Comments

On concealed carry and decision-making: Branca’s reply — 54 Comments

1. On a related note: Here’s a post from today’s Instapundit [emphasis mine]:

   THIS IS WHY YOU NEED A GUN: Subway Stabbing Victim Can’t Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him.

   A man who was brutally stabbed by Brooklyn subway slasher Maksim Gelman two years ago had his negligence case against the city dismissed in court yesterday, despite the fact that two transit officers had locked themselves in a motorman’s car only a few feet from him at the time of the attack.

   Gelman stabbed Joseph Lozito in the face, neck, hands and head on an uptown 3 train in February 2011, after fatally stabbing four people and injuring three others in a 28-hour period. Lozito, a father of two and an avid martial arts fan, was able to tackle Gelman and hold him down, and Gelman was eventually arrested by the transit officers. Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor’s car and failed to come to his aid in time.

   The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no “special duty” to intervene at the time, and that they were in the motorman’s car because they believed Gelman had a gun.

   They want you to be unable to protect yourself, they should be insurers [sic] against any harm they don’t prevent. It’s only fair.

   Posted at 8:47 am by Glenn Reynolds

   To Serve and Protect (Themselves). You, on the other hand, can pound sand.

2. When you need the police NOW, they’re only 10 minutes away. Roughly. More or less, likely more.

3. Also, to comment on Andrew Branca’s comments about not contributing to a situation so that it escalates into deadly violence, note this comment from Wm Levinson’s recent article on the Cooper Color Code:

   The lesson is, therefore, to put as much distance as you can between yourself and a suspicious individual even if you are armed. He can otherwise bring a knife to a gunfight, and win.

   http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/how_the_cooper_color_code_explains_stand_your_ground_and_prevents_crime.html#.UfPLTAPpKLw.email

   I, for one, never interpreted Branca’s remarks as “do not protect women and children or render assistance” as some readers have. In fact, Branca’s example was walking away from a loud-mouthed drunk. The message IMO was that, if carrying a concealed firearm, one must be discriminating enough to prevent petty and irritating situations from escalating into events requiring deadly force.

4. The Zimmerman case, and now followed up by the New Orleans guy whose life is now going to become a living hell – charged with attempted murder for shooting a punk who climbed over his fense and who the homeowner then thought was pulling a gun……real eye openers.

   I don’t care if somebody calls it “survival of the fittest,” or moral cowardice or whatever…..I am going to be even more hesitant that I was before, about ever pulling out my (CC permitted) handgun, if I am witnessing a crime being committed in public…..even it it appears to be a violent crime – to try to come to someone’s aid and stop it.

   And if I ever wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of someone trying to break into my home, I am going to be more likely to hesitate in terms of what I should do -even tho it may elevate the risk to myself and my family – especially if the intruder is African American.

   “Warning shots” are a big no-no, in Fla. But I’d rather be tried for firing a warning shot at a would be mugger or home intruder, who then ran away, unharmed, than be tried for shooting him. No matter how “legally justified” my shooting him may have been.

   The risk of being “Zimmermaned” has to now, more than ever before, be factored in to the equation in terms of planning and preparing oneself for any eventuality that might involve having to draw your weapon. Zim really reinforced for me that, today in this country, you can be prosecuted purely for political reasons.

   Kind of fits when you think about it. After all, we now now that you can be specifically targeted by the Feds for “special” treatment, just by belonging to an organization having the wrong political beliefs.

5. My awareness/attitude has changed greatly since I completed CCW class and started carrying a firearm. I am much more observant of my surroundings and possible/potential threats.

   Also, I have given a lot of thought of who and what I would use deadly force to protect. I would have to be directly threatened for me to un-holster my piece.

6. southernjames:

   I believe that a very big part of the goal around the Zimmerman case and the media, etc. is to do just that: to intimidate people from using guns to defend themselves and others.

7. Neo says:
   “Seems to me he’s saying that each person with a legal concealed weapon must make the decision for him/herself as to what the goal of carrying a weapon is, and how far he/she is willing to go to protect self, family, or others.”
   That is exactly what I said in an argument about the Zimmerman case a few weeks ago on this blog. I’m a CHL holder in Texas. As he implies, it’s a good idea to know exactly what you will and will not use the gun to do. Defending your life, your family’s life, your friend’s life – Yes.
   Break up a bar fight, no. Patrol my neighborhood — not for me. Maybe somebody else makes that decision, but you can see how it might end up, whether you’re on the right side of the law or not. If somebody breaks into my home and I’m there, I’m not going to assume they aren’t dangerous, they’re going to get shot. If they’re in my back yard, I’m calling the police. If they put their hand on the door knob, they better duck. If somebody is being violently attacked – depends on the situation. Are they shooting up the mall? That’s a no brainer. Are they being beaten with a club? Yes, I’d use it to warn the person off; but I wouldn’t shoot unless they moved toward me with it. And I would probably miss; statistically, that’s what happens even with trained policemen. That’s why I practice a lot.
   I agree with most everything he says – if you’re armed and you are not 100% clear in your own head which situations are worth taking a life, you’re a danger to yourself and others. A part of the CHL training amounts to non-violent conflict resolution and how to keep from escalating a bad situation.
   For me, what Branca says about not escalating a non-deadly event into a deadly one is important. It may not always be possible given the situation, but the smartest choice is usually to try and avoid trouble rather than let yourself get into situations that you could anticipate becoming dangerous. Normal people do that with or without a gun. That doesn’t mean run away from an attacker — that’s a different issue and an immediate threat you have a right to deal with. A woman who works nights and has to enter her car alone in unsecure parking lots – sometimes you can’t avoid those situations, and it’s a good idea to protect yourself.
   But carrying a firearm also puts the carrier in a certain amount of danger if they are not careful, and that’s his point.

8. Unfortunately, when you urgently need the police in the next 60 seconds, they are, usually, only 15 minutes away and, realistically, they are really just the “after action” cleanup crew, picking through the physical, mental, and emotional wreckage . So, if you do not want to be at the mercy of someone else and to emerge from the experience in one piece, your own defense, and often the defense of your loved ones (not to mention, perhaps, innocent bystanders) really rests on your shoulders.

