “covering” for us or “on overwatch”.

The second message we can learn from this need to modulate attention is that we need to ensure down-times, create safe times and zones where those resources can be regenerated, where risk can be more controlled in mechanical ways. This may be easier for the armed civilian than for those who are duty-sworn, but even those whose occupations are defined by risk and states of alarm must find times that the system can wind down and rejuvenate. It is the danger associated with doing double shifts, whether one is a law enforcement officer, a soldier on a perimeter, or an emergency room surgeon; mistakes happen and lives are at risk when attention and concentration are exhausted. Such exposure is also part and parcel of combat stress reactions. As noted above, this can often be done by controlling the environment - identifying safe places (for the civilian, having a safe, secure, well protected home - and, when a safe place is not available, via cooperation among participants; trading off level of vigilance (having “two soldiers per foxhole”). This, of course, requires trust between comrades, a working relationship. One must trust the other members of their team, tribe, community to do their job and each member must know that their comrades’ or principals’ lives are in his hands.

One cannot be distracted from their sector so as to monitor someone else’s.

Well, he wanted to know

So on Huffington Post some State Representative from Massachusetts named Paul Heroux asked the following questions in an article called "What if the Second Amendment were Repealed?"

Well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html

 This is a thought experiment; a hypothetical. There are no right or wrong answers.

•What would you do if all of the requirements of Article V of the Constitution were met and the Second Amendment was repealed?

I would ignore the conclusion.  I have no intention to relinquish my arms.  What those who seek such  an outcome fail to understand is that the Second Amendment does not grant any right, it merely asserts that the natural and pre-existing right shall not be infringed.  Note:  It does not say “The people have the right…”. IT assumes the right – “The right of the people…”  So repeal immediately changes nothing, until someone takes that as a cue to infringe upon this natural right that was accepted to exist prior to the US Constitution. The founders clearly accepted that this was not a right to grant, but a right to protect, a right as sacrosanct as any other right protected by our Constitution.

Should some choose to infringe on it - then there will be trouble.

•What would you do if the Second Amendment was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms does apply to an individual, but only individuals in a militia?

I would ignore it.  I have no intention to relinquish my arms and do not recognize SCOTUS authority to do so as what has become a political arm for partisan policy.  Again, this right predates the US and SCOTUS so no institution created by that Constitution has a right to infringe upon it.

•If the defense of the Second Amendment rests in reference to the Constitution as it stands now, what argument would you use if the Constitution was changed to no longer protect the individual right to bear arms?

None – until someone tried to infringe on it.  I have learned, lo these many years, not to argue with fools or small children and, in this case, both apply.  There is no argument to be made that can persuade those who would take our rights.  So then my argument would come from my disobedience and, if necessary, the barrel of a gun and my timely demise.  The Second Amendment was meant to protect just that right, because that is what was needed to preserve a free state.  

I have no intention of letting anyone take my guns.

•As a law abiding gun owner, would you give up your guns?

No – if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.  So I will be an outlaw.

•What do you think would happen to violent crime rates, accidental shootings and suicides?

I suspect violent crime would increase to some extent, since those who commit it – even now – are armed unlawfully.  No change you have alluded to would change their status as outlaws, only the status of those who would fail to comply with the NEW dictate. And those who did comply would change from citizens to victims.

Accidental shootings have been decreasing because people can train themselves and others. The unintended consequences of this foolish notion would likely be to increase them because such law would limit the amount of gun safety training one could engage in without potential consequence.

I suspect no real difference in overall suicides – only a potential change in the means used.

•Would you follow the new law of the land that was legitimately established, just as laws allowing the possession of a firearm have been legitimately established?

No – because no law can truly deny my right to protect myself and my family.  The law did not establish that right – it merely protected it from infringement. If the law that protects it is repealed or replaced, the right still stands.

Not sure what you wanted to hear, but I am too old to start living on bended knee. I do not have enough left that I really need to do, to be cowed into a submissive state.

Yup!