Discouraging Folks Who Are Doing Good

The lovely, talented & accurate Annika Oakley miss Annika has a post about her most recent range trip, which is becoming a weekly thing for her. She's coming along quite well on the path to gun nuttery. But as is far too typical some asshat left a comment in her post that deserves an examination.

Strawman is the commenter in question.

"It’s nice to see you having so much fun and exercising your rights. I wonder if you got any feedback from Freddie L. Cranshaw before he went out and had a little fun too exercising his rights. I wonder how tight his groupings were, or if anybody noticed he was insane before they sold him his cache."

Cranshaw killed 4 people & had a stand off with the cops that resulted in him shooting himself in the head.

What Strawman fails to see in his effort to belittle someone who lacks his fear of inanimate objects is that Cranshaw's victims were all defenseless. One neighbor of his had taken to carrying a pistol because Cranshaw's behavior disturbed him & he regretted not being around when Cranshaw went on his murdering spree as he implies he could have stopped it. More on that in a bit.

Strawman is obviously of the belief that a person selling a product should be clairvoyant enough to determine if that person is intended to use it for good or evil, as well as being able to determine a person's sanity during the course of a transaction. That works great in mythology & science fiction but alas, we humans are not capable of judging folks that accurately. He also fails to consider that the handguns used (a 9mm semi-auto & a .38 revolver) may have been purchased through a private transaction, been inherited, or simply bought before whatever the cause of Cranshaw's loss of reason developed.

Cranshaw was not exercising a Right though; no more than a person would be if they falsely accused someone of a heinous crime, or yelled fire in the proverbial crowded theater.

"Remember, nobody ever got shot by someone with out a gun."

& no arson was ever committed without fire. Is that a good argument for banning flame? No one was ever killed in a car crash that didn't involve a car. No one ever drowned where there was not liquid involved.

"You know as well as anybody that guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime. Most gun crime involves people who know or loved each other and that most regretted what they did and wished they had just cooled off instead of picking up a gun. I can’t verify this next statement but I would wager that more people are killed accidentally with fire arms than the number of armed citizens successfully protecting themselves with their weapon(s)."

Around 800 folks are killed through negligent discharges of a firearm in the u.S. in 2001. Not 80,000 nor 8,000 but 800. That would include hunting accidents as well as general negligence. In a country of 280,000,000 where roughly 40% of the populace has a firearm in the home. That'd be about 112,000,000 homes with firearms yet only 800 people are negligently killed with them. That's a ratio of 1:140,000. Tragic in each & every case for sure, but statistically it's damn near insignificant.

Now to put all this into perspective let's look at some other causes of deaths:

Drowning in 1998: 4,100 deaths
Bicycling in 1998: 806
Death by fire or burns in 1998: 3,700
Poisoning by solids or liquids in 1998: 8,400
Falls in 1998: 16,600
Negligent discharge of a firearm in 1998: 900

I'd point out that more children under the age of 14 drowned in 1998 than people under the age of 74 died as a result of being shot. More folks between 25 & 44 died form falls than all people who were killed by the negligent discharge of a firearm that year. & we must not forget that it's estimated that around 41,000,000 folks participate in the shooting sports every year in the u.S.

Compare that to the various estimates of between 80,000 & 2,000,000 crimes that are stopped or directly deterred through the use of arms in the u.S. every year. For every one person killed by negligent use of a firearm there are between 2 to 25 crimes being prevented. Course you won't hear that from CNN. As Kevin so aptly points out the media is usually silent on the beneficial nature of firearms. Luckily we have the internet. Kim du Toit has a small sampling of justifiable shootings where the miscreant dies. Clayton Cramer & Pete Drum have a blog devoted to justifiable use of firearms (not necessarily resulting in dead miscreants). KeepandBearArms.com has Operation Self Defense which again chronicles stories of folks who use firearms justifiably.

Defensive use of a firearm entails more than merely killing someone. Often the mere presence of a firearm in the hands of a would be victim is enough to dissuade an attacker. In addition it's hard to quantify exactly how often this occurs because self defense is legally risky in some place. NYC comes to mind, as does D.C. & Chicago. If I were in one of those locales & used a firearm to stop a crime there's no way in hell I'd tell the cops as most likely I'd be the one they threw the book at. Funny how unjust & immoral laws bring out the worst in government; an attempted violent confrontational criminal is not caught but a person with no harmful intent is prosecuted for not having the right paperwork.