   From some of the information out there about what to expect/do after a “shoot”–no matter how open and shut the circumstances are, or how favorable the facts might be to you–at least some of the lawyers who handle these detailed discussions tell you not to say anything whatsoever to the police without your lawyer present and that, if you do decide to talk to the police–who are not really your friends in this situation–to be extremely careful what you say and how you describe the sequence of events and your thoughts and actions in the emotional aftermath of a “shoot” and–to be ready–really to expect–to at least be handcuffed, and closely questioned, and often, depending on the jurisdiction, likely arrested at the whim of the local police or sheriff, possibly spend several hours or days in jail, and then very likely be prosecuted/tried at the whim of the local prosecutor–see the Zimmerman case (a prosecutor who might, according to Masaad Ayoub, an acknowledged expert in these matters, often focus not so much on what the perp did but, rather, on things like the details of how many shots you fired, how many hit the perp, where, and in what sequence, what kind of weapons you chose to use and their characteristics and possible modifications, and your choice of ammunition, all as clues to whether or not you had been deliberately setting yourself up to be a “killer”).

   And, if there is such an arrest and prosecution, these attorneys tell you to expect to likely have to devote an enormous amount of time, and likely spend a hundred thousand dollars or perhaps much more to defend yourself, with no certain assurance, even then, of staying out of jail, and all this, not even counting the often lasting psychological problems precipitated by such a “shoot.”

   So, you had best be certain that when you shoot, it’s worth it.

   This legal and procedural setup and atmosphere nowadays, of course, all heavily influenced by the Left–you didn’t think that, along with subverting/capturing the MSM, Academia, and Hollywood, they would forget to subvert/capture the Law schools (now looking much more to case law and the precedents derived from such rather than to the Constitution), much of the legal profession, many prosecutor positions, and a lot of the cop shops around did you?–see Zimmerman again–as part of the campaign to make you hesitant to see to your own defense, to whittle away at and to, ultimately, deprive you of both your right to self-defense and, not coincidentally, your linked rights to private property, privacy, and the “quiet enjoyment” of your life and possessions, for that is what a lot of the increasing tidal wave of government regulations-aimed at criminalizing ordinary conduct–and the government’s increasing resort to eminent domain are all about.

   Increasingly our government wants a monopoly on the use of force (a sure route to ultimate Tyranny), with the current state of play perhaps a replay of how the disarming of citizens and their loss of their right to defend themselves–even in their own homes–started out in England.

9. Neo-neocon,

   I agree and I hold the Holder DOJ especially suspect.

   There have also been several mentions of police forces becoming militarized (SWAT teams and military weapons) and it is clear that, at least in my area, when asked, the police seem to discourage civilian possession of weapons. It’s easy to understand why. If a populace is unarmed as a matter of course, it’s an easy decision to make that anyone with a firearm is probably a “bad guy.” It makes their decision-making easier and keeps them safer (we’ll leave the control issue for another thread).

   Having said that, to some extent there should be a certain amount of scrutiny when a firearm is brandished or used. Certainly no jurisdiction would want to appear as encouraging road-rage incidents (i.e., firearms threats/use over petty disagreements) and knowing one’s decision will be scrutinized certainly, IMO, disuades such events. The onus, however, should always be on law enforcement (and govt) proving mailce rather than being given the right to assume it as it sometimes now seems the case.

10. I stand by my prior comments, though I do agree with much of Branca’s position. And no I don’t think his example of a loudmouthed drunk applies (except in a tangential manner) to the statement I do disagree with, “One of my primary tactical rules of self-defense is to vacate the area at the first sign of a red flag. Let the bad stuff go down while you’re safely somewhere else.”

    Obviously this is situation dependent and perhaps I’m being too rigid but Branca did not qualify his statement. So based strictly on what he’s said, if he sees a woman being attacked, he’s getting out of dodge, so as to be “safely somewhere else”.

    I’ll also add that I completely understand the valid legal reasons to behave as he recommends. I am cognizant of the left’s seizure of any excuse to vilify any use of a gun. Nor am I suggesting that he pull out his gun before its clearly needed. Guns have but one purpose, the taking of human life and that should always be a last resort.

    However, fleeing “at the first sign of a red flag” is not IMO, the morally right thing to do and I would argue is a primary reason why crime is so rampant in our country. If a society’s citizens will not stand up for what is right, then that civilization has already capitulated to the barbarians who are always at civilization’s gate.

11. Bang on – people want to leave it to the police, but a) good luck waiting for the police when the criminal in front of you with the loaded, illegally purchased weapon (that he would get no matter what the law was) is about to pull the trigger if you’re in his way and b) leaving your safety up to anyone else is typical of our non-responsibility society where we expect everything to be done for us and for the state to cradle us from birth to the grave.

12. Wolla Dalbo,

    “. . . likely arrested at the whim of the local police or sheriff, . . . and then very likely be prosecuted/tried at the whim of the local prosecutor . . . .”

    The point which remains implied in your statement is that even when the police see no reason to bring charges ( as in George Zimmerman’s case), the prosecution can succumb to public pressure to make Hell of the life of an innocent person. In other words, we’re not talking about a prosecutor’s aberrant interpretation of a legal point, we talking about a prosecutor not having the sand to withstand the pressure of loud-mouth activists who have no vested interest in a trial outcome and who demand of the system the verdict that they have already determined. As Lewis Carroll wrote, “Sentence first. Verdict afterwards.”

13. Demonizing self-defense fits with the physical cowardice of many liberal men and women. They can not imagine successfully defending themselves and secretly feel embarrassment and resentment towards anyone who is able and willing to take responsibility for their own safety and well being.

14. Geoffrey Britain,

    I can respect your clarification and restrictions of Branca’s position (“. . . based strictly on what he’s said . . . .”).

    I must, however take issue with your following statement: “Guns have but one purpose, the taking of human life and that should always be a last resort.”

    This is the position of the gun-control left, and most recently Piers Morgan. This is a non-sensical statement (no personal offense intended). The purpose of a firearm is to shoot, period; not to “take a life.” That its shooting can be used in that capacity is dependent upon the person or circumstances in which it is used.

    My circular saw, likewise, is made to cut, period. Not to cut 2 x 4s but simply to cut anything I happen to want it to cut. Like a firearm what it cuts, depends upon how and by whom it’s wielded.

    I take issue with your statement, not to nit-pick but because it appears to buy into the fundamentally flawed premise of the left which is their springboard. Those who accept (rather than refute) that premise give the call for the necessity of gun-control a validity which it does not nor should not have.

15. I note that, despite what you see on TV, it is very rare, indeed, for any police officer to be arrested, and tried for a “shoot.” And there is, of course, one group of people who have practically zero chance of ever being arrested and prosecuted after a “shoot,” and that is the agents of the FBI, with a recent NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) detailing how, in not one of the FBI’s internal investigations of 150 or so shoots from 1993 through 2011, nor since, has an Agent ever been judged to have been at fault.

    Quite a record of perfection, hunh?

    So, it looks like–in the use of gunplay–the government can do no wrong, and citizens can hardly do right.

