Defeating mass shooters

It seems apparent that no one successfully fired a single round to stop/suppress the Maine shooter during his attacks. We need to do better at teaching ourselves how to defeat such attacks before they can escalate. 

What's in a name?

Eric S. Raymond has recently posted an intriguing idea on his blog, The Order of Defenders:

I wrote the above after thinking about Rudyard Kipling’s Ritual of the Iron Ring for newly-graduated engineers.

Rituals like this exist to express and formalize what is best in us.

The Order of Defenders does not exist. Perhaps it should.

 I found myself largely in agreement with the sentiments and intents I believed were being expressed by Mr. Raymond, with one rather large exception; who were the intended candidates for the role of Dedicant?

Rudyard Kipling was a more-than-a-little embittered proponent of Victorian Britain's Empire who frequently bemoaned the lack of manly forthrightness evidenced by his fellows in continuing expansion of said empire. While I can appreciate Kipling's frustration-inspired prose, and have little difficulty translating it to frustrating circumstances I find in my own time and place in the universe, I am also of the opinion that those of what can loosely be termed "the Harry Potter generation" (for the purposes of this essay, those born in the 20-odd year period of 1985 to 2005, give or take a half-decade either way) seem unlikely to share the requisite grasp of historical context to spontaneously do so for themselves.

With this difficulty in mind, I proposed re-naming Mr. Raymond's concept as follows:

 I suggest the title, Order Of Defenders, is too Teutonic and feudal in sentiment and therefore too easily vilified and de-contextualized. As an alternative, I suggest the following: The Proponents of The Practicum of Equilibertalious. The membership consisting of those who, through their considered statements and routine actions in the course of ordinary life, personify the beliefs codified in the Practicum they individually swore oath to. The word “equilibertalious” is literally a Harry Potterization of the sentiment: equal liberty for all of us. Thus, a Proponent of The Practicum (individually referred to as a Practicant) of Equilibertalious is one who has sworn an oath before witnesses to live life in compliance with the terms of the oath.

I crafted the admittedly silly-sounding word "equilibertalious" specifically to make use of the Potter-world habit of manufacturing words of power for spell-casting purposes by creating mouth noises that consist in large part of fractions of the words that express the intent of the spell caster. In this example, the intentions of the one seeking admission into the group whose existing membership exemplifies the ideals of equal liberty for all to pursue individual success in cooperation with like-minded others. Yes, that rather downplays the potential contingency of violent defense implicit to the fundamental concept.

It would seem that deliberately structuring a concept to attract the easy recognition of the intended audience is simply too silly an idea to merit more than the briefest of dismissal.

Well, I have been wrong before.

Still, I do wonder if Mr. Raymond hasn't crafted an elaborate troll, rather than suggested a serious idea. If virtue signalling the a priori propriety of one's assumptions regarding the validity of firearms ownership specifically, and one assumes violence-based socio/political stances generally (concepts I by-and-large share with Mr. Raymond, I believe), is the sole purpose of his post, then "Well Done, You!" Mr. Raymond. Once again, the error is mine own. For taking his words at face value. For attempting serious consideration of how such concepts might be enacted (because ideas such as these are never just the one thing they are predicated upon). For developing what I sincerely believe to be modifications to the basic concept that offer greater possibility of success for the idea becoming actual practice.

More fool me, it seems.

On the chance that the idea Mr. Raymond has proposed is a serious suggestion, of creating a fraternal organization that provides its membership with individual purpose and mission, that relies upon the cooperation of the membership with each other to achieve success, I encourage you to go and RTWT. It's an idea worth serious consideration that seems to have merit well beyond the foundational condition of individual gun ownership. You should go offer your thoughts as well.

Righting Gun Wrongs

Despite my exercise of Point of Personal Privilege in his comment section recently (see: here), I quite admire Kevin Baker's writing(s) on firearms, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, and human rights generally (a few days off escaping the day-to-day cares of life can be spent to good effect in his side bar :)), and I wish to take this opportunity to point out another of his essays: Universal Background Checks. As is usually the case with a Kevin Baker essay, there's a lot involved which makes summarizing challenging, but I think this captures the essence:

Everything you do in the U.S. (with the notable exception of VOTING) requires a state-issued photo ID.

• Alcohol? ID
• Tobacco? ID
• Buy or rent a place to live? ID
• Buy a car from a dealer? ID
• Travel by commercial air? ID
• Check into a hotel? ID
• Purchase Sudafed? ID

Anyway, you get the point. So here’s my suggestion:

Everybody who needs a state-issued ID gets a background check and a new ID. If you are a prohibited person, somewhere on that ID will be this symbol:

If you’re not prohibited, you get a green circle (don’t want to trigger the sensitive by putting an icky gun on their ID). Everyone that already has a driver’s license or a state-issued photo ID gets a new one with one of the two symbols. Any new IDs issued, the applicant gets the background check.

As he later acknowledges, this would entail some considerable added expense (and I think might come into conflict with already established Smart ID legislation now universal to all states in the USA), but I concur with his judgement that, "It’ll cost a lot of money and won’t prevent any crimes, but that’s what “gun control” usually does. But hey, we’re DOING SOMETHING!!"

I have an alternative suggestion to Kevin's and hope to read his (and your) thoughts in response.