So guns do in fact stop crimes. Not crimes in general, but violent confrontational crime. If you're looking to make some easy money for your crack habit, would you A: break into my house while I'm home if I lived in an area with high gun ownership B: try to mug me if the carry laws were not strict or C: start looking at empty cars in dark parking lots for real quick grabbing of stereos? Criminals don't pursue new careers cause their victims are armed - but they do stop trying to strong arm &/or assault the ones they think will fight back.

"A fellow I know, runs the check cashing place by the projects, was gut shot a few years back for the bank bag he was carrying at the end of the day (he lived). The stupid assholes (and yes most criminals are stupid) wanted his bag not realizing that at the end of the day check cashers are going to the bank with paper, not cash, but the point is the check casher wears a revolver in plain sight. So instead of just hitting him in the head or pointing a gun at him, the thieves KNEW they had to shoot him. This was his big benefit for having a full carry permit."

Anecdotal, the plural of which is not data. But taking it at face value it makes an argument, albeit a weak one for concealed carry (I say weak because no such justification should be needed to bear arms in any manner).

But your supposition is flawed. They had the drop on him. They could have just as easily stuck the gun in his face & then disarmed him. Their intent was to cause harm & it's doubtful that it was because their victim was armed. Some folks are just mean. They don't have a better nature to appeal to. They'll kill you just as soon as they'd look at you. That's life. No explanation is really adequate. "Maybe if he wouldn't have been carrying..." is a bullshit rationalization to cover the fact that some people are just plain bad.

But balance that against the folks mentioned in the previously linked blogs who did use a firearm for defense. If you want to play the numbers game I'd say you're on the losing end.

"I have another true story, if you’ll indulge me? A friend of mine, we shall call him Bill, has only a target permit but carries his Glock in his suite jacket pocket. One day he interrupts a robbery in a furniture store in a strip mall. He sees a gunman menacing the female cashier and he starts to sneak towards the front of the store to help. Along the way, an unseen accomplice gets the drop on him and orders him to the front of the store. Bill’s gun is still not visible. While walking to the front, Bill who is now convinced he is going to die, drops to one knee, turns and shoots the guy in the neck, killing him. The second gunman leaps over the cash counter and get two rounds off missing Bill both times. Bill shoots back and hits him twice. End of robbery. The second guy lived. Lot’s of issues here to be sure. Bill should be dead but lucked out and the robbery might have proceeded with out any violence if not for Bill’s intervention. Bill can, in NY, go to jail for his involvement, but he lied to the police and said he was carrying his Glock in the box and took it out of the car so as not to leave it unattended while he shopped on his way to the target range. Bill having acted so heroically the authorities did not push on this matter. Since that incident, Bill has drawn his gun on two black men he though wanted to rob him in a deserted parking lot, no shots fired and he has stuck his gun through the car window of a driver he thought was harassing him."

Now that's some twisted logic Strawman. If he wouldn't have pulled his gun they might have just robbed the place w/o any violence? It's just as (probably more) probable that they would have committed some form of violence, possibly ending up with all the victims dead. Or do you suppose that if they had just raped the women that would have been preferable to the bad guys getting shot? Ya know, maybe if we hadn't have entered WW2 then Hitler would have left the Jews alone. Perhaps if we wouldn't have started shooting at the redcoats when they came to disarm us then the King would have graciously granted out request for independence. & maybe if we stop carrying weapons then all violence will cease, cause the bad guys just want some cash because society has placed them in dire financial straits right?

Some folks are mean. Some folks do not care about hurting you; hence they use the threat of it to get you to comply with their demands. If a woman is faced with a man who says he'll kick her ass if she doesn't strip & lay down then that woman is correct to assume that he means it. She'd also be correct to, right then, not a second later, shoot his sorry ass until he stops being a threat to her. If someone approaches you on the street & says for $50 he won't put you in the hospital you should not rely on his word or his mercy; you should focus on the fact that he is willing to threaten you with violence; therefore it is not a logical implausibility that he means it. Further there is no guarantee that he won't perpetrate violence upon you even if you comply with his demands. Therefore someone who seriously threatens to harm you in the course of a violent crime should be treated as a serious threat no matter what your actions are. In short you should shoot the bastard if you have a firearm. If not you should use some other method of rendering him incapable of harming you. Running away won't always work. It didn't for two of Cranshaw's victims. Jeff Cooper once said that "evil is not overcome by fleeing from it". The same idea is applicable when you are seriously threatened, because in its essence a threat of violence to wrongfully take something form you is an act of evil.

As for the later incidents, if he felt he was being threatened, but used his firearm to prevent that threat coming to fruition without harming anyone, then what exactly is your issue with it? In the latter instance it sounds as if he may have stepped over the line (IMO) but then again I don't know what those harassing actions were. If the guy was flipping him off repeatedly then yes; your friend was wrong to pull a gun. If it involved trying to run him off the road & then they were both stuck in traffic I can see how it may have been justifiable. If the guy was yelling that he was going to follow your friend home & kill his family then I won't say his actions were totally out of line. The law is another issue, as NY is not a good place for anyone to be.