16. Our job is to defend our families and ourselves from violent criminal predation.

    If it will make people feel better and alter their perspectives, they may think of the Justice system itself as merely another set of violent criminals preying upon the powerless (specifically, those lacking political, economic, or military protections).

    If you don’t want lawyers getting money from your corpse or the corpse of your target, get it right the first time.

    If you don’t want the Left to gain political power from your actions, get it right the first time.

    If you don’t want judges and jurors to be inconvenienced, threatened, or bribed in order to make a political circus and prosecution election campaign bid from your behavior, get it right the first time.

    And getting it right means defeating all enemies, foreign or domestic, criminal or law based. Enemies are not merely the “Outsider” barbarian that nobody can understand a word from as they speak gibberish. It’s inside the city walls as well. Remember that.

17. So, it looks like–in the use of gunplay—the government can do no wrong, and citizens can hardly do right.

    If the people have knives, they will bring a gun. If the citizen has guns, they will snipe their children from underfoot and make them surrender that way. Regardless, the state will never give up.

    When pro human control people say “guns aren’t useful for rebellions because the state has the military”, what they really mean is “resisting the state is useless because they will always overpower you and command the slaves as the lower classes were meant to be commanded”. Their msg is that resistance to the Power is futile, so might as well give up and join the Dark Side and get the bennies.

    Refering back to parker’s comment, the Leftist cannonfodder won’t resist the Left. They also won’t let anyone else resist the Left because they operate on “collective punishment”. They will get in trouble if a single person, Republican Democrat, doesn’t toe the line. Remember that one of the more efficient ways to break up resistance cells was to get the children to inform the state about the rebel thoughts of their parents and neighbors. IT was far more effective than interrogations, tortures, and intimidation of the police state combined. The police state lives in every home, in every street, in the US. That is far more efficient, in a ways, than the concept of the Left as being a big all knowing super state many hold.

18. The last line of Ymarsakar’s comment at 3:50 refers, I believe, to this quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero, which bears repeating:

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

19. Ymarsakar,

    “pro human control people”

    A great way to call them out from behind their euphemisms.

    “Gun control” sounds so noble especially when coupled with the attitude that a gun’s only purpose is to kill people (see above @3:23 PM); a good-of-mankind thing.

    Those, in the know, however, understand that it’s really about control of the populace. To paraphrase Glenn Reynold’s oft quoted line; they’ll disarm us all because we’ll be easier to please!

20. In my opinion, supporters of gun control fall into one of three categories and they’re all people who, for one reason or another are used to always getting their way, and want that to continue:

    Elitists — use power and influence to get their way; think common people are too stupid to be trusted with firearms (with a subset of “the rich” where rich is defined as anyone who can afford bodyguards)

    Bullies — people who use intimidation to get their way–talk over anyone who opposes them, use implied threats; hate firearms because firearms can make it much harder to bully people

    Thugs — bullies who’ve crossed the line into criminal behavior; hate firearms because it makes their “job” more difficult.

    There may also be a tiny segment of people in a victim-of-gun-crime category but this group is very small. They can however wield a lot of influence (Sarah Brady, Gabby Gifford, Carolyn McCarthy, et al).

21. Zim really reinforced for me that, today in this country, you can be prosecuted purely for political reasons.

    Z man can also be, and was, prosecuted in the court of public opinion for things as well. And I don’t mean just the media and the tv guys, but those reading this blog who thought they had the right or knowledge to be able to second guess what Zimmerman could or should have done.

    In point of fact, the only thing you can decide is what you yourself should have done, because your duty is only to your own life. You have no right to determine the fate of another person’s life merely on whims and opinions. That is not what society, the law, or concealed carry instructors wanted to pass on to normal civilians.

    The people that can determine the fates of others, are those who have sought out the goal of being an instructor or protector f someone other than themselves. WHich is a higher level than merely being a shooter or self defense training.

    It takes several years, if not decades, for someone in self defense training to become competent and confident in defending their own life. They have yet to acquire sufficient knowledge, training, or experience to even begin determining how other people should act and behave for the best of the good.

    Because the truth isn’t based on political platforms, humans are afflicted by a strange sense of superiority and arrogance when they receive knowledge they think only a select few have. They think they are given the right, authority, and ability to judge others and determine how others should behave, as if those others were themselves. I recognize that the Leftist alliance has plenty of people willing to make erroneous judgments for their cause and their beliefs. I also recognize that people who dislike the Left or Democrat policies, are also easily ignorant, arrogant, and make horrible judgment, not only for themselves but for people the Left pushes unto the propaganda screen.

    If humans don’t fix their bad habits soon, they won’t have to worry about the Left getting rid of them. Their mistakes will start affecting their personal life and BOOM, they’ll be non-existent soon enough. Problem solved, at least for one segment of humanity.

    In otherwords, fix yourself before trying to fix other people. Change yourself before attempting to change the world. Physicians also need to heal themselves and stop poisoning themselves, before they can heal others. Police need to stop killing people on a whim before they can save people from being killed on a whim by criminal serial killers and rapists.

22. Snackeater wrote:

    Elitists — use power and influence to get their way; think common people are too stupid to be trusted with firearms (with a subset of “the rich” where rich is defined as anyone who can afford bodyguards)

    In other words the common folk can’t be trusted with firearms so the elite will hire commonfolk with firearms for protection.

    Te warped elitist logic o the credentialed class. Thanks Snackeater for pointing that out.

23. In the context of this discussion, I note statistics showing that in warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq U.S. soldiers have shot a tremendous number of rounds for each shot that strikes home, a recent GAO report (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050925-israel-bullets.htm), for instance, estimating that U.S. troops fire 250,000 rounds for each enemy killed. Note the reports that, in general, in confrontations individual policemen’s accuracy of fire is usually pretty bad, and stories detailing the fact that groups of police responding to a conflict situation often unleash fusillades of hundreds of rounds in a confrontation but hit little.

    But note that, in the extreme and adrenelin-filled situation of an armed confrontation, someone defending himself has to have extreme accuracy, worry about stray shots and “over penetration” of walls, inadvertently hitting people other than the perp, and will have to justify each decision and shot.

24. And if I ever wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of someone trying to break into my home, I am going to be more likely to hesitate in terms of what I should do -even tho it may elevate the risk to myself and my family — especially if the intruder is African American.

    Which is precisely what the powers that be want you to do. They want to make it difficult on gun owners to the point that the 2nd amendment means nothing.

25. Wolla Dalbo,

    Not a specific reference, but the quote is apt in this context as well. Humans, being what we are, often have to deal with the same problems our ancestors had to deal with. That Eternal Cycle of Fate thing or what some people call Original Sin.

