Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Democrats’ Misdirection on Guns
Josh Gideon is a firearms trainer in central Ohio who has a different approach to personal defense than most trainers. Rather than a military or law enforcement background, Josh’s skills come from working in the executive protection industry. I’ve been saying for awhile now that what a bodyguard does is closer to what we armed civilians do versus being a SWAT cop or a infantryman in Iraq. Nothing against those people who put themselves in harm’s way for a living, but their job is not my job, and what they know does not translate well into how I live my life.
He’s also the host of the “No Soft Targets” podcast, and on the July 12 episode, he talks with Mark James, an experienced professional bodyguard with a successful career in big business before protective services. His views on what type of threats he and his clients face are particularly interesting to people like myself who are concerned with keeping our families safe in an unsafe world, and his beliefs regarding “assault rifles” were particularly insightful.
“If you really want to talk about violence mitigation, the AR-15 would not the place to start the discussion. That’s why, for me, I don’t talk about gun control, I talk about violence mitigation. We focus too much on the crisis, and not on the moments leading up to the crisis. Monsters always start out as gremlins, and you can’t legislate against criminal intent.”
Keep in mind this podcast was recorded before the massacre in Nice, France. Instead, it was recorded as the horror in Orlando was still weighing heavily on our minds. Mark and Josh make a living keeping people safe from violence, and yet banning “assault rifles” is the furthest thing from their minds. Instead, they focus on keeping themselves and their clients safe by understanding that a potential attacker needs three things in order to succeed:
- Does the potential criminal have a suitable target for the attack?
- Is the criminal motivated enough to commit an attack?
- Are there enough capable people guarding the target to prevent the attack?
None of these factors would affecting by a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” If a person wants to commit mass murder in the name of their twisted god or to satisfy the voices in their head, they will do so, and sometimes, they will go to great lengths to put their plan into effect. Motive, means, and opportunity are talked about in that order because that’s the required order to commit a crime. Mere possession of one possible means of committing a criminal act in no way implies that the motivation will follow. To put this more simply, guns don’t kill people, people do.
By focusing on the weapon used in the Orlando massacre rather than the motivation or the opportunity, Democrats wasted an opportunity to appear strong on national defense, and in doing so, handed the issue of homeland security on a platter to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton had already decided that the National Rifle Association was her enemy before the attack in Orlando, and so she focused on the rifle used by murderer, not the motivation of the murderer or the opportunity presented by a “gun free” zone. There is little political gain for Democrats to concentrate on the motivation or opportunity for another mass casualty event, and so their ire instead turns to the nation’s oldest civil rights association, the National Rifle Association. The Democrats have chosen to make one insignificant part of terrorism their national security issue of choice, and by doing so, they will make the entire country less safe if their plans are allowed to be put into action.
Published in Guns
Cleveland police have also focused on the weapon and asked Kasich to unilaterally suspend open carry during the convention. Thankfully (and surprisingly) the governor pointed out the obvious: the executive does not get to just turn off constitutional rights for the sake of convenience or fear.
Indeed, that one-step, myopic thinking is seen in many areas. “There are some people whose hourly wage we deem to be insufficient. Therefore, we will set a minimum for that hourly wage.” Meanwhile, those whose skills are valued below that dictated minimum will not find employment. In addition, those who wish to work as unpaid interns, in order to gain experience and get a foothold in a certain field, will be unable to do so.
The classic progressive pattern of thinking is this:
(1) There is something important that I favor. It should be made compulsory.
(2) There is something important that I disfavor. It should be made illegal.
Control > freedom.
Critical thinking as a method of stemming the tide of violence?
Don’t be ridiculous!
Fixed that for you.
Awesome.
You’re right. Anything they favor or disfavor is, by definition, “important.” Thanks for the edit.
Kevin,
My husband asked me a question this morning that I need help answering.
The 2nd Amendment exists so that Americans can defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Micah Johnson (the Dallas shooter) and the Baton Rouge shooter appear to think they were defending themselves/their people from what they perceived to be a tyrannical government…?
Kate,
You can defend yourself, but it doesn’t mean you’re going to win. To win you are going to need an armed mass and public opinion. These guys didn’t have that…
That’s point that I’ve pondered on quite a bit. I obviously reject anything the recent spate of cop-killers have done, but we found out after the fact that the environment which spawned Ice-T’s notorious “Cop Killer” song was one where the cops were the paid muscle for the Bloods .
What would YOU do in that situation? What would anyone? Would you write a song in protest? Would you take up arms against your oppressors? Empowerment does not have an “off” switch: If it’s legal to carry in the streets, people will do so, whether they support your side or not. Keep in mind the horrendous gun laws in California today started with a good idea: The disarming of violent black radicals, and it’s now to the point where EVERYONE in California is effectively disarmed, except for law enforcement. If you hand out hammers, don’t be too surprised when they’re turned on you.