"Annika, I do not feel safer in a society that has more guns in the hands of citizens do you? Those who enter criminal enterprise and use guns I can do nothing about, but I am not convinced that more guns in the hands of citizens is the antidote. "

Hmm. Not worried about criminals with firearms since nothing can be done about it, but concerned over non-violent, non-criminals having them? Those 800 or so negligent homicides that worrisome? Or does Strawman feel that most violent death is caused by otherwise nice folks snapping because they have a firearm?

I feel safer because I pack. I also feel safer because I carry a spare tire. My sense of safety is enhanced by my fire extinguisher. Any of those objects are irreplaceable in certain situations. Any of them can be used to unjustifiably or negligently take a life (in the case of the spare, I'm more talking about the implements to install it i.e. the tire iron). But I am responsible with all three; therefore I know that they will only be used when it is proper to do so. Now I can be a fairly mean person. I don't usually hesitate to tell someone to go to hell & I'm a stubborn adversary when I feel threatened. But I am also a rational person who is capable of constraining emotions & using logic to determine actions. I feel most people have the same potential (the using logic in place of emotions part). But statements like:

"...I do not feel safer in a society that has more guns in the hands of citizens..."

illustrate that this self control is not something that has been taught adequately enough. I do not need laws to make me responsible, but perhaps Strawman thinks I do. His is a world in which emotions seem to dominate rather than reason. In his view if I'm mad at someone, even someone I care about & there's a gun lying around then I'll kill them. I can assure you that I have gotten mad at many folks, even those that I love, but somehow I didn't give in to the impulse that emanated from the gun to kill them. Yes, despite the gun's sly whispers of "use me; unleash your anger & end this" I was able to resist. Perhaps in large part because I never heard such whispers or had such thoughts, but even more so because I have self restraint. It's not a magical property that I alone possess. All of us do, we just have to learn how to use it. & the first step is realizing that while emotions cannot be helped, acting rashly upon them can be.

"...If you want to target shoot, just rent the use of a gun and have fun there is no need to take it home..."

What about self defense? Know any burglars, murderers or rapist who'll patiently wait at the entrance of miss Annika's bedroom while she runs down to the range to grab her rental?

"If you are compelled to shoot animals; therapy is a better choice than going into the woods with a rifle. One will raise your self esteem while the other makes you question your sanity as you confront your homicidal impulses. (yes, yes, you hunters can turn the last sentence around but I’ll leave it anyway)"

Hunting is not for everyone. But such a statement coming from anyone who is not a vegan is hypocritical in the extreme. Even from a vegan it is an ignorant attempt to condescend instead of offering a rational argument. Most folks who hunt do so not only because it is an enjoyable activity to them, but because they prefer the taste of fresh game. What better therapy is there than being alone in the woods, becoming a part of your surroundings, & possibly taking possession of an animal that's purpose in part is to provide you with food?

We’re predators. We're carnivores. We kill things made of meat & eat them. It is no sign of depravity to go out & do the work yourself. It is a sign of depravity to accuse those who do of being mentally unbalanced.

"Criminals don't run from guns, they shoot first while citizens hesitate. Or they just run amok exercising their right to be crazy and refuse medication."

Again, I'd refer to the blogs I linked above to show how silly an assumption the first sentence is. The second part shows a clear misunderstanding of what a Right actually is. Not surprising since somewhere along the lines it started to include things such as health care & cable TV in most folk’s minds. Sad nonetheless.

"For the record, I have shot hand guns, killed animals with rifles but came to my senses as I grew older."

Course that begs the question "but then what happened to your senses as you became even older?" There is nothing wrong with shooting handguns or killing animals with rifles. It's a part of life. Perhaps a part of life Strawman rejects, but wishing it away does not make it so, nor does pretending that either activity is not necessary for some, or enjoyable by some.

"http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm offers some real questions about the nature of the second amendment."

Not really. Not real in the sense that there's a serious issue with the answer. The issue is in accepting the answer. But it’s too complex to explain at the moment when there’s so much ground to cover.

"There is plenty of room for debate on the constitutional issue but far less room in the court of common sense."

The court of common sense would have disbarred Strawman a long time ago. Even assuming that there is room for debate on the nature of the 2nd amendment, the statements made in opposition to the idea of a young woman learning to use a firearm are absurd. If he wouldn't have shot the two thugs threatening violence then there wouldn't have been violence? No one is shot without a gun?