    As for naming names, vis a vis the last comment from me, I can’t be bothered to remember them. In fact, I’ve forgotten almost all of them. I don’t call up my community and take a vote there, nor do I take a vote here, if I should decide to utilize lethal force. Thus people’s opinions about the matter doesn’t affect my personal operations. It’s different if they back that up with SWAT force, lawyer power (like women power, tools of a greater org), or various state organizations (like a mafia existence).

    If not, it doesn’t affect me, but I just wanted to point out that people’s opinions about what self defense “should be” doesn’t affect other people either. The Left knows words themselves won’t make kids and white people fall victim to crime. So they put power behind their words and force that result.

    What are people going to do to “force” the result of the populace protecting themselves? It’s a contradiction and a paradox. Can’t happen. The only way it occurs is when the individual themselves decide how best to protect themselves. In such cases, the opinions of the state, myself, and other people are irrelevant. They may ask more experienced people, instructors, warriors, defenders, and killers how it is “done”, but that is an oral method of passing on human knowledge. It is not, however, the opinions of unaffiliated groups of people talking about what “self defense should be”.

    I don’t care whether it is the Left talking about how people should use self defense or somebody else, the moment they speak of artificial limitations that they will impose on the people, they are no better than slave masters in my eyes. Of course my view won’t matter to them, but then again, that means they can’t do much to shut me up either.

    The limitations of this universe, this world, this existence, are the only things I’ll recognize as a limit on my actions. Not the moral superiority of those “other people”, however. No skin off their backs if a whole bunch of civilians take their advice, obey them, and get themselves tortured and killed as a result. No skin off their backs at all.

    Humans can lead a horse to water but it can’t make it drink. I can speak of evil but I can’t make anyone fight against it. Only the actions of evil, which leads to hatred, is enough to motivate the people to get off their (X) and do something about it.

    Only through suffering and enduring the un endurable, do humans learn what they always should have known and what their ancestors already knew. Watching the cycle of life isn’t a bad thing, but human suffering never gets old, in a sense.

26. T,

    A gun is a tool just as is a saw. Their purpose is as varied however as the task required of them.

    “Guns have but one purpose, the taking of human life and that should always be a last resort.” GB

    “This is the position of the gun-control left, and most recently Piers Morgan. This is a non-sensical statement (no personal offense intended). The purpose of a firearm is to shoot, period; not to “take a life.” That its shooting can be used in that capacity is dependent upon the person or circumstances in which it is used.”

    Not so T, I respectfully disagree. That the left twists the truth to their purpose, does not change the truth. My father, a WWII military policeman taught me gun safety and to shoot when I was 8-9 years old. He taught me the usual, such as to always assume that a gun is loaded and never to point it at anyone and to never touch the trigger until ready to fire.

    He also explained that you never pointed a gun at someone if you were unwilling to shoot and that if you did shoot, you aimed to kill. Only in the movies does the ‘hero’ shoot to wound, or fire a ‘warning shot’ that may well carry too far or ricochet and hit an innocent bystander. It’s just too easy to miss and that could cost you your life.

    Guns are for protection and someone seeing that you are armed may dissuade them but if you are forced to pull a gun you had best be prepared to use it for its intended purpose.

27. Reading through a lot of comments here, a recent incident that occurred here might make the Branca’s point less easy to dismiss. A CHL holder walked into a convenience store and witnessed a crime in progress. There was a guy standing in front of the register with a gun, pointing it at the guy behind the register, who had the till open. The CHL holder pulled out his gun and shot the robber, who later died.
    So what do you think happened to the CHL holder?
    He went to jail for 20 years, because the guy he shot was the store owner, who had come from the back of the store and saw a robbery in progress, went and got his gun, came back up front to confront the thief.
    So knowing who to save and when are not always obvious even if they seem so, and if you decide you’re going to act in these situations, you better know who the victim is, or you will be one of them.

28. On the reference to the stat of number of bullets shot in war, a lot of that is due to suppression fire. Meaning, it isn’t designed to hit anyone, but to keep insurgents under cover in a house, to prevent them from obtaining line of sight or cross fire angles on your allies. This is also essential for frog leap type advancement or retreats.

    Essentially, pouring a storm of lead and using explosives all the time, is a cheap way of keeping your comrades alive to fight another day. Instead of a casket sent back home for Obama and Ayers to walk over.

    The Middle Eastern guerilla idea, the Native American tactical concept, and the Russian idea of war was to use humans as bullets instead. Strange idea, with a concurrently high supply cost. It saved money on bullets… but expended them as lives.

29. As for why the police shoot multiple times… they’re just incompetent and poorly trained. Most of the money is going into SWAT training for (elites favored by the politicians and unions) little public benefit or the union’s own personal bank accounts.

    Personal bank accounts, that is. As in, individual ones used for vacations and stream jets.

    Also, it’s very difficult to track, lead, and hit a target that is incoming at an angle under 21 feet. Even if they go in a straight line, people can miss by inches either left or right.

    In the past, only those with war experience or surviving gang fights in inner cities, were assigned to SWAT teams. They truly were the elite of the elite, civilian side. That changed when somebody decided to fund a bunch of SWAT teams in every village and town in America. Easy way to launder the money too…

    The prior elite shooters had really good body control and adrenaline damping responses, target differentiation, and tactical judgment. The new guys… not so much.

30. “As for why the police shoot multiple times… they’re just incompetent and poorly trained.”

    I see this all the time at the county range. A few of the local cops and deputies come there for extra practice not afforded by the city or county governments. By and large they first show up lacking any skill as shooters with handguns, shotguns, or rifles. But, the cops who put in the extra practice at the county range are good people. They know they need to improve and are not too proud to accept the guidance of us old fellows.

31. To differentiate a bit from Branca’s original comment, if I find someone that someone has entered my home through force or stealth and without invitation, my firearm will not be concealed. It will be carried overtly, and unless the perp is stone deaf, he will hear me rack the round into the the chamber. The next sound he hears will be up to him: his footsteps beating a hasty retreat, or a loud boom followed by silence.

    I think Branca’s point is a valid one, however. I carry first and foremost to protect my own life, secondarily to protect the lives of other innocents, provided I have enough knowledge of the situation in question to resort to deadly force. If not, the weapon stays in its holster and if possible, I put distance or solid cover, preferably both, between myself and whatever is going down. I find the best policy is to avoid getting myself into situations where confrontations are likely. Somebody flips me off in traffic? Hey, glad you’re Number 1. Someone takes “my” parking spot? A longer walk will do me good. In short, I do not carry to make other people treat me with respect.

32. Geoffrey Britain,

    We will have to agree to disagree.

    You write: “Guns are for protection.”