Since the US Constitution, specifically to include all of the amendments thereto, is an empowering document to all legislation within the USA, I suggest that a national form of ID - while generally along the lines suggested by Kevin - would be the more constitutionally consistent approach to addressing the undeniable problems that are part-and-parcel of the individual responsibility that comes with American national citizenship and legal residence. 

The US Constitution already requires a decennial census of all US citizens and residents, which neatly provides Congress with an already established government function whereby unlawful gun ownership fears might be substantially addressed. The United States doesn't have any form of civil national identification (as opposed to US military or government employee/contractor identification) other than a US passport, which is intended for use outside the boundaries of the country. My alternative to Kevin's suggested state-level ID is the creation of a United States Voter Registration Card explicitly as a form of national identification card for all US citizens and legal residents, irrespective of their personal employment status, state of residence, or other demographic classification.

By making a standard background check (effectively identical to that already in use for firearms purchase) a part of the decennial census process, we create a national identification document that clearly states each person's status to vote and to lawfully participate in all other activities constitutionally guaranteed to a citizen of the United States. Or not. Making a distinction between eligibility to exercise the right to vote (or other constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, many of which are age or otherwise restricted already) wouldn't have to be nearly as garish as the means suggested by Kevin, wouldn't necessarily be all that much more expensive than the existing census function (I presume here that there actually is an existing effort made to verify the respondents statements made as part of the census process), and might even prove actually effective in helping manage the unintended consequences associated with citizenship and legal residence in our Constitutional Republic.

As Kevin noted in his blog post excerpted above, there are already established forms of state issued identification intended for a variety of applications. By requiring presentation of a valid Voter Registration Card as part of the background check process already in place, we create a national database against which to compare state documentation already required to prove eligibility to exercise the freedoms guaranteed to citizens by the US Constitution, in this example to purchase a firearm. Form 4473 (the .gov document used to itemize eligibility to purchase a firearm) already requires a statement of nationality from the purchaser under penalty of perjury, so requiring presentation of a national ID document that corroborates this declaration (also made under penalty of perjury) doesn't seem to me to be excessively abusive to exercise of one's rights. Such a system needn't interfere with the already established process whereby citizens and legal residents of the United States who go through the modest expense and effort required to obtain a state-issued concealed handgun license (or whatever your state calls such an ID) to be exempt from the background check process at time of purchase, and indeed would offer a means to regularly submit all citizens and legal residents to the background check process entirely separate from (additional to?) that required by any state's concealed handgun licensing requirements. An added layer of security protecting citizen's exercise of their rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, as it were.

Gun writer and columnist Tamara Keel has made the point on her blog in times past that she requires display of a drivers license/ID issued by the state she resides in from anyone she sells one of her guns to as a matter of personal privilege (I hasten to point out that Tam is not a licensed firearms dealer and thus - like every other American - has no legal obligation to do so under existing US law, but has been buying for her personal pleasure a modestly impressive collection of firearms for some years now, which she upon occasion finds useful to turn some item from that collection into cash to subsidize other of her interests - demonstrating the blatant nature of the deliberate falsehood entailed in the phrase "gun show loophole" not coincidentally). I leave to the consideration of my fellow citizens whether, or to what extent, such a custom ought to be enshrined explicitly in law. Personally it is my opinion that making such an individual obligation (to assure ones self of the mutual legality of a private transaction) a legal requirement might be more usefully enshrined within existing laws enacted under the auspices of the 14th Amendment than otherwise, but IANAL (and aren't we all grateful for that?  :))

One final note from Kevin Baker, who has the well exercised habit of saying things so well:

You want to buy a gun, whether from an individual or a FFL dealer? Show your ID. If the red symbol is on it, no sale. If NO symbol is on it, no sale. If you don’t have ID, no sale. If you do something that makes you a prohibited person, you must turn in your ID for one that has the red symbol. If you don’t, five years in Club Fed on top of whatever sentence you got for the crime that disqualified you.

The state can’t build a database of gun owners, and everybody who wants to buy a gun gets a background check. That’s what I call “compromise.”

"The state can't build a database of gun owners", precisely because everybody (who isn't in some fashion a "prohibited person" due to age or whatever) is effectively licensed to be a gun owner as an explicit function of their citizenship. It is already against US law for the US government to require retention of firearms sales data beyond - three years? - by FFL's, and this particular prohibition shouldn't change as a result of these efforts.

Protecting the exercise of individual citizens freedoms as guaranteed under the US Constitution is of at least equal importance to protecting those same citizens from the illegal actions of those who choose to abuse the exercise of those guaranteed freedoms (far too many of whom sadly are also fellow citizens). Spending the money necessary to better achieve those two objectives rightly ought to take precedence as a national, state, and local legislative priority. A United States Voter Registration Card explicitly designed to function as a national identity card based upon the decennial national population census, is a mechanism whereby to achieve those priorities and is my suggestion of a "compromise" that all US citizens and legal residents can comfortably and (at least arguably more) securely live with.

How say you all?

Update: I see I've entirely failed to mention any possible time line for this process. How about something like this?

President Trump has famously said that citizenship will be one of the questions asked as part of the 2020 census. Beginning in 2023, all citizens and legal residents of the USA regardless of state of residence, may apply for a Voter Registration Card ID by including copies (Issuing state database links more probably) of their existing state-issued ID along with their 2020 census data as part of the application process. Such ID to be valid until two years after completion of the next scheduled decennial population census, whereupon issuance of replacement ID cards will be automatic.