Strawman continues his case in another comment to the same post of miss Annika's:

"I am not entering your house and taking your guns. I have suggested that there is some serious debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and I suggest that the constitution be interpreted now and then with an eye toward the notion that what was salient and deemed necessary in 1775 may not be so today. I don't want the limited vision of the framers necessarily dictating the course of the society I live in today without a little bending of the meaning of the original language from time to time. This has been referred to as a “Living Constitution”. Just as “rights” have been found that specifically were not mentioned e.g. privacy, some “rights” that appear to have been mentioned may not need protection today, e.g. the right to bear arms. I think it is pretty clear that an armed citizenry, able to form itself into a viable militia, rather then “troops” of the central government, was the goal of the authors. They were concerned that the government not have the right to disarm the people and then use troops to impose unfair and unjust policies. I hope you’ll agree that that is no longer an idea with any merit. Did you read the Miller decision?"

The constitution was designed to be flexible. That way the framers didn't impose their ideas on people generations down the road who disagreed with them. However the process to institute change was laid out very precisely. By just saying the words no longer mean what they say it's worse than not having a constitution at all. If you do not agree with the words then amend the constitution in order to change them. If that proves too difficult then perhaps it's not worth amending after all.

As for the purpose of the 2nd amendment not being valid, where the hell do these people not learn about history? In 1905 it wasn't out of the question for the Turks to do what they did to the Armenians. But in 1920 no one had a clue what was to befall the Jews in Germany a mere 20 years later. I do not think our government will try anything that heinous on a wide scale in the net year. In the net 5 years the odds are still slim. I do not however have any confidence that it will not happen in 2025. In the 20th century somewhere around 170,000,000 people were killed by their own governments. Now that hasn't happened here in the last 100 years or so. What has happened is federal troops have attacked a veterans group protesting in D.C. There was the weavers in Idaho & the Davidians in Texas - both attacked with some fatalities because of an alleged $200 tax violation. There was Carl Drega. If you don't know about these folks look here & scroll down. Our government hasn't done anything widespread lately & likely won't in the immediate future. But they have done things on a smaller scale & I have no faith that they will never try to expand.

"My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

That was from Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. For an expansion on that read this piece from the Smallest Minority.

& about reading Miller; yes I have & I understood it. Miller held in its relevant part that the National Firearms Act was constitutional because the specific object before the court was not known to the court to have a martial use. They remanded to the lower court for more fact finding. That fact finding never occurred as the defendant had died. The lower courts in the early 40's somehow twisted Miller around to deny an individual right to arms, even though if that were the case then Justice McReynolds would have said that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the NFA instead of relying on arguments concerning the type of weapon used.

Miller does not make a case for gun control. Well that is unless you just claim it does despite its text.

Strawman goes on to highlight a book that quoted a decision that misunderstood Miller, which I'd assume means he has not actually read Miller or its associated documents.

"you think this gives citizens the right to carry a hand gun or to hunt? Any State could prohibit hunting in a minute, or taking your rifle out of your house. The amendment allows you to own a proper musket and ammunition and keep it at the ready and if needed to meet on the common to fight to defend your liberty. Nothing more."

No; the 2nd does not give me a right to carry arms. It acknowledges a pre-existing Right. As for hunting, most states view it as a privilege rather than a Right. This is an error on their part. But nothing in the constitution would authorize the feds to ban hunting. & a strong 9th amendment case could easily be made for hunting.

But going by Strawman's logic then the feds could ban the internet the month before the next election & so long as we had fixed type printing presses in our homes the 1rst amendment would not be violated.

The idea was that the people not be denied arms in common use by the military & police (back then the military performed both roles). Do you honestly think the framers would have thought showing up with muskets would have been sufficient to fulfill their purpose when the government's troops have M16A4's? It's the principle not the technology that has caused the 1rst amendment to be applied in cases arising on the internet. The same notion of principle rather than technology is applicable to the 2nd amendment. I really don't give a damn if Strawman or anyone else thinks it's not needed or obsolete. Change the damn constitution by amendment & then we'll hash out the immorality of constitutionally sanctioned gun control. Till then my rifles & handguns will stay with me. & don't kid yourself: by advocating the positions Strawman advocates he is creating a situation where the state would not only prevent you for taking your rifle outside of your house, but one where the state will go into your house to make sure that rifle isn't there. It is a very slippery slope we set foot on when we start saying constitutionally enumerated Rights aren't viable anymore, & Strawman's notions will eventually lead to civilian disarmament. He may not view it as such; he may simply think that gun control is necessary since the militia isn't a viable option anymore, but history has proved over & over again that gun control progresses to gun prohibition & that creates a very ripe setting for government atrocities against its own people. There were 170,000,000 witnesses to that within the last 105 years.