    Firearms are also for sport. I shoot skeets and target shoot. The firearms I own I own for sporting reasons, personal protection is certainly an added plus, but what I have I own for sport.

    That one always treats a firearm as if it were loaded is a safety precaution because it can kill, not because it must kill. This, in my mind, is much like being taught to keep your thumbs away from a rotating saw blade when feeding stock.

    At one time, firearms were also a more efficient way (that hunting parties with spears) to bring home food, but that need has now been rendered obsolete.

    I stand by my assertion that the purpose of a firearm is to shoot. The fact that shooting can take a human life does not mean that such, ipso facto, is its primary purpose. That is what the left chooses to presuppose because it supports their narrative (and all non-Progressives are evil as we have also been led to believe).

    Your argument that a kill in dangerous circumstances is preferable to wounding is probably correct, but it is a diversionary argument to this issue. The firearm is used to kill because of the decisions of the shooter.

33. Parker- one reason they don’t get that much practice is the police budgets for ammo are not that much. We’re talking a hundred rounds a year or less for practice. So it’s on their dime and you know as we’ll as anyone that ammo is expensive and to be good at it, you need regular practice. My dad was a federal agent, and it wasn’t much better. It’s surprising how little they budget for target practice.

34. T,

    I rarely take issue with most of the esteemed commenters here. But I have to take Geoffrey Britain’s side.

    That guns are used in sport competitions, or in ways other than their designated purpose doesn’t change the reason they were invented: to take life, human or otherwise, from an advantageous distance.

    Yes, they shoot, but that is the method or, rather, the mechanism, the way they fulfill their purpose.

    That someone as excreble as Piers Morgan, or any other closet totalitarian, says they are designed to kill doesn’t take away from the 2nd Amendment crowd’s argument.

    It’s the truth. Own it. Leave the semantics and the sophistry, like quibbling over whether it is designed to ‘shoot’ for sport rather than kill to the likes of the post-modernists and the demagogues.

    There is nothing objectively or morally wrong admitting that guns are designed to kill, be it food or foe. You give their ‘narrative’ weight by trying to argue against one of the few truths they actually believe bolsters their claims. You open yourself to ridicule, arguing against the truth rather than their lies.

    Argue against their nonsense, don’t employ their own type of post-modern rationalizations. That is their game and they are way, way better at it.

35. Southpaw,

    My own agency gives us nothing to practice. It’s all on our own dime.

    I get two uniform allowances a year. I typically allot around 50% of that to practice ammo.

    I’d love a regular practice ammo allowance.

36. wOLLA AT 3:49PM :
    The FBI study of FBI innocence and perfection in conducting its violence ran from 1993 to 2011.

    How self-serving.

    Ruby Ridge was in 1992, caused a big turn in my thinking, and the Febbie that assassinated Mrs Weaver while she was in the cabin carrying only her infant was eventually tried and convicted some 2 or 3 years later.

37. Don Carlos,

    Sadly, you are incorrect.

    Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper that killed Vicki Weaver was never convicted of anything in a court of law.

    Charges of Involuntary Manslaughter were dismissed. Twice I think. The Federal government paid out a settlement in regards to his actions but refused to admit any wrong doing.

    For many of us, myself included, the Federal Government’s actions in Ruby Ridge were the impetus of political change from Left to Right. It wasn’t the only thing for me. President Clinton Potomac Two-step around perjury was yet another.

    In some circles, Lon Horiuchi’s name will live in infamy for decades to come. My father still spits every time he hears it.

38. Jim Sullivan –
    It sounds unbelievable, but I wanted to say something about it because I don’t think some of the critics I’ve read here are aware of the situation. Lack of shooting expertise in law enforcement isn’t for lack of potential skill or ability – it’s got more to do with money for ammo than anything else. If you want your police force to be expert marksmen, pay for the ammo – there’s no substitute for practice.
    At $20-$40 per 50 rounds, it adds up. A typical day for me is 200 rounds, a couple times a month or more. And I’m not in law enforcement.
    I was told by an officer here that Texas State Troopers are issued 50 practice rounds a year. And Texas isn’t hurting for money.
    And yet the general public believes and expects that their police force are all handgun experts – when they are, it’s because they’re paying for it out of their own pockets.

39. The truth has nothing to do with guns, but more to do with the propaganda of how to use guns to control human behavior. Whether humans invented guns for X or Y, doesn’t matter. It’s not like humans invented slaves to do only one thing. Slaves are versatile, precisely because they are tools.

    The Left may argue that guns are evil, but that’s only for the commoners and slaves to hear. The elites know that guns are a form of power, that not even money can provide an adequate answer to. After all, no amount of money will reconstitute a brain hit with a .50 caliber round. Some things, money cannot buy. Slaves, money can buy. Propaganda, money can buy. Votes, money can buy. Those with money are correct in supporting Democrats. Their short term realpolitek interests truly are with the Leftist alliance. Those with money benefit by rationing health resources for the poor in order to preserve the generation of health resources for the rich. Those with money benefit from stripping guns (was crossbows before) from the peasants, as that is one thing money is powerless against: death.

    That is only a temporary benefit in the human scale of fate.

    People should stick more to real power and manipulating their fellows humans than arguing over tiny little bitty details that don’t matter in the long term. Or short term.
    —————————-
    I wonder if people truly understand the fate that binds Ruby Ridge and Waco; between Watergate and Ayers too.

    The FBI team leader that gave the orders for RR, was the same one appointed by Janet for WACO.

    The reason Ayers isn’t in jail is because his trial was overturned based upon corrupt evidence and violations of his civil rights. Essentially, Mark Felt the puppetmaster behind Bernard and Co, was the one that ordered the illegal break ins of Weathermen homes to gather “evidence”. The same kind of evidence Edgar J Hoover and his FBI guys tended to gather on political enemies.

    Coincidence? Conspiracy? Evil neither needs coincidences nor conspiracies to function. It Just Is.

    Lon Horiuchi is insignificant. A useful distraction from the Left’s true depth of operations on the strategic and logistical level. He may have been a trusted operative the FBI used to get the dirty jobs done, but that’s purely on the tactical level. I wonder how many years people have spent hating a single person, when they should have been hating their fellow Americans behind the curtain. Perhaps hating tens of millions of people is just HARD compared to hating one person like Lon or even Zimmerman. It crystalizes people’s feelings. And it makes their strategic options completely useless. The rot in the US was already far deeper than most people wanted to admit several decades ago. The Left’s strategic vision has been operating with no major setbacks for the last 100-200 years. It is no longer feasible to hate individuals and fix things. Well, it’s not like that had ever worked to begin with.