That shouldn't be too hard to improve upon.

What Do You Mean By "Fight"?

I've recently had occasion to think about two apparent dichotomies; words mean things, and word usage changes over place and time. Word definitions don't really change in the usual meaning of the word change. They tend to acquire added meanings that can supplant the historical meaning, but the earlier definition remains a valid usage depending on the context within which it is used. English english and American english being probably the most obvious example of usage change over place and time I can think of off hand.

The inspiration for the above came from my thinking about the word "fight", both in the limited martial arts context and in the more general strategy application. Specifically, is it better to "fight to win", or is it better to "fight not to lose"?

Fighting not to lose is the only consideration that gives the concept of "Just War" any practical meaning at all. Note that I said meaning, not justification. You can justify literally any conduct or action by simply declaring, "Deus vult!" (or the equivalent in your alternative language of choice), or you can circle around the question(s) endless epistemological expositions instead, but understanding meaning, definitionally and contextually, is what is required to actually make an informed decision - in this case, whether and how to fight.

Fighting to win requires one to accept from the moment of deciding to engage in active conflict that there are neither restrictions nor constraints imposed upon the choices you make during the coming combat, so long as the end result is your indisputable defeat of your opponent. Indeed, allowing any consideration or circumstance to interfere in achieving that outcome must be regarded as an act of treason in any fight to win conflict. Why so many people seem so willing to forget the same applies equally to all involved in such a fight mystifies me.

Fighting not to lose, on the other hand, is the underlying factor inherent to the very concept of civilization. A "no holds barred" fight is one without rules (even a knife fight, Butch :)) and therefore an unreliably predictable outcome, whether between two outlaws having nothing but the clothes they stand in or two civilizations possessed of grandeur and glory. Laws of War, Code Duello, Lines In The Sand, Street Justice, all are mechanisms to impose fighting not to lose on all combatants, such that all may have some reason to think they have an understanding of what (more importantly, how much) they risk by fighting (or not).

These are the meanings of the words we use to decide the acceptable-to-us answers to the classic 6 questions (who, what, when, where, why, how) as they apply to our routine and extraordinary competitions with one another. Our shared civilization is built upon our mutual expectation that we will all cooperate with the constraints imposed by fighting not to lose, witness our outrage and condemnation when one combatant fails to do so (or only plausibly can be made to appear to so fail). Deliberate obfuscation of the previously agreed to meanings of these words may well be the single greatest act of betrayal of trust any human can inflict upon another.

Thoughts? Disputations? I have been known to be full of shit before this; based on my track record to date, that's not that risky a proposition bet to be honest. Nevertheless, this is my ante ... fight to win is the choice of a fool, fight not to lose is the only way to position yourself to outlast your attackers.

It's also the only way to keep your world civilized while you're winning (or not) and most especially after. Update: I don't know why the long paragraph breaks; I cut-and-paste from my FB page where I first composed this. It be what it be ...

A Click Here, A Click There ... It Adds Up

Went HEMA shopping today. Bought the 82nd Shorty face mask/helmet from Destroyer Modz, a cruciform feder from Castille Armory, a pair of Koning Gloves from St. Mark (which won't arrive 'till March maybe, depending on where I fall in the ordering que), and a nylon chest protector and HEMA gear bag ("fits a long sword" - worth a try) from Purple Heart Armoury. I've got a full set of general training pads, cup, etc from my Krav Maga training so I think I will hold off on buying a sparring jacket just yet. On that note, any informed opinions on the PBT sparring jackets? I suspect the included guards and pads (that have to be removed for cleaning - and then have to be put back into the now-smaller holes afterwards) (this is not my first rodeo) may be more trouble than they are worth.  It looks attractively priced compared to the basic Axel Petterrson SPES jacket, but ...

That was a quick thousand bucks; good thing it's only "fiat currency", what?

Thoughts, opinions, rude gestures?

Links:

http://www.destroyermodz.com/product/the-82nd-shorty/

http://castillearmory.com/

http://www.saintmark.se/

http://www.woodenswords.com/default.asp

http://pbthistoricalfencing.com/

http://www.woodenswords.com/product_p/spes-jacket.htm

From My Martial Arts Bookshelf

I have, over the past several months, gradually become more interested in weaponed martial arts (other than firearms, of course :)); specifically Historical European Martial Arts, to the degree that this past weekend I purchased a life membership in HEMA Alliance to compliment my NRA membership.  It will be a few more weeks or months before I'm physically ready to take up active training with others.  In the meantime I am using the inexpensive Cold Steel nylon bastard sword, single-hand sword (that's their description - I don't believe the design can be traced to any specific period or style of sword other than possibly "viking" or "crusader", neither of which would be correct in this instance, just convenient examples of broad sword descriptive types), and dagger I purchased to begin practicing the basic stances, steps and grips for those type weapons.  I'm able to do these alone and in front of my apartment, further confusing the neighbors (it's no secret I'm a shooter; over Christmas I constructed a shipping tube out of PVC to send some fishing rods to my son in Oregon - several neighbors apparently thought I was building a potato cannon or rocket launcher).  I can't imagine what they are going to dream up as a result of my latest hobby.  Hopefully it won't require the participation of the local PD.  :)

I've never been a dedicated martial arts student, and I'm much too old to be a serious one these days, but I do have a rather extensive (and fairly eclectic by most standards, I expect) library of books and a few instructional videos on the general topic of human combat.  A fairly recent acquisition is Guy Windsor's VENI VADI VICI.  In the Introduction (page 17 of the paperback edition, for those following along at home), he describes several word translations that are pretty much essential for any student of historical European swordsmanship to know and understand.  One of these stood out for me in particular, Mezo Tempo.  The following may be pushing the bounds of "fair use", but the quote in full is:

This is literally "half time", but refers to the use of blows that stop in the middle of the target, instead of traveling through to the other side.  Tempo in this instance means "completed movement" or something similar.  So the "half time" is the use of "half blows".  

