Enchanted Sidearms for the Police.

Let's just assume for a moment that this man did not have a weapon in his hands. Can you go with that?

Now let me address it from that standpoint. Deadly force is not authorized, by any use of force guidelines of which I'm aware, due to a suspect acting irrationally. Just because someone may want to complete a suicide by cop doesn't mean you oblige them.

There were two officers there. Were they so untrained, so unprepared with other use of force options, that their only solution to a problem such as this is to *take the subject's life*???

What kind of incompetent, uncaring, uncompassionate LEO does that? People call the police to solve problems. Sidearms are a solution to a very small subset of the variety of problems that police face every day. As soon as they become the primary solution, this is what you get.

When I was in the academy, we were in Defensive Tactics class every single day, for two hours a day, during 6 months of training. We practiced moving from one use of force option to the next, and back again, based on the situation at hand. Yes, that included holstering your sidearm to go hands on and subdue a suspect, for our own safety -- and get this -- theirs too.

Pulling your sidearm should not limit your options. It's not like some mythical sword in some fantasy novel, where it must taste blood before it can be put away.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/20/breaking-video-footage-of-st-louis-cops-gunning-down-kajiemi-powell/

Ending the Shame

What is the malfunction of our society, here in America, where we treat addiction as a crime, instead of a disease or syndrome that we can treat?  Why cannot we realize, even for an instant, that laws don't prevent those addicted to alcohol or drugs, from falling into the abyss of addiction?  What is our malfunction, as a society, that we refuse see the tragic mistakes we make around addiction? Why do we not care?

Is it because, for most of the population, addiction is a thing that they think happens to others?  If that is the case, where the hell is our compassion and empathy?  I can tell you where it is. It's subsumed by self-pride.   You see, in our rush to hold ourselves up as stronger, better, without that particular failing, we judge those with addiction as possessing a weakness.  Those people, those drunks, those addicts, those thugs, those criminals; they are flawed.  And we aren't like that.  Not us, as we turn towards our daily drink, or stagger home from yet another weekend party, writing a hangover check that will be cashed the next day.

Are we truly that ignorant, in our hubris, in our pride, that we see this only one way; that the addict is weak and, since we are not addicted, we are not weak?  We are better.  More an adult.  More responsible. Yes.  Better.  Yes. There.  That makes us feel better, doesn't it?

And society thinks they will never fall to addiction, as they have that second candy bar after a stressful meeting at work, or start counting the hours until that after dinner drink, or drinks.

But they aren't addicted, not them. Not them.

The judgement rolls on, keeping alcoholics and addicts in the dark.  It prevents many who need it from seeking help, walling them off from the support of their fellow human beings. They end up trapped behind those walls, in a dark solitude, until, finally -- either they pay for this in their deaths, or finally swallow their pride and seek out help. Yet, that help is often in secret, so no one knows.  No one must know. If others knew, there would be shame, judgement, possible lack of status, of employment, gone relationships, loss of status as a responsible person.

"You are weak. You are an addict. You chose this. You should be ashamed. You should not have started. You should just stop."

I would bet some of the people saying things like this to addicts smoke cigarettes and tried to quit but have failed. There is also a chance they are veterans of many failed diets; overweight, possibly diabetic, looking down a road that ends in completely preventable death of cardio-vascular disease. Let's not leave out the "social drinker" who has, by sheer luck, not yet been pulled over for their first well deserved DUI, who is celebrating their status as life of the party, who looks forward to the end of the day for their drink.

The self-blindness of human beings is appalling, legion and pervasive.

The only way this can change is to bring light to what addiction is really about. It's not about weakness, lack of morality, or being less of a human than the blind judge. It's being all too human, but with some difference, some wiring that the Judge is fortunate enough to lack -- if in truth are not also afflicted with something they are simply blind to.

The only way to bring light to it is to speak openly, saying, "fuck you" to the judges of the world, and doing what is right for us, and for our fellow man.