    Ruby Ridge and WACO and Benghazi, Zimmerman, black crimes in cities against blacks and whites… they are merely a bump in the road, a drop in the ocean of the Left’s evil. They are In Sig Nifi Cant.

    The people of America will feel no true emotion for anything to do with the Good until 100 WACOs occur. When 1000 Ruby Ridges occur. When their own families are slaughtered as Obama grinned when he heard about Benghazi. And if the people don’t feel anything in their heart of hearts even then… then they will deserve to be destroyed in fire and hell for their sins.

    It seems that fate is very democratic. People can vote on their chosen candidate. Only once in hell at least. Demoncracy is great, isn’t it.

    P.S. Police aren’t designed to be expert marksmen, but shock troops of the Leftist unions. The money goes into Democrat campaigns and not much can be spared to train cops to not shoot kids in the head by accident. Or pets. Or neighbors. Or anybody else in the general vicinity that isn’t part of the Elite Social Class of those born to rule (DC).

    People have this warped misperception that this is a problem due to lack of money and funding. It’s a feature, a goal, not a bug.

40. If he had not been carrying a weapon, I doubt he would have been following suspicious characters in his neighborhood, or anywhere else.- the fact he had a gun is one reason he was willing to be the neighborhood watch guy — and do so alone. So to take it one step further, I believe he put himself in a dangerous situation he could have avoided, and he put himself in it simply because he was armed. Whether we agree with it or not, the right to carry is not intended for this kind of use, although I understand the Florida law actually allows for it in some broad sense. Even if if does allow him to be an instigator or initiator, this trial is evidence that laws can be interpreted different ways and with race injected, all bets are off as to what a jury will do.
    So my thinking is a little different now — I think Zimmerman was very stupid, and not the kind of person who should be licensed to carry a firearm. -SP

    vs

    Neo says:

    “Seems to me he’s saying that each person with a legal concealed weapon must make the decision for him/herself as to what the goal of carrying a weapon is, and how far he/she is willing to go to protect self, family, or others.”

    That is exactly what I said in an argument about the Zimmerman case a few weeks ago on this blog. I’m a CHL holder in Texas.-SP
    ———–
    Quite to the contrary, my thinking about Zimmerman being stupid hasn’t anything to do with the media’s take on any of it. My thinking is based solely on asking myself under what circumstances I would choose to carry, and what circumstances would prompt me t use the gun. That was a result of the training I got which explained the potential legal consequences of shooting a person in self-defense and deciding what represents a genuine threat.-continued
    http://neoneocon.com/2013/07/02/if-youre-following-the-zimmerman-trial/

    The thing about humans is that their perspectives are based upon subjective emotional biases and determinations. The goal of training is to improve the accuracy and judgment of individual humans for themselves.

    It’ll take more than a few years for this to progress to accurate judgment on Other People’s Behaviors.

    To me, it’s not that everyone on the Left is evil and so wrong, therefore I won’t believe them. It’s also the case that everyone NOT on the Left is also prone to falling into the same kind of mistakes, which time will tell.

    To me, it’s not that police are incompetent. Nor blacks are always slaves and tools. Nor Democrats always greedy. To me, everyone is like that (all of the above) under the Leftist grace, as a result of the forced utopian fate forced upon humanity by the gods above (Obama’s Halo I guess). Anyone is equal to anyone else, but they aren’t the same person or individual and do not share the same free will. Until they are enslaved by the Left’s supreme vision, at least. At that point, I start hearing “Obama is smart, so when I vote for Obama, that means I am smart too”.

    After all, if you are white like Zimmerman, you become stupid in the eyes of some and a menace to others, alternatively a hero or folk fighter to another faction. If you are white like Kennedy however, you can drown girls and be praised by black and white women as a “Lion of a Man”. When black feminists say that the girl should be proud to have died to pave the way for this Lion of a Man’s career.

    Egalitarianism is great. Police in Leftist unions are slaves and always out for more funding to divert to union boss accounts and benefits for the good old tribe. Isn’t that great. Black civilians and thug hoodies are incompetent too. Isn’t egalitarianism under slavery great ; ) The humans of this world should be grateful to the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson for this grace from god. This providence. This bounty. This luxury.

    In my eyes, money wouldn’t be enough to cover up the emotion of revenge and hate for injustices done. It may be enough for blacks, but I consider their rage and hate weak sauce. They are satisfied by a “This is for Trayveon” as they murder, rape, and loot white peeps like Indians taking scaps for courage. They are satisfied by hating one person or a group of whities, when the Reverends pay out the Black Panther share of the loot. I wouldn’t be satisfied. My hate wouldn’t be satisfied with just that. The black community, if they really hated their institutional slavery, would be doing something a bit “more” if they really hated it. If they really loved their families, their communities, they would be doing something a little bit “more”. Then again, that’s why they live in the slums under the boot heel of white Democrats. Because they don’t hate their situation enough to do anything about it. It’s real easy to talk about stupid whiteys and bitter gun clingers.

    Egalitarianism is great, because soon all of Americans will taste the same joy. Sooner or later.

41. http://www.mercurynews.com/san-jose-police/ci_18384442?nstrack=sid:6375457|met:0000300|cat:0|order:23&%2F%3Fsource=dailyme

    More of this to come (police layoffs) as the welfare state cannot deliver on pensions, healthcare, and, regarding the current topic, security.

    And Obama is pushing the minimum wage issue! I’m sure that’s impressing people in Chicago, especially the dead ones.

42. Ymarsakar:

    Zimmerman got the gun earlier, in 2009, because of an aggressive pit bill in the neighborhood. We actually know why Zimmerman got his gun, we don’t have to speculate: it was to defend himself and his own pet and family against this dog, with which they had previously had “repeated run-ins.”

    It was later that he joined the neighborhood watch, at the request of neighbors, after there was a rash of robberies in the neighborhood and the police weren’t dealing with it very well. Whether he had the gun or not, he confronted no one. And he didn’t confront Martin either. There was noting Zimmerman did that night until Martin started beating him up that didn’t conform to what a person on watch would do whether he/she had a gun or not. And by the way, he was not officially on watch duty that night either; Zimmerman was either on his way to or from the grocery store (I forget which).

    There is no evidence for the scenario cooked up by “SP.”

43. Jim Sullivan,

    Saw your comment this AM but have only now had time to draft a response (apologies for the length).

    First, in response to your comment: “Argue against their nonsense, don’t employ their own type of post-modern rationalizations.” If you are familiar with my comment history on this blog, then you know that rationalization and sophistry is precisely what I do not do. Please do not imply otherwise.