Anyone who has spent any time training in any discipline involving hand strikes (and even kicks) will recognize the technique being described.  One maneuvers an opponent with footwork, of course, but also by means of the type and force of blows delivered.  Boxers, for an easily accessible modern example, are trained to "punch through the head"; that is, to deliver a strike to the head or face that is from sufficiently close range to reach at least the middle of the opponents head at full extension.  By punching only to the surface of the head, you can conserve energy and deceive an opponent while you maneuver in a manner that makes your footwork more effective in setting up a structured attack.

What I take to be Vadi's meaning in Mezo Tempo is that this same category of tactics from the un-weaponed fighting arts also applies more-or-less directly to sword fighting/sparring too.  It has been my belief from the outset of my interest in swords, and western martial arts generally, that this would indeed prove to be the case. That strategy and tactics from one discipline would apply to swords and other historical weapons just as well (accounting for differences in distance and such, of course).

I will take this opportunity to throw this thought out for consideration and (probably separate would be better) discussion as well; History Begins Yesterday.  My cyclical involvement in Krav Maga is what made the observation above so obvious to me; it would be hard to argue that KM is not a direct modification of European historical martial arts forms, as are a number of modern martial arts (Imi Lichtenfeld's book is quite specific on Krav Maga's historical lineage).  Are there organized courses of study within HEMA that connect the modern expressions of western martial arts to the historical forms we practice?

I would value any thoughts of others, particularly critical ones, about my conclusions and observations.

In Accordance With The Rule of Tam

Tam writes: 

"Can you articulate to a jury how someone attempting to draw a gun at you poses an immediate, potentially lethal threat? Can you articulate that it doesn't matter whether the gun they're trying to draw is on their belt or yours?

As I understand the general legal principle (and the actual statute here in Texas), the first question is the only real issue of concern in a legal defense of a homicide*.  If you can demonstrate that someone(s) present a lethal threat to you (or another), the law doesn't care what legal means you select to defeat said lethal threat with.  You should be aware that "legal means" would be any object you use to kill the individual(s) lethally threatening you.  Local ordinances always apply, of course, so the prohibited weapon choice list varies wildly, but as a general principle of self-defense, if you are at risk of losing your life, you can use whatever you have to to not be non-judicially killed (which pretty much rules out nukes, chemical weapons or that seriously irritating toddler whose oblivious mother will not shut up, to beat the guy to death with in just about any non-ISIS jurisdiction around).  Basically, if you are lethally threatened, you can shoot the person making the threat no matter what weapon s/he threatens your life with (to include your own gun).


Similarly, the law pretty much doesn't care what you use if you should prove to be the one offering the lethal threat, so the second question ought to be sorta irrelevant.  Prosecuting attorneys being what they are, you better hope your attorney is well versed in the applicable laws.  I recommend these guys without reservation.  You quasi-ferinners can go with this option until you can get here.


*For the hoi polloi, the term of law "self defense" is an explicit admission that you have committed homocide.  The only remaining issue thereafter is whether or not you were justified in doing so, and the cops don't get to make that call.  Should you ever find yourself in the vicinity of a freshly deceased example of the genus homo sapiens, make absolutely certain that the two words never to exit you mouth at any point thereafter are "self" and "defense".  The way that works is, your lawyer presents evidence of the justifiable nature of your actions to the court, thereby leading the jurist-in-residence to rule "justifiable homocide by reason of self defense".  Self defense is a legal ruling by a judge, not a statement to the police.

The Right Exercise

Blogging isn't actually dead, but like the people who do it, it is changing.  One of the blogs I regularly read (it says exactly that right there in the right side column) is Borepatch which offers commentary on guns and whatever else twinges his/their attention meter.  Reletively recent co-blogger ASM826 has taken up the load while Borepatch himself attends to too-long neglected motorcycle jockeying (he offers continued Proof of Life here though).  In a series of recent posts ASM826 discusses the concept of "rights" with fellow commenters, beginning with this post which illustrates the distinction of process that exists between the pontificational approach of journalism and the conversational interaction of blogging. 

ASM826 sets out to discuss the recent debates over historical icons and symbols and, in response to commenters posts this discourse about the distinctions between rights and privilege and some of the ramifications of how both those things are and ought to be expressed.  The part he wrote that I found of particular interest was this:

So too, the guy who stands up and says, "I believe in the right to free speech, but..." doesn't believe in free speech. He believes in regulated speech, approved speech, controlled speech. It's the kind of thinking that puts up cattle fences outside a convention hall and calls it a "free speech zone". It's the kind of thinking that creates a law that bans "hate speech".

 My comment (among several others, often focused on something else also said) was:

People who demand acknowledgement of their rights, but refuse to acknowledge limits on the exercise of their rights don't understand how rights work.