Russell Brand had done so in light of the tragic and unexpected death of the great actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman. He has spoken powerfully and courageously of his own daily battle with addiction. As Brand has stated so eloquently, because of the media circus surrounding other actors and celebrities, we expect them to fall to this. We possibly even cheer it (they deserved it, remember?), because a media that reinforces the shame of addiction and holds up victims as flawed and weak.  So, how are we are surprised by the death of Hoffman?

Surprised?

We are only surprised because of our sheer hubris and ignorance, not because we weren't paying attention.

On October 5th of last  year, I was given a tough life blow. I had a couple year relationship with a woman that I thought was based on mutual respect, honesty, compassion and, yes, on love. The outcome of that day was a feeling of being quite thoroughly and summarily dumped. I was set adrift, wondering what the hell happened. I was basically "laid off" from a relationship so neatly. What did I do, or not to, to make her decide that she didn't want me anymore?

In all honesty, the woman who said she didn't want me anymore isn't the villain here. She isn't. Decisions of the heart are often hard. I knew this. Though it would have been easy to turn on her, I deliberately chose not to punish her for not being able to be straight with me. I still feel some love for her. I can't be mean -- not to her. Not really.

But, the question remained; why didn't she want me anymore? I asked myself that question all the next day as I sat alone, drinking whisky. Drinking both numbed the pain and drove me deeper into self-doubt and depression. The numbness was nice, comforting, and something I thought I needed. Actually, in all honesty, I thought I was escaping the pain but, in reality I was weaving a trap, one I had made before. I did it when my mother died. I did it when my father died. I did it when my brother died.  I did it when my other brother died. I did it when my partner of five years dumped me the weekend my father died. Each time, I thought I was medicating my pain but, in reality it was just me hurting myself by starting the episode with these words:

"Fuck it," he says again, reaching for the bottle.

By the way, before I go on. To her, to my ex who dumped me in October: Thank you. Really.

You will see why shortly.

I can be mean to myself and I did just that. That night, as my loving partner returned from a day away, I was quite thoroughly drunk. Oh, I wasn't falling over, passing out, or throwing up all over our home. I was feeling no pain -- physically. She knew why I was hurting. She had seen this before and, true to her kindness, patience, and forbearance, simply let me go to bed and sleep it off.

The next day, I felt like hell. I suffered at work, finally giving up and calling her into an office before I left for home.

I sat down with my partner and said to the person who loves me, honestly, openly, "I don't know if I'm an alcoholic -- maybe I am -- but I want to stop drinking. I don't like the patterns I've been seeing in how I drink. I'm not present. I'm not clear enough. I'm getting too old for this cycle of drinking and not feeling well afterward. Also, I don't need it.  I really don't. I have to stop. I don't ever want to drink anymore. I know I said it three months ago and four months before that. This time, I mean it.  I really do."

There, I said it.  I said it to myself, to a person who loves me very much, and later, to a few others.

To her credit, that day, she found me a program to join.

By the way, the program I'm in isn't AA.  If you want to know what it is, just ask. I'll share it with you. The religious overtones, the punitive nature that I perceived in how AA dealt with responsibility, how they made you reliant on another for your success didn't speak to me.

I've been in that program since the week of my birthday. I should finish it this spring. All my program is, for me, is talking, clearly stating my intent, and keeping that commitment to myself and my partner. The other members are just those that I support and who act as witnesses to my intent. That intent and commitment is simple: I will not drink again, ever. Not ever.

I've seen others in this program who I would look at and say to myself,  "well, at least I'm not as bad off as that guy." Oh, in the past, I also have trotted out how I'm not a drug addict. No sir.  Not me.  I'm too smart for that. See?

And in that, I was doing exactly what I find so reprehensible about the judges of our society I addressed above. True, at least I didn't say it to that drunk, or that addict, but I said it to myself, and I said it to my partner.  Many times I pointed out to concerned others how I never had a DUI, never lost my job because of drinking, didn't make a host of bad decisions people usually associate with alcohol. I'm responsible. That was my justification to not look honestly at myself. I refused to see that alcohol wasn't good for me, that I didn't understand what it did to me but, mostly that I didn't care if I did know.

In the end, though, I needed was to be hurt enough, angry enough, or bored enough, and I'd hurt myself with alcohol. The sheer stupidity of hurting myself like that, after someone else has already hurt me by treating me poorly -- it just boggles the mind.