    As to commenting on their non-sense, that is precisely what I was/am doing. It seems however that we (You and Geoffrey Britain, and I) are coming at an issue from diametrically opposed points of view. Out of respect for the two of you I will cede your point (that guns kill), unlike the unseriousness of the same point when mouthed by the likes of Piers Morgan.

    Let me try to clarify my position further.

    I do not impute moral character to a tool. A tool is neither good nor bad, but can be put to uses both good and bad. Your protestations notwithstanding, a gun is just a tool.

    IMO, by launching an argument which starts at the point of view that “guns are meant to kill people” one imbues the tool with a moral character that is not warranted. This is precisely Piers Morgan’s intention in order to justify his “moral” demand for total gun bans; guns are meant to kill people therfore guns are inherently bad and should be banned (and he would add, this clearly evinces his own moral and cultural superiority over all of us other knuckle-draggers).

    A rope can be fashioned into a hangman’s noose. Does that make rope inherently evil? No, the noose must be fashioned from the rope just as the firearm must be pointed at a living target. Such human intervention counts for a great deal in my argument; Piers Morgan conveniently ignores it because it makes the issue impossible to include in his Manichean worldview (Piers Morgan and gun control are superior and good, guns are bad and evil).

    As you well know, the substance of an argument proceeds from its fundamental premise; mine is that a firearm is a tool yours appears to be that a gun is a killing instrument.

    Now, your counter is “There is nothing objectively or morally wrong admitting that guns are designed to kill, be it food or foe. . . . You open yourself to ridicule, arguing against the truth rather than their lies.” I would correct that statement by saying that “guns are designed to shoot.” Is my statement incorrect? Does that opinion negate my statement that a firearm is a tool? Precisely who has established that “truth” of which you speak? I counter by noting that your statement is opinion presented as a hard and fast truth.” Contrary to your charge of my using the left’s own post-modern rationalizations, I submit that this is precisely what you are doing here; i.e., expressing opinion as truth. Now the left uses this sophistry to further its agenda. Clearly this is not your purpose (or that of Geoffrey Britain), but I see it as a false premise nonetheless; you do not.

    We approach this topic from two diametrically opposed points of view. I offer that we must agree to disagree.

44. T,

    Typically, I read the majority of the commenters here and say, “We’ll, yup,” and feel my thoughts would be superfluous. Typically, I lump your thoughts in that group.

    I used the word sophistry because that is what I saw: a plausible but misleading argument.

    Is the purpose of a gun to shoot? When it’s purpose is reduced down to an overly simplistic point, sure. But it appeared to me that it was done to mislead. Maybe I was wrong. But that is how it read. Maybe it was to mislead yourself? Don’t know.

    But it read like an avoidance of the issue, an attempt to obscure it. Not an argument.

    Do guns shoot? Yes, of course.

    Is a gun’s purpose to shoot? That is only half of it.

    A gun’s purpose is to shoot at things. Why?

    Are they tools? Of course. Never said they weren’t. But being a tool means it has a purpose. To take the saw analogy I saw earlier in the thread a step further:

    Saying that the purpose of a gun is to shoot is like saying that the purpose of a circular saw is to spin.

    By leaving out the actual purpose, the argument looks misleading. Nothing in your response, other than your offense at the comment being called sophistry and rationalization, leads me to believe otherwise.

    Do we approach this from diametrically opposed POV’s? That seems a certainty. But your statements look to be from a fearful POV: Fearful of having to concede that a twit like Piers Morgan has a point. That is his only point, and one he twists to his own ends. That he says the purpose of a gun is to kill, and that makes the weapon inherently evil is his problem, his rationalization. His twist.

    “I do not impute moral character to a tool.”

    Well, good.

    But we also know that killing something is not inherently evil. Self defense and the killing of food being the most obvious responses to such a thing, were Mr. Morgan capable of understanding such nuance.

    I admit I am perplexed. I see that what I say, regarding a gun’s purpose, is considered on opinion, and not a truth. Maybe so, but I can’t wrap my, admittedly, undersized IQ around a gun’s purpose being to shoot, not kill.

    What was the reason for inventing it? Why bother?

    Was it just a “happy” accident that some ancient Chinese Redneck realized that this here explosive apparatus could also take a life when he only wanted something to shoot somewhere, vaguely, in some direction or another (maybe at ancient aluminum soda cans?)wasting a compound that was dangerous to make, especially in large quantities?

    Believe what you want, T.

45. Neo, that’s a useful piece of info and should help clear some things up. Eventually.

    As for tools, the purpose and result of it is determined by the user. If an authority can pre determine what the tool should be used for, this is essentially the same as a slave master telling his slaves what they were born to do, as tools.

    It comes down to a question of fate and free will. Does the Leftist alliance get to tell us how to use what we have, or are individuals supposed to decide for themselves what is what.

46. Ymarsakar said,

    “As for tools, the purpose and result of it is determined by the user. If an authority can pre determine what the tool should be used for, this is essentially the same as a slave master telling his slaves what they were born to do, as tools.

    It comes down to a question of fate and free will. Does the Leftist alliance get to tell us how to use what we have, or are individuals supposed to decide for themselves what is what.”

    First, no one here ever said they couldn’t be used for something other than their stated original purpose, so, I don’t know where Slavery comes into this. T and I argue what the tool is designed to do. I do not argue that a tool can’t be used for some other purpose. Such a statement is a straw man. Save that for the leftists.

    Second, until a hammer, saw, gun or knife becomes a living, breathing thing, rather than an inanimate object…

    What are you even saying? We argue tools, you argue slavery. I am at a loss how to respond to such a non sequitur.

    It is time for me to disengage from this before it descends into a parody, if it hasn’t already.

47. First, no one here ever said they couldn’t be used for something other than their stated original purpose,

    I would not go into the habit of underestimating the Left or denizens like Mitsu or Zachariel. They can always surprise. In fact, they should always surprise, given what their alliance pays out for operative fees.

    Whether we are arguing tools or not…. is something unimportant. For the Left exists. And where ever the Left exists, people are not arguing about freedom or anything of that sort.

48. Most people, at least those not in the Leftist alliance as a full or subsidized member, think in terms like this: freedom and individual decision making.

    Which is to say, they consider their thoughts to be their own and would never truly think of becoming an authority or empowering an authority to define a tool’s purpose as a way of enslaving humanity or creating a utopian order using human bodies. However, the Left thinks and acts differently. They are more disciplined, as an army should be when involved in war. They don’t have individual opinions or thoughts, only tactics and strategies for information management, propaganda, and opponent killing.

    To a neutral or non Leftist member, talking about the purpose of tools is purely harmless. Since no matter what the result of the concept or the purpose, human slavery is a “non sequitor”.