People who object to other's exercise of their rights because they find such exercise offensive also don't understand how rights work.

People who think that the exercise of rights can ever be anything but contentious, or occur equilaterally without the threat of third-party force, don't understand how exercise works.

Pop quiz: Stipulate that everyone has the same rights; whose rights go first/farthest? Who says?

I'll wait. 

I felt confident that my observation had struck at least a minor chord when I read the follow up post in which ASM826 made mention:

The pop quiz? We only have the rights and freedoms we are willing to defend.

While I don't disagree with this sentiment, as I noted in reply it doesn't really address the issue I was commenting on:

Rights are the sole property of individual human beings, and all humans possess rights. It is the exercise of those rights, both individually and in groups, that is the contentious issue.

Human social constructs like nations or religions are all efforts to regulate the exercise of individual's rights in a pluralistic setting utilizing various methods. Again, the contention arises from the degree and partiality of the regulation on the exercise of the rights. Efforts to claim ownership of others rights are merely efforts at regulating expression of those rights.

No claim is being made by me as to the propriety or effectiveness of any particular effort at regulating expression of rights, but it seems less than useful to argue about what isn't occuring (your rights cannot be taken from you) while ignoring the necessity for the existence of what actually is being abused and misappropriated (who gets to exercise their rights, how).

Much like jokes, if you have to explain a quiz the hoped-for effect is largely destroyed. That noted, to the exact degree you are unwilling to defend other's exercise of their rights, you are actively working against the exercise of your own. The resulting mutual loss of freedom is merely the to-be-expected outcome, also often referred to as Bad Luck. To engage in disputation over the existence or ownership of rights is to miss the point of the exercise entirely.

Yes, puns are a terrible personal failing.

I've only just very briefly excerpted ASM826's words here, you really do need to follow the links and RTWT to understand his point(s) and place all the comments in their proper context.  Also, if you would like to read a truly sterling example of "miss(ing) the point of the exercise entirely", I direct your attention to the Paul Bonneau comment immediately following mine (and quoted here):

"That noted, to the exact degree you are unwilling to defend other's exercise of their rights, you are actively working against the exercise of your own. The resulting mutual loss of freedom is merely the to-be-expected outcome, also often referred to as Bad Luck. To engage in disputation over the existence or ownership of rights is to miss the point of the exercise entirely."

So, even if they are non-existent, just memes, our liberty depends on accepting this fiction?

No. There are no rights. There is only self-interest and will and action. The concept of rights has been usurped and turned to the benefit of the ruling class. They are thrilled to have you believe their job is to protect and define what rights you have. That is the modern-day function of rights, just a tool for the ruling class to keep us under their thumb.

Every expression of a right is made stronger and clearer by eliminating any mention of right. What is the stronger statement? "I have a right to bear arms", or "I won't be disarmed."

I realize most people find it impossible to think outside the box.

At this point, I wish to make clear that the purpose of this post is two-fold; one, to more widely disseminate the discussion of rights and their expression being conducted on the Borepatch blog page, and two, to allow me to dissect the statement I quote above separately from the Borepatch forum.

I assert the position that the existence of rights within human beings is a thoroughly discussed and long since universally established condition inherent to humanity's existence.  I further assert that modern debates about rights actually involve the exercise of rights, and the restriction on exercise of rights.  As demonstrated by M. Bonneau, discussions regarding rights are frequent targets of efforts to rehash long settled debates concerning the existence of rights by, from the evidence quoted above, people either unfamiliar with children or themselves examples thereof.  Case in point, his question regarding the relative rhetorical strengths of the two cited statements is irrelevant.  The former asserts an established fact of human nature, while the latter challenges the expression of other's rights and implies threat to those who might wish to do so themselves.  Should any feel so inclined, feel free to Fisk further in the comments.

Rights could be considered analogous to the existence of human hair or skin coloration in the same way that expression of those rights could be compared to expression of human conscience.  The right to kill another human may or may not be wrongful behavior, but that the right and the impulse to exercise it exists within all humans is beyond contention.  Thus any further discussion of merit should address the development of processes whereby such expression of rights (all rights) can be most widely distributed between all humans with as little damaging impact upon one another as can be provided for in advance.  Development of a process whereby such impact can be mediated after-the-fact should be the minimum requirement for any human association laying claim to the title "civilization".

Rights are.  Exercise of rights will and, I think necessarily must be, a matter of unresolvable contention between those seeking to exercise their rights in any degree of proximity to other humans.  Unresolvable, but not irremediable, I submit.  I think a good argument could be made that the majority of human history, philosophy and religion records efforts at just such attempts at mediation.

To some one's benefit, at least.  More rarely, to many someones.  Very occasionally, to the majority of someones.

All of these efforts at mediation between individual exercise of human rights involve some restriction on the exercise of (to be honest, most of them require the total restriction - to the point of outright denial of existence - of almost everyones) rights as a matter of necessity.  You cannot exercise your rights in an unrestricted fashion without impinging on my right to not be so impinged upon.   

And vice versa.