"I think your argument distinction about that the amount of gun violence between people that know each other is specious. You agree that most gun violence is between people that know each other but assume that since two rival gang members know each other they are part of the data base which includes husbands and wives, uncles and other family relations."

That was addressing an argument from Matt of Stop the Bleating that was left in the comments in response to Strawman's initial post. In al honesty Matt does a fine job. He argues well (despite his profession) & the only reason I'm taking on Strawman's comments is cause I just couldn't resist picking apart his statements meant to discourage a friend from learning a necessary skill. So don't take it as a reflection on Matt's ability to argue, as that would be a mistake.

Now Strawman does the opposite of what he accuses Matt of; he naively assumes that such relationships between gang bangers were not included in the numbers he looked at.

Look it's been done before, though I forget where & I will not look it up at the moment, but if you take out urban violence (from heavily populated areas such as NYC & DC & LA) then the ratio of people who died from intentional gunshot wounds to the populace is quite small. That would suggest that either living in heavily populated urban areas will drive you crazy to the point of violence (a.k.a. the Merle Haggard "Big City Turn Me Loose" theory) or that the majority of firearms homicides occur between violent confrontational criminals in heavily populated areas. I'm thinking the latter has more merit than the first (no offense Merle).

"Then you arrogantly assume that the familial component of the data base is insignificant and the gang violence significant. Why?"

See above.

"Compared to the small number of people in gangs the numbers of familial relations is staggering. It is only reasonable to assume the violence in that group is far and away more prevalent regardless of how violence prone the gang members are. What do you think the ratio of citizens to gang members is?"

Lemme get this straight. if there are around 12,000 homicides caused by firearms every year (that includes justifiable ones but let's just assume all 12,00 were murders for right now) then because the number of people who know each other through familial relationships is greater than the number of gang members then the majority of those 12,000 homicides were between those with non-gang relations?

There are a lot of non criminals in the u.S. so using Strawman's logic I must therefore conclude that since the vast majority of people are not criminals then there was little crime last year.

What really scares me is that Strawman likely has a job where he's paid to think.

It is erroneous to assume that because of sheer numbers causation can be established, which is the heart of what he's trying to state. The gang lifestyle is very violent, much more so than the family lifestyle. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that because of an increased proclivity & acceptance of casual violence that the gang related firearms deaths account for a disproportionately large number of homicides while the familial relationship related firearms deaths account for a disproportionately small number of homicides.

Here's another newsflash: soldiers in a war zone die at a higher rate than civilians not inside a war zone, even though there are more civilians than soldiers.

"...are you against background checks, keeping the records and waiting periods?"

Ayup.

Strawman's motives are unclear. Perhaps he genuinely feels his particular flavor of Kool-Aid is what everyone needs. Perhaps he's just intimidated like so many males are of a woman who can say no to them & back it up if they have to. Whatever his motivations are his actions are reprehensible.

Miss Annika started shooting a few weeks ago & she's been every week since. She's in one of the worst states for gun owners to be in yet she's practiced more than too many folks in relatively gun friendly states have this year already. Along comes Strawman asking her if she got advice from a mass murderer.

This is an escalation on his part. In her post about shooting for the first time he related a story about a girl who negligently shot her boyfriend at an indoor range. The details were both sketchy & suspect but the intent was clear: discourage someone from learning to use a firearm. No; not just discourage – scare them from it.

That's how they get us; they teach people it's bad to own, carry or practice with guns. Look at the comments to miss Annika's latest post & view the bits of Strawman's comments I didn't address. Mostly they were intent on implying that since gunowners generally (via me specifically) were a bad lot that she should reconsider her new hobby.

Eventually we'll be outnumbered all over just as gun owners are in Cali unless we take proactive steps to show people the enjoyable, safe & necessary side of firearms.

I doubt Strawman will sway miss Annika into giving up her range trips. She seems too bright to fall for the kind of bullshit that Strawman types. But not everyone is so capable of spotting flawed reasoning (or lack of reasoning). When you run across someone like Strawman don't just shrug & roll your eyes. Yeah; I know it's bullshit & Strawman likely won't be persuaded but those who listen to his words might be convinced by them if you don't speak the truth. Further take someone to a range. Teach them about firearms safety then show them how to have fun punching holes in paper or making a tin can jump. & don't neglect to stress the serious side of firearms & their importance not only to survival against wild animals of the bipedal & quadruped varieties, but against that polypedded beast known as government.

Posted by Publicola at August 31, 2005 05:31 AM | TrackBack