    But to the Left, everything is connected to the Authority That is their Religion. It is this very inability to think of the enemy from the eyes of the enemy, that forms the weakness and the liability.

    For while neutral parties consider themselves harmless, they do not think that they will be made into a living tool of the Left to help control their fellows. Their thoughts are their own. Their freedom of will is their own.

    To the Leftist alliance, there is no such thing as “freedom”. They will not allow such a thing. Thus, those who speak of empowering any kind of authority with the conceptual weapon of “defining” reality in a certain way, I must ask them to demonstrate proof that they are unable to be controlled by the Left’s conquering army/authority. I must ask them to show proof that they will never be converted to the Left’s side, that their resources will never be used to harm or enslave their fellow human beings. That having their own “thoughts”, will not promote or render aid to the enemy.

    But if this isn’t easy to understand for some, perhaps that is its own answer in a way.

49. Technically, in order to prove the claim that guns were made to kill, one would have to interview and prove the intent of the various gun makers in existence. For them to clearly say that they made the guns to kill, would be evidence. For the manufacturers that made those guns centuries ago to say that they made those guns to kill X, would also be proof.

    Absent such proof, it’s merely an idea. An idea nurtured in the bosom of American freedom. An idea that is also a weapon when used by the Left. If it is unwise to leave loaded weapons around out in the open for criminals to take and use against us, I wonder why it is individuals think it is safer to do the same thing with conceptual weapons and propaganda concepts.

50. Ymarsaker,

    In all fairness to Jim Sullivan, nowhere in our discussion did he imply that tools can not be used for purposes other than intended. IMO our discussion centered around the inherent nature of the tool itself.

    Jim Sullivan’s position seems to be (not to speak for him) that one argues with the left by essentially saying “guns are made to kill, so what?” In other words the best defense is a strong offense. I do not disagree with that idea but I reject such a debate approach for precisely the reason you state above:

    If it is unwise to leave loaded weapons around out in the open for criminals to take and use against us, I wonder why it is individuals think it is safer to do the same thing with conceptual weapons and propaganda concepts.

    I offer, however, that my position is more than just a superficial and convenient political position. If we were speaking in the terms of physics, I would say that Jim Sullivan argues at the molecular level (gun = killing tool) while my argument is at the atomic level (gun = tool). It’s not an argument made, as Jim Sullivan posits above, out of fear of the left, it’s an argument made by reduction to a single basic essential.

    Like you, I recognize that the left, in any gun argument, refuses to accept any aspect of human intervention (as I mentioned above). They can’t because it negates their moral absolutism and would force them to re-direct their argument. As I have written at this site before, every argument with a Progressive/Leftist is an attempt to validate their own moral and cultural superiority, and in my mind, the only way deal with their smokescreens is to negate their false premise by reducing an argument to it’s “atomic” level where the smokescreens can no longer exist. It’s not an argument made out of fear of the left (as Jim Sullivan wondered above) but rather an argument made by reduction to a single basic essential which eliminates the “wiggle room” on which the Left relies.

51. Ymarsaker,

    Let me carry my above post just one short step further. The Left relies on the following argument:

    gun control is essential and good because guns are inherently evil and bad

    Now, by reduction to the level that gun = tools (although the Left will never admit that) the result is:

    gun control is essential and good because guns are tools

52. Thinking this through even further, it becomes obvious that the Left’s meme relies almost exclusively on the “evil and bad” designation to exert any type of control.

    Factories are evil and bad because they discharge into the environment: environmental controls to the max

    Coal burning is evil and bad because it contributes to CO2 and global warming: Cap and Trade

    Freon is evil and bad because it depletes the ozone (does it?): Impose regulations

    Doctors are evil and bad (unnecessry tonsilectomies and amputations): Obamacare

    Southern states are still evil and bad: Maintain obsolete govt oversight of voting regulations

    Salt, 32 oz drinks. transfats (etc.) are evil and bad: Impose regulations

    And one final favorite (with hypocrisy added as a special treat):

    Cigarettes are evil and bad: Raise cigarette taxes to discourage smoking

    BUT!!!!!!

    The economy is lagging: Raise taxes to encourage economic growth.

53. T,

    One thing I’d like to clarify, and then I’ll,drop it and we can part and agree to disagree.

    You said, “It’s not an argument made out of fear of the left( as Jim Sullivan wondered above)…”

    Perhaps I wasn’t fully clear. I didn’t mean that you were afraid of the Left. I meant that I wondered if you were afraid of sounding like the left. But that’s neither here nor there, now.

    Take care.

54. I was originally interested in the subject of guns=a purpose=1 purpose.

    The context of my words were centered around that. When people start talking about themselves, attaching them to or against the Left, they invite a response on the same subject.

    If this is so horrible to those here, they should make for a more objective point of view and “detach” themselves from the concept that there is only one “truth” (their truth).

    If people here already accepted that there are many truths, I would tend to wonder why they spend so much energy on arguing about which is the “one truth” here. If there are multiple truths, why does it matter whether anyone else in the world agrees with you or not? If your truth isn’t the only truth, why does it matter what other people think. So I come to the conclusion that people are arguing because they think things only have one Truth, one Purpose, one Goal. How that lines up with liberty and individual will…. is unknown as of yet. But it lines up perfectly with authority=slavery, at least.

    It is another argument for authority, a single authority that determines everything about humans. If only an indirect one.

    I’m not convinced that people arguing for a strict, single interpretation of things will be able to refuse in the future. Any more than people who refuse to support an American war get to pay 0% taxes just because. When the authority commands humans, humans will obey, whether they want to or not. If there are as many different truths and interpretations as there are human beings in existence, then an authority loses most of its standing. Whether that authority is good or evil, doesn’t matter. The worst case scenario is that it is evil.

    If people cannot make a security guarantee, then I have no reason to agree with their policy or treaty. Their truth isn’t my truth, nor is it the universal truth.

    Instead of thinking Schroedinger’s cat is dead or alive, I prefer to think of it as both dead and alive until the box is opened. It is less restrictive on human freedom, will, and options then.

    The Left’s propaganda war is tied in with their power politics. Meaning, they aren’t just talk. If they claim the cat is dead, they’ll open the box, smash the cat with their Power, then claim the cat was always dead. If they open the box and the cat is dead, that means they are right. If they open the box and the cat is alive, they are still right because the cat will then be dead.

    Without a security guarantee, or a claim of some productivity coming from the words here, I can’t quite believe they will have any deleterious effect on the Left nor benefit to me or my allies. Words by themselves are unimportant. Backed by action, they become important. The Left’s actions are ruthless and thus their words are important. But the Left cannot be fought merely by rejecting their words here or anywhere else.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>