Facing reality is hard sometimes. I will tell you that facing it with a clear head sure seems to work for me much better than coming out of a self-medicated fog, into a hangover, collecting myself and waiting for the next blow.

No more. My life is mine. Sometimes it's going to be wonderful and sometimes it will be an abyss of difficulty. Either way, whether in triumph or despair, alcohol will not improve it -- not one bit.  Not at all.

With that said, I come back around to the shame. I've told very few people. Good friends have been told, others have guessed and, you know what?

Not one has judged me that I can tell. Not one. So, what was the shame about?

It's about you people. Those of you in organized religion, you in the media, you who are fortunate enough not to be addicted but also unfortunate enough to not have any damn empathy. It's you who keep those struggling in addiction there, with your Drug War laws, your gossip after holiday parties, with your unwillingness to support health (medical and mental) programs that would help our fellow citizens. It's also your inability to reach out to someone who needs it and ask, "are you OK?"

Because it's easier to judge, save a little of your precious tax money, demand that it not be spent on "those people", while you continue to operate in a empathetic void towards your fellow human beings.

Well, to you I say, "Fuck you."

I stand here, unashamed for my life or my decisions. I'll stand this ground. Free by my own decisions. I'll continue here, open, caring, and willing to spend whatever time anyone needs to become free of their shame and the dark abyss of addiction.

My arms are open. Whoever you are, you will make it. Just take the step. My arms are open.

Response to "My Life as a Tyrant"

Response to My Life as a Tyrant.

Update: He hasn't posted my comment.

Having served in a metropolitan police force a decade ago and having served as private security in Iraq in 2004; I hear you.  I hear you on the abuses in Kosovo (the tyranny) and on how citizens need to protect themselves.  My thought is that personal firearms are for personal defense; "protecting yourself or another from grave bodily injury or death."

Like you, I have little or no problem with legal carry and ownership, especially if the person carrying is qualified (most are not) to handle those firearms for self defense. Sadly, most are not qualified, most are not trained in bring their firearms to bear in a combat situation.  I'll touch on this later.

Now, what I write next may seem to disagree with you. It may be arguing for the banning of the possession of some weapons. In essence I'm not.  I just has some concerns about the ramifications of saying the 2nd amendment protects us from the tyranny of ourselves (our government).  As for protecting ourselves from the tyranny of our government? I don't know how that is possible or practical in any real sense.

Why?  That would mean weapons of war in the hands of civilians.  We are talking about AR variants in their many forms which, with the exception of one function (select fire), are basically functionally the same as the weapons you and I carried overseas.  You carried weapons of war. I carried weapons of war.  I'll say it again.  Many of the AR variants sold today by the manufacturers and dealers are functionally the same as what you and I carried.  The only thing missing is select fire.

Even with that function missing, you and I both know just how effective an AR variant is, even in single-shot mode.

Should the general population have access to weapons of war?  I really don't know.  I don't have an easy answer for that.  We could try to ban them, as we have attempted to do in the past.  It didn't work very well.  It especially won't work very well when the technology exists *today* to use 3D modeling software and a 3D printer to "print" an AR lower receiver and large cap magazines.  The latest version of that lower receiver shot over 600 rounds before failure. It cost almost nothing to produce.  *Anyone* with the software, the plans file and a printer could have made one.

Add all the accessory components available over the internet and from local dealers and -- Bingo!  Instant weapon of war.

There are more weapons in currently in the hands of civilians in this country than we have in the hands of trained military.  It's not practical, nor even possible, to collect them all. I don't think it will ever be.  Would you participate in the door to door search and ollection of said firearms?  When, not if, but when the inevitable confrontation breaks out, would you return effective and deadly fire?  That is the situation every front line solider and police officer would face.  The government knows this.

Can the government convince our front line soldiers and police to try to take them away? Can they convince our front line soldiers and police to get into firefights with civilians by deeming them domestic terrorists?  It's possible they can.  Such confrontations always depend on the willingness of the front line enforcers to carry out the orders of their superiors.