I don’t believe the underpinnings of the current round of violence against the police are anywhere close to legitimate, because we know that they’re based on a lie, and that lie is being spread not to improve black lives but to improve the political chances of the Democrats.
But that doesn’t mean there isn’t real, significant issues that need to be dealt with here that go beyond gun control and Black Lives Matter. Things have not gotten better for the black community during Obama’s eight years. They know it, and they’re frustrated. I don’t blame them, I’d be frustrated as well.
HOW that frustration is vented is the problem. This is not necessarily a BLM thing either. We’ve seen armed encounters with some very sketchy uses of lethal force by law enforcement between federal cops and supporters of Cliven Bundy. Too many people are near the boiling point, on both sides of the aisle.
Not really looking forward to the next few years.
There is a difference between offense and defense. What the attackers you mention have done is offense, they were attacking and not defending. Our rights to weapons enshrined in our Constitution allow for defense of our self, our family, our friends and our property. Now weapons can be used against the government in a offensive manner legally but that requires a larger declaration by a community of people. Example in our history is the Declaration of Independence, after that document was ratified then weapons use in an offensive manner as well as defensive was legal and moral when used within the bounds of defending the community from the tyrannical government. The attackers in Dallas and Baton rouge would have been operation legally and morally if they had taken their question and purpose before their respective communities and their communities voted to allow them to fight as a proxy on their behalf. This would have been know as forming a militia. That militia could then fight on the behalf of the community.
I generally agree with you. I wrote a post a few weeks ago pondering the other side of the issue. I wondered aloud whether there is a feedback loop between motive and opportunity. That is, does the black rifle first person shooter scenario that features in pop culture and video games provide, for some shooters, a fantasy fulfillment as an additional motivating factor? What do you think, @kevincreighton?
My impression was more that they were getting vengeance, not “protecting” anything.
Keeping guns our of the hands of all blacks was also the goal of the gun control crowd (AKA Democrats) in the South.
This is really interesting—and I don’t think it’s widely understood to be the correct interpretation of what the second amendment right to defend against tyranny (well-regulated militia, and all that). Anti-gun eople definitely think it means you can shoot the guy from the IRS if you decide you don’t like what the gummint is doing with your taxes. Or, I suppose, shoot police officers if you don’t approve of what they are doing (or what you think/are told they are doing).
This is entirely anecdotal, of course, but I have never come across a situation in which a police officer or group of officers hesitated in, say, carrying out a search warrant because the people in the house might be armed. (That the search might be unconstitutional—yes. That the occupants might be armed—no).
Meanwhile, complaints about violations of curtilage tend to center on mistaken identity or excessive force, rather than the illegitimacy of a properly warranted search per se.
I imagine this is because both citizens and the police understand that policing is a legitimate, popularly-supported, generally honorable enterprise. Even gang bangers in the ‘hood get that cops aren’t Nazis (for one thing, if you surrender you tend to survive).
This is why it’s so dangerous for Obama (et al) to oh-s0-politely-and-reasonably claim that the Alton Sterling shooting represents “systemic racism,” rather than (at most) the misconduct of individual officers. He is de-legitimizing police as a whole. Once delegitimized, detached from the support of the people, then of course they’re just a bunch of schmucks with guns and therefore fair game.
When George Washington rode out to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, he was asked why his rebellion was legitimate whereas the Whiskey Rebellion was illegitimate. His answer — or it may have been that of one of the other Founders, I don’t recall — hinged on the legitimacy of the formal power. The American Revolution was fought against a tyrant who had repeatedly spurned the people and the law, instead following his own counsel. Americans had no other resort because they had no democratic way to effect change. In contrast, the Whiskey Rebels were rebelling against duly passed laws by a duly constituted legislature elected by their fellow citizens. The proper place to lodge their protest was at the ballot box. If the system is legitimately democratic, an armed rebellion is a rebellion against your fellow Americans.
Bingo. I’ve been saying a variation of this:
“The rich and powerful can afford armed bodyguards. The average citizen cannot. Therefore, the average citizen is his own (and his family’s) bodyguard.”
The fact that some people choose not to arm themselves and depend entirely on the police is their choice, not mine.
My take on this is a bit different from other responses. Ohio and many other states make all able bodied citizens members of the unorganized militia, available for organized call-up in an emergency, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of free State.” It is the states that the founders envisioned would need to defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government. (Of course, it did not work out so well for the South in the Civil War, or as the South called it, the War of Northern Aggression.)
This understanding of the Second Amendment is not consistent with individual acts of murder.