Discussions of rights focus on the equitable exercise of rights by humans, among humans, at variable degrees of remove from each other, to include each other's individual and mutual property.  So, pretty much unresolvable by definition, if only due to the variability of the circumstances and degree and number of involved parties.  Any mediation process must necessarily be capable of the required level of complexity that may arise. In the modern human context, government is the mediation process we have developed (and continue to modify) which uses law and regulation as the means of arriving at the necessary mediation between our competing interests (the definition of which we also continue to modify).  Please tell me that no one reading this is at all surprised that factions devoted to advancing themselves purely through manipulation of the established mediation processes arose right alongside development of those processes.

Sun Tzu didn't have to look all that far for examples of the inter-related nature of the impulses he sought to codify.  No one works to take away your rights (and couldn't if they did).  Lots of people work to restrict your opportunity to exercise your rights.  Working to assure continued opportunity to exercise your rights must necessarily include everyone else being able to do so also (or guess which group you belong to).  Efforts to deny recognition of other's possession of rights equal to your own are merely efforts to steal from them. 

Which introduces the concept of "liberty", defined in this circumstance as the measure of a given individuals opportunity to exercise his rights.

By that definition, liberty cannot be unconstrained.  Measuring liberty must always revolve around maintaining the means for the most humans being able to exercise their rights to the maximum extent that continued opportunity for exercise of the rights of others permits.  Liberty therefore becomes the measure of the limits of cooperative exercise of individual rights within a mediatable circumstance.

 

 

So That Was A Surprise For Who Exactly?

I expect the topic de jour (and for a few more days, likely) will be events in - or possibly inspired by - Ferguson MO, so here's my observation so far.

First, I want to commend the young lady identifying herself as @MissJupiter1957.  Perhaps Matt Drudge will explain how he came to link to her live stream reporting, but thanks to his doing so I and tens of thousands of others were able to gather an immediate, first-person impression of the chaotic nature of events last night.  If I may Young Miss, would you please make a more consistent effort to keep we viewers better informed of your location within the city and a general sense of direction your camera is pointing.  You editorializing as you record events is an expected aspect of blogging, with or without video, but if you could attempt to add greater context to events and about the locale you are in, we viewers would have a better understanding of things.  Other than that, really well done; thank you.

Second, at about 9:30 pm local time, Ferguson police reported the presence of a vehicle outside the Toys-R-Us store (I believe this was the store located at Festival Dr. and Pershall Rd.) and 1 or more individuals attempting to break in (one of my colleagues had the on-line addy for the Ferguson PD radio traffic) (there's also this FB page).  Perhaps 5 - 8 minutes later, a police supervisor reported over the police radio that "20 to 30 cars are in the parking lot" and asked for additional units to respond to the "crime scene".  My memory is that not much more than 10 minutes later the on-scene supervisor reported the presence of "100+ cars in the Toys-R-Us parking lot".  By 10:00 pm the police communications center had broadcast a general order for all responding units to the Toys-R-Us to retreat from the crime scene.  I suggest this is an example of a Flash Mob robbery successfully deployed to deliberately exceed the police capacity to respond.  I further doubt I was the only one to recognize the lesson being acted out in real-time, live and unrehearsed, or that we will lack for further - possibly more extreme - examples in the near future.

I well remember the 1992 riots in the greater-Los Angeles area.  The technology didn't exist for flash mobs then, so the pre-planning was far more complex, but there was an obvious pattern of distraction fires being set followed by armed robbery and arson of area grocery stores and other businesses.  Not of their merchandise, though that was certainly common enough, but of the business cash specifically.  We'll have to see if this pattern re-occurs in-and-around Ferguson (or elsewhere in the country) in the coming days.

Islamists and academics aren't the only people able to recognize changed circumstance, ponder the varieties of possibility such opens up to them, and adapt their tactics to adopt the advantages that technology permits them in the face of static and predictable opposition to their achieving their desires.  People read the phrase 4GW Warfare and glide right over considering just what types of behavior - and by whom - that entails, especially when the military isn't directly involved.  Which is largely the point behind the whole 4GW exercise; distract your opponent with obvious but discrediting targets to his advantage, while you attack his points of dis-advantage to his deliberately public dis-credit.  It's already happened here, can you really think we are somehow immune?

Here's a consideration; how long before it becomes accepted thinking for criminals to consider the follow-up arrest to be an anticipated opportunity for them to even further overwhelm police efforts against them, and in just as organized a fashion as the crimes they "spontaneously" perpetrate?  Alternatively, SWAT-ing someone so as to be positioned to attack the responding cops in an interlocking series of re-enforcing ambushes maybe?  As cover for a robbery elsewhere perhaps, fires not generally being a police responsibility.  It doesn't take a brainiac to learn this stuff and you definitely want a ready supply of  - how shall I put this? - low information thinkers within your ranks; the primary requirement is a willingness to destroy the society/culture you live in.  Give a listen to @MissJupiter1957 again and pay attention to the voices she records.

What Caliber For Brickbat?

Weer'd Beard has this whole "Gun Death" meme going in which he illustrates just how hypocritical anti-2A people can be in their political posturing.  In this example, Weer'd notes a common cause of death and injury from people throwing heavy items into highway traffic from overpasses.

This one resonated with me a bit more than usual:

Happened to my Mom ~35 years ago now, driving home from work on an LA area freeway. She was lucky really; she remembered seeing two middle- or high-school boys standing on the overpass as they tossed a concrete block into oncoming traffic – her, as it worked out. They tossed the block just early enough that it hit the hood of Mom’s car (breaking it into chunks) and then the windshield on the rebound, as it were. She lived, but the insurance ended up replacing the car.