Even in your situation, you could not stop Joe.  No one would listen to you.

So we have an uneasy state of balance in this country. There are really more firearms out there already than we can every hope to take away.  They are in the hands of a populace that, to a significant degree, will not turn them in. There is even another significant part of the populace that, dare I say, is actually hoping someone will try.  Those are the deterrent to any real attempt to remove firearms from the populace.

But we also have a problem.  Those same AR variants are falling into the hands of people who are "good guys" on paper. Those good guys are turning out to be not so good.  They are mowing down innocent theater goers, children in schools, with those same weapons of war. Other "nice quiet men" (yes, they are mostly men), are using handguns to clean out coffee shops in Seattle to avenge supposed wrongs.

Now, the pat response to this from some "gun rights" advocates is to have more firearms out there, to arm more people, to arm our teachers, our firefighters, our first responders.  Really?

There has to be another answer to gun violence in this country than "more guns".  There has to be an answer to the Gun Culture in this country, the fear they continue to feed, the violence they continue to dismiss with rhetorical hand waving, and the hand they have in the same violence.  When I say Gun Culture, I'm taking about the people who don't see weapons as a tool but as a hobby, a fetish, a multi-million dollar line of business, and a security blanket.

That same Gun Culture fights, at every front, at any reasonable (yes some are quite reasonable) attempts to regulate the ownership, sale and transfer of weapons.  They see *any* regulation as infringement. I am of the opinion that they are wrong and, the thing is, it helps the mentally unstable, the criminal, the "bad guys" get access to what are basically weapons of war.

This United States of America has a real problem with gun violence.  That problem is fed through a deadly combination of fear mongering, afraid people, opportunistic politicians and capitalists, and entertainment where violence and firearms are the stars, not the actors.

I believe that we have a legal right to have the ability to effectively protect ourselves and others from the imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death.  I believe that firearms are effective and reasonable tools to that end.

I also believe that the firearm ownership in this country is an effective deterrent to outright government tyranny.

But I also believe we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country that cannot be solved with more guns and less regulations.

So, what are we going to do about it?

By the way, thanks for trying to stand up for what was right in Kosovo.  I ran into similar situations when I was in Iraq, and when I was a LEO.  It's sometimes hard to balance your career/safety/paycheck against your desire to do the right thing.  That balancing act isn't always easy.  Thanks for trying.

Weapons of War

There is no sane reason to own weapons of war for sporting purposes.  The AR variants sold to the public *are* weapons of war for all intents and purposes with just one function removed.  The Assault Weapons Ban does not describe cosmetic characteristics but actual functionality. They describe weapons that are directly pattered, if not exactly the same, in all respects but one (select fire), of actual weapons of war issued to our troops and used in theaters of war.

Calling an AR variant a "sport rifle" is like calling a F1 race car with street tires a family car.  It's still a weapon of war, just like the street-tire-shod F1 race car is *still* a race car.

Get a better argument because this one is stupid.

Are you amused by this diversion from the actual discussion of a real problem?

This would be somewhat funny, sortof, were it not for the children they just finished burying in Newtown.

Show me the article where someone killed that may people in a "hammering spree" so easily and it might have a point.

The sheer stupidity of an argument like this is so old and useless for any real work it should be sitting on a porch, rocking in a chair, and telling kids to get off it's lawn.

Yes, people can die from the effects of cars, clubs, bombs, or strangling.

However, nothing, I mean nothing (and I know) beats the efficiency of a firearm. That is why they are used in wars -- to kill the enemy. Of all the classes of firearms, nothing, I mean nothing (or it would be used instead) beats some version/variant of the military assault (yes that is a real term) rifle.

You can have a car, a club, a knife or your strong manly hands all you want.

You wouldn't stand a chance against a reasonable skilled person who was pointing an AR variant at you. 

Like this one...



It can have a high capacity magazine in it, capable of carrying up to 30 rounds.

If I stagger tape a few together, I have an uninterrupted rate of fire until I go through just a little over 100 rounds. That means I can pull one round a second at a target for almost two minutes, before I have to drop this mag and slot another (call that five seconds).

It has an effective (lethal and useful) open-sights range of about 500 yards. Within 100 yards it's very deadly.

Put a 4 power mil-dot scope on one and the person wielding it is even more effective and at longer ranges too.

So make all the comparisons of the lethal nature of cars, clubs, knives, or even 747 aircraft all you want. That doesn't make those comparisons credible.

Almost nothing beats the effectiveness of one of these weapons for killing other human beings.

That's why the military uses them. That's why I carried one in Iraq.

Go find another argument to defend your fears of losing your military toys.

Your current one is stupid.

Death to...Gun Culture.

It happened again today.  An armed gunman killed multiple people, many of them children.  He walked into a school and started shooting. Children.  He started shooting children with what appears to be a civilian version of a military semi-automatic rifle.

I've written about this before.  I wish I had not.

When the gun-nuts, yes I will use that term, spoke out that more guns were necessary.  They said that if everyone had a firearm, or at least, if more people had them, then the shooter in the movie theater could have been stopped.

In "If only someone else had a gun" I addressed the sheer lunacy of that argument for *more* guns.

In "Violence in the Movies and Gun Nuts" I explored why we, as a society, need to keep entertaining ourselves with violence and why we do so.

Then, in "If you want peace..." we got to consider the people who really, really, really like guns and how they are the impediment to peace in this country.

And it happened again today.

Here is what I will predict will happen next -- besides the next killing I mean.

Outraged people will cry, "Enough!" and demand the banning of firearms in this country.  They are perfectly in their right to make that statement.  I completely understand their outrage.

On the other hand...

People who are gun-nuts, the other end of the spectrum, the ones who really really really like their guns, the ones with the "I love Coffee and Guns" faux Starbucks stickers on their pick-em-up trucks, will become what they mostly already are; afraid.

They will be afraid of losing their guns.

Yes, they will be afraid.  They will cry about their Second Amendment rights. They will re-frame the exact words in that  amendment, ignoring the first few, in their justification for little or no effective controls on the massive distribution of firearms in this country.

Here are the two ways it appears historically:

As passed by the Congress:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  

Can you guess which four words they insist on ignoring?

Here are some reported facts that they will also choose to ignore and ignore and ignore.

They are taken from this Washington Post article.

They will do everything to ignore the fact that, since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. In most of those cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally  Legally.  That's Legally.

Then there is the fact that "Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States."

There are other interesting bits of data in that article that, I'm sure they will ignore, obfuscate, or dismiss with Second Amendment rights hand waving.

And there is something else they will do.  They will shake their heads, talk about personal responsibility, and how the gun laws in Washington D.C. and Chicago prove that effective controls don't work.

They will also parrot that wonderful meme, so often heard, so easy to slide off the tongue, "Guns don't kill people.  People kill people," all the while ignoring that, while a person did the killing, they were holding a readily available gun to do so.

They will argue that a killer can use a knife, a rock, a car or a club, demonstrating their intellectual dishonesty as they ignore the ease at which a firearm dispatches a human life compared to their weak examples.

And it's all to defend their abject insecurity and fear.

Now, some may be insulted by this and try to distract us.  They may cry out, "I'm not afraid! I'm exercising my rights!  You can't regulate my rights!  They are immutable!"

And they will ignore that many other rights and privileges in our society are regulated to one extent or another.


The last magnificent manipulation they will attempt is to ask us not to have this conversation now, to not 'politicize' the deaths of children by wanting to talk about what to do about this.

So, if now is not the time, just when would be good for you?  Would next week be OK?  How about in January.  Would that be a good time to talk about the ease with which someone can slaughter innocent citizens in this country?  Would that be a good time to discuss the Gun Culture (it sure does exist, yes it does) and how to change that?


But basically it comes down to a very vocal and angry/afraid subset of this population that really really really likes their guns.  They really do.  They don't want any regulation on the possession of their guns.  They see this as an infringement of their rights.  They see everything as a slippery slope to losing their guns.

And that makes them afraid. It makes them afraid enough that they forget their much vaunted "personal responsibility."  What do I mean by this?  I mean that, they are so enamored of their guns and so afraid that someone will take them away, so selfish in their desire to be armed, to have these magnificent, loud, destructive toys, that they would rather see children gunned down in schools than agree to any reasonable controls on firearms.