The cops were sympathetic enough, and were honest enough to explain just how unable they were to identify which two boys on bicycles might be the one’s actually leaving the scene of the crime. Of course no one was responsible for adding some kind of fencing to the overpass to make this sort of act more difficult – until it happened to someone with the political clout to make it otherwise a couple years later. And then only to some of the overpasses that similar attacks had occurred from.

If terrorists were smarter than bored middle-schoolers, they would organize an attack campaign based upon this precise type of incident in any country they wanted to attack and then use social media to subtly influence people to rage at the “ineffective police protection” and “failed politicians” and the like. Fairly heavy trash items are free for the taking virtually everywhere. Turning empty bottles into fire bombs are only one of many easy, cheap possible embellishments.

Who knew egotistical psychopath YouTube posers would be the preferred enemy?

As Weer'd says, not a gun death so doesn't matter, right?  And of course, none of the examples of this type of attack to date are known to be the result of "terrorism".

OTOH I vaguely remember news stories from the early 80's of "union thugs" tossing bricks in just this fashion into 18 wheelers driving down the interstate for not respecting their declared strike; I'm sure I heard/read stories of drivers shooting at people in retaliation, so my titular question doesn't seem all that far out of the realm of possibility to me.

Doesn't have to be the religiously motivated of course, but at some point I think it pretty likely that someone with an existential grudge is going to decide that being effective is better than being famous, and then we really will be in for it, won't we?  When the daily commute routinely includes brickbats through the windshield, I'm going to go with "whatever caliber is immediately available" being the most common answer proffered in reply myself.

Before It Gets Too Crowded Up On The Rooftop ...

WASHINGTON, DC IS NOW CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY!

Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

Now, of course, we all get to find out how long "permanently enjoined" lasts in actual practice.

I give it 'till noon Monday EDT at the latest myself.

Send a few bucks to the Second Amendment Foundation if you can; Alan and the boys (and girls! :)) are almost certainly already gearing up for the appeal.

Thank you, Alan Gura and the SAF for your outstanding work on all our behalf (and you can read the whole glorious thing here).

h/t to Joe Huffman - and yes, I pinched his title; it's just that good and I don't think he'll mind.

For A Given Value Of "Gun School"

Most people who carry a firearm have made some effort to resolve the question of Why to shoot. There are a number of widely respected instructors on How to shoot.  What I don't think we see often enough are classes on When to shoot.   This coming Thursday, I'm going to get to check my home study of the laws governing firearm usage in Texas with the pros.

You know how you can feel pretty confident you have a good grasp on the issues and facts?  We'll see.

Someone Is Wrong On The Internet (Maybe)

First place I saw it was at Weer'd Beard's and the consensus was that murder had been committed.  Then I read about it at Say Uncle, who thinks there is no "castle doctrine" or maybe "stand your ground" claim involved.  And finally I read it again at Pagun Blog (properly titled Shall Not Be Questioned) Another "Castle Doctrine" Case That Isn't.

With so much authoritative assertion on display, imagine my reaction when I read the Montana Code Annotated.  Better yet, don't imagine, read for yourself:

Montana statute seems to specifically say it is a “no duty to retreat” case.  

See Montana Code Annotated Sections 45-3-102 Use of force in defense of person, 45-3-102 Use of force in defense of occupied structure, 45-3-110 No duty to summon help or flee.* 

The first statute says in pertinent part, “A person is justified in the use of force … to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” 

The second section says in pertinent part, “A person is justified in the use of force … only if:  

     (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault on the person or another then in the occupied structure; or  

     (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.” 

And thirdly, 45-3-110 reads in pertinent part: “… a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistence prior to using force.”

Kaarma and Pflegger were in the structure lawfully. Dede (the dead criminal) was apparently in the commission of a home invasion (unlawful entry of an occupied structure, much more dangerous then a B&E) when Kaarma shot him. Kaarma went outside the still-occupied (by Ms.Pflegger) structure and engaged Dede with a firearm, resulting in Dede’s death. 

Montana law would seem to support a legitimate claim of self-defense with the added justification of no duty to retreat from a lawfully occupied “location or place”. I don’t find any requirement in Montana statute that property must be secured in order for the above to have force of law (those arguing that Kaarma and Pflegger “set a trap” must equally believe that cattle ranchers are also guilty because they don’t secure their livestock from tresspassers). 

If that isn’t a reasonable (and actually word-for-word explicit) description of SYG and the so-called “castle doctrine” (verbiage which never appears in any state’s pertinent legal code that I have discovered so far) both, then I think we will just have to agree that we disagree on the definition of “reasonable”. 

As to anyone’s guilt or innocence in this matter, that’s what trials are for, aren’t they? I also have to say that the defense declaring this to be a SYG/CD case seems quite reasonable to me given the statutes that apparently address this type of action in Montana. We’ll see. 

* Source: Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States.*

Quite aside from the widespread reluctance to call the BBC on their bald assertion that Kaarma fired without saying anything (and implying that Dede didn't either) - something not otherwise in evidence, I find the equally widespread ignorance on display by at least three well-respected gun bloggers as to the actual statutory meaning of "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" in the Montana statutes to be the most disturbing aspect of this whole story.