Does this mean I'm joining the ranks of those who, on completely understandable outrage, cry, "Enough!  Ban all firearms!  Enough!"

No, it does not. I don't think it's practical or feasible to do so.

Twenty-seven people died today.  Twenty-seven people.  Of that, at least 18 were *children*.  Children.

The only thing that needs to die is the Gun Culture in this country.

I'm calling out the gun-nuts, the NRA, the gun-lovers, the gun-rights-advocates, to step up and help do something about this problem.

I'm not expecting an answer any time soon.

If you want peace...

"If you want peace (less violence in our society), work for justice."

Now this isn't a platitude or an attempt to be flippant.  I don't assume to know the solution to gun violence in our country but I'm confident I know the nature of the problem.  It's only thought debate and discussion that we can find effective solutions.

Why so much gun violence in this country?

The reason why weapons are out there is people are afraid.  They are afraid of many things.  It's reasonable, at some time in your life, to fear violence from someone (crazy neighbor that you can't move away from, stalking ex partner, drug addled relative, or just a high crime neighborhood like the Central District).  At those times, it makes sense to be able to protect yourself in the most reasonable way for you possible.

Now, there are plenty of professionals and civilians out there who have a measured, serious, and objective relationship with firearms.  To this person, they are tools.  They are not objects of affection or delight.  They are necessary parts of a larger picture, be that picture serious and necessary hunting for food, actual sport, or the use of weapons to defend someone from imminent threat of grave bodily injury or death (generally in the hands and the responsibility of law enforcement.) These people look at firearms one way; they are to be respected, but not loved.

But the problem is, most of the people who really really like guns, the people who collect, the ones who are strident NRA members have a different kind of fear.  They are afraid someone will take their shiny toys away. They are afraid of being mugged in Bellevue Square Mall.  They are afraid of the Muslims (hell, all brown people).  They are afraid of -- someone, anyone who will take way their security.

And on top of this...

They really, really, really like guns.  They like them in a way that surpasses the normal fetish for anything else.   I've met people who like motorcycles, power tools, bake ware but I have rarely met watch-nuts who loves their watches like some gun-nuts love their guns.  I've been around these people.  I've worked with them, served with them and, for the most part, had to work with them.   Some of them are nice people.  Some of them I trust.  But I have seen some of the most idiotic and disturbing behavior around firearms from the very people that claim to be "responsible gun owners."  Their affection for firearms clouds their judgment way too often and, the problem is, they either don't know it, or ignore you when you point it out.


Like the so called "security professional" who thought it was funny to turn weapons "off safe" in the weapons rack of the security control point (our office) in Iraq.


Or the two "security professionals" who decided to get into a yelling and shoving match, including the chest bumping, while carrying sidearms.

And that's that problem. It's so emotional.  We are up against a group of people that love guns.  They love them in movies.  They love collections of them. They love cowboys. They love violent video games.  And yes, some of them sleep with them under their pillow.  Seriously.  It's a deep deep culture of fear and violence and it's built on good guys vs bad guys, protecting yourself from perceived threats (some not at all real), and a machismo that poisons our society.  Half of them are afraid and insecure and the other half have a inflates sense of self-described Walter Mitty heroism that is undeserving of the true meaning of the word "hero".

Hence my thought of, "If you want peace, work for justice."

It's only when our society is just, where people are truly free, where the income inequity is gone, where the police treat all equally, where justice is equal to all, no matter their station, that we will eliminate fear and violence from our society.  It's only by eliminating the necessity for so many firearms in our country that we can whittle down their numbers to the fetishists and, hopefully, train them to love something else, or simply wait them out and breed them out of our society.

But like I said, the solution is not obvious.  It can be found, though.  The solution to any human created problem can be solved by humans.  But it's only by admitting there is a problem, by looking it square in the face, that we can take the next step.  That step is being willing to discuss and debate the issue openly and honestly.

That is the only path out of the woods and into a society where firearms are irrelevant.