I don't expect the BBC to get it right - I actually don't expect the BBC to honestly report the facts of this story whether or not they might support the pre-existing bias of that organization.  I do kinda expect at least as much effort to determine the actual facts of the law addressing this case as I made from those who seem willing to accept the mantle of "subject matter expert" that their respective blog reputations provide.  Everybody makes mistakes (and let me just say right now that IANAL and my reading of Montana statute could very easily be completely wrong), but the presumptive bias demonstrated in the reporting of all concerned takes the schaden right out of the freud, doesn't it?

Was this a legitimate case of self-defense or was it murder?  12 Montanans are going to have the duty to make that call, after being presented with all the facts (along with the evidence in support) and with a clear idea of what their states law has to say regarding killing someone in these specific circumstances.  A case to be followed without doubt and I hope we all do so as closely as our personal circumstance allows.

* A book I wholeheartedly recommend any gun owner own a copy of.

Some New Vintage Steven Den Beste

Which is pretty well described as a more concise blending of Vintage Steven Den Beste.  He replies to a correspondent who doesn't understand the nature and necessity of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution:

Let's rewind back to 1789 when the Bill of Rights was written. It was only 6 years since the Revolution ended. And the early battles of the Revolution were fought by men using their own weapons. (That's what the Patriots used in the Battles of Lexington and Concord, for example.) Those who wrote the Bill of Rights were acutely aware that the only reason the Revolution was possible was because of widespread ownership of guns.

The Revolution was fought because the British government was perceived to have become tyrannical, and the Founders were well aware that the new government they were establishing could in turn become tyrannical. They included lots of checks and limits on the government, but knew that in the end the only sure way to prevent that was if the people had the means to rise in revolution, again.

The Second Amendment is the ultimate check. That's why it was included in the Bill of Rights.

This is what you're not going to like: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the citizens of the US are sufficiently well armed to fight a revolution, if a new one is needed. That's what the "militia" referred to in it is about: in that time the word "militia" referred to the kind of thing that happened in Boston at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, where all able bodied men grabbed their own guns and fought on behalf of the community.

Which means that issues like hunting or self defense are a distraction. The Second Amendment is about allowing citizens to own weapons which are good enough to permit them to fight against a tyrant's army and win.

Tyrants can be either foreign or domestic in origin (that turn of phrase shows up in the original too), but the essential strength of the USA's fundamental governmental mindset is taken from the largely unspoken understanding that excess oppression can be met with counter excess from almost anyone in the general populace, whenever it appears, whoever the source.

As Steven says, "It isn't a perfect solution, but there aren't any others which have been as successful."  This weekend in particular, it seems appropriate to apply this particular ray of clarity to this specific question.

How Can A Wrong Be A Right?

I'm working on something having to do with rights and I want to get some added perspective to part of that issue.

I'm not a commenter at Neanderpundit, but I am a semi-regular reader.  Some time back, Og wrote an entry that in passing well captures one of the issues I hope to discuss.  He wrote:  

Beginning with Roe vs Wade, we have institutionalized slaughter of innocents on a scale the likes of which could not be imagined. Something on the order of 57 million abortions have been performed since 1973. More than twenty times the US casualty rates in every war since 1776. More than twice the population of the top 15 cities in America ...  If you have faith in a Creator and you meditate on this it becomes clearer and clearer. The lesson of Abraham and Jesus is clear; Only the Creator is empowered to give and thus take human life.

Stipulated for the sake of discussion, it is a given that it is both wrong to kill another while also legal to do so sometimes.

I want to posit a circumstance for specific discussion (should anyone actually read this - I'm mostly just putting this down in exposition for later adaptation):  since self-defense is an explicit legal concept in US law, to what degree can abortion be justified under that legal construct?  If a man does not contribute to the conception of a child/human fetus, he can still find himself legally and financially responsible for the child for at least the first 18 years of his/her's life.  Is that man ethically exercising his self-defense rights by facilitating (not a euphemism for "forcing") the newly pregnant woman (presumably his legal spouse) to seek out an abortion?  Could this same justification be equally ethically extended to all US taxpayers in the case of an unwed woman becoming pregnant?  Given that "self-defense" requires an imminent threat being present, can it be logically asserted that the certainty of legal and financial obligation being inflicted on the man immediately upon the child becoming a legal person is ethically (and ought arguably be legally) equivalent to imminent threat?

I'm well aware of the moral/religious doctrine on these questions, I'm deliberately confining this to the legal issue.  When is a person ethically justified to assert his/her rights?  What are some of the ethical justifications for denying someone the exercise of those same rights?  Specifically, the right of self-defense.

I deliberately choose an extreme example, but I think it relevant to offer my own belief that abortion is justified in US law because US legislators have taken the position (if only by default) that a "person" is one who exists physiologically independent from any other and is at least theoretically able to exercise a human being's rights and responsibilities (vote, pay taxes, etc either directly or by proxy) independently from any other (which absolutely requires a specific exemption for conjoined twins).  By that logic, an unborn child cannot  meet the legal definition of "person", therefore cannot be subject to the protections the law provides to such.

Again, I'm clear on the moral questions (or clear enough for these purposes); my focus is on the ethical exercise of legal rights and behavior, and the process by which we make these type determinations generally and in particular as regards self-defense.

Update:  I have edited my late-night (and quite garbled) prose to make more clear the lack of biological relationship between the man potentially responsible for the welfare of the non-aborted child in US law.