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/

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 only someone else had a gun...

This article has been updated on July 23rd, 2012, due to a secondary event that is relevant.

On May 30th, 2012, Ian L. Stawicki, walked into to Cafe Racer about 11 AM. and opened fire with two semi-automatic handguns. Six people died that day, including Stawicki, who turned a gun on himself as police cornered him in West Seattle.  He lived long enough to be transported to the hospital, where he later died.

On Friday, July 20, 2012, James Holmes, dressed in body armor, and carrying multiple weapons, ambushed a crowd in a movie theater.  He killed many -- shot many more. He gave himself up to the police shortly after.

After both tragic incidents, when many are asking, "How could this happen?  How can we make sure it can't happen again?," I hear the different sentiment too.

"What if someone else would have had a gun? They could have stopped the killer."

This article will not address the violence in our society, our cowboy culture, our ongoing affair with the firearm, it's popularity in the movies, gun control, gun banning, or how guns provide us with 2nd amendment solutions when things don't go our way at the voting box.

I'm not wading into the RKBA, the 2nd Amendment, or Gun Control. I'm not going to do it.  That path lies a morass of madness, insecurity, and defensiveness.

I'll address one thing, just one thing. It's something I've heard time and again, on Facebook, in comments to articles in the paper, by talking heads on the so called news programs, ever since these shootings.  I've heard it said different ways but, the meaning is the same.  Whenever any shooting happens, I hear this statement, usually in defense of legal concealed carry.  It's always the same statement.  It's always misplaced.  It's wrong and I'll tell you why.

"If someone with a concealed weapon was there, they could have stopped this man."

I know that it has been said that the media never reports on the incidents where someone uses firearms successfully in self defense (actually they do from time to time).  It's been said we never hear about it.  

What I'm going to address here is the supposed hypothetical heroic actions of an ordinary citizen (even with some training), when faced with a incident where a mad gunman walks into a coffee shop/bar/restaurant/theater/et-al and starts shooting people.

On what is my opinion based?

Lets start with my credentials: I have been a sworn officer of the law, a former member of a combat communications squadron in the United States Air Force, and served in a professional security capacity (mercenary) in Iraq in 2004.  I've been shot near and shot at.  I've heard bullets whizzing by merely feet away -- yes, you can hear them. I have extensive defensive tactics training, always scored in the highest brackets in firearms marksmanship tests, and always performed very very well in simunitions (simulated ammunition that really really hurts when you are shot with it) and mock scene exercises.  I've been the hunter, the hunted, the surpriser and the very so very surprised.  I've "won" and I've "lost". I can tell you, the losses are quite humbling.  I have hundreds of hours of training plus hundreds of hours of exercises and practice.  I used to carry all the time -- I mean all the time. I'm practiced at it.  In short, if I am armed, and facing someone in a battle, I stand a pretty good chance of prevailing.  

Put it another way, one of mindset, one that speaks of intent, "I will prevail."

Now let's address the subject more directly as if a person were talking about themselves with, "If I were there with a concealed weapon, I could have stopped this man."

Yes, I've heard this.  Want to know my answer?  The one I sometimes share with the speaker?

My answer to them would be, "I doubt it."

They always look at me with the most puzzled, sometimes hurt, expression.

Why did I say that? Am I trying to provoke a confrontation?  Am I trying to demonstrate some superiority on my part, or some deficiency in theirs?  Why is that my response? This is why.

It's simple. Unless I'm provided evidence to the contrary, I doubt the person who is making the statement has the training and the experience to engage an armed assailant in a crowded, chaotic, environment.  

Why do I doubt it?  I'll address these three simple points.  So...

You're That Good, are You?

If you have spent any time training, it's shooting at paper targets at the local range.  It's highly unlikely you have participated in any actual combat training. This means training where you are moving, finding cover, acquiring targets, and shooting accurately. Sometimes, during that training you are being shot at, it's dark, maybe an instructor is screaming at you.  Sometimes you have to shoot with your left hand instead of your right.  Shooting paper targets, even those that have nice cartoon characters of thugs holding guns, at a gun range is very different than a live moving person. Let's not even talk about a person who is actually armed and may be returning fire.  That's returning fire at you.  You.  How is your shot grouping now?

You're Always On?

Are you really always on guard?  Really?  You always sit with your back to wall, your face towards the door, and your head on a swivel?  You now where all the exits are.  You have identified concealment and cover because you know the difference between the two.  You never turn your back to anyone, not even for an instant? Because that is how long it takes a determined and planned assailant to draw and fire.  You are always carrying and always in a manner where your firearm is available?  You never carry anything in your gun hand?  Ever? You have actually practiced drawing from your concealed carry method and have engaged targets at a range? By the way, most ranges prohibit this behavior and for good reason.  

You are Ready to Stop an Attack (that usually equals killing someone)?

You are really thought about this?  Really?  You have sat there, and gone through the mental exercises of killing another person.  You've walked through the preparation, the actual act, and the aftermath?  I say this because, if you aren't prepared, you will likely fail in engaging the assailant or, even worse, put others at risk with your firing.  I've seen this happen, first hand, in simunitions training, where recruit police officers failed to engage and were "killed" by our helpful volunteers from the department SWAT team.

I can tell you this is not easy. Should I tell you about the dreams I had where I was in a life and death situation, facing another gun, and my dream brain would not let my gun go off?  I'd pull the trigger in the dram and it would just "click".  Nothing.  It took about a year before it went "BANG" and I saw the effect of me actually pulling the trigger in dream space.

So you have thought about this.  You have thought about killing another human being.  How do you feel about that?  Seriously.  

Let's say all these points are true.  Let's say you are good, you are always on, and you are prepared and you have wrestled with the ethical dilemma of taking a human life.  

You think you are that good, huh?

In 2009, in Parkland, Washington, Maurice Clemmons, a convicted felon, walked into a coffee shop and gunned down four armed and experienced police officers.  Would you even begin to think of an argument where you claim they weren't good, weren't on and prepared?  Would you argue that you, on your way to work, standing at the counter, paying for your coffee, would be better prepared to face someone like Clemmons or  Stawicki?  How about if you were sitting in a dark movie theater with a fist full of popcorn in your gun hand while Holmes, dressed in body armor, starts killing people around you?

So no, I doubt a single armed would be citizen hero would have made much difference in this scenario.  I doubt even two, sitting at a table, sipping coffee, talking about the weather could have responded in any way that mattered when Stawicki walked in and opened fire.  I doubt even a few in that movie theater would have mattered.

Who would be shooting at who, in the darkness or the chaos?

This isn't the movies.  You/they (the so called Good Guy With The Gun) aren't some action hero. 

Does this say that one should'nt try to stop an attacker?  I'm not arguing that one should not.  I'm pointing out that you need to have an honest assessment of yourself and your abilities before opening your mouth on this issue.  Should someone try to stop a killer?  Sure.  I know I'd try my best.  

I don't know where the answer to this problem lies. I hear all kinds of intellectually weak and dishonest arguments on both sides of the fence regarding gun violence in our society.  What I do know is that we have to change the culture of violence in this country, the worship (literally) of the gun, and the ability of dangerous people to access and use weapons against our fellow citizens.

Based on my experience, my training and my examination of the issues, I do know this.  The statement that all we needed was a lone hero, a legally carrying individual added to the equation and all would have been well is not based in any objective reality.  I know that argument is based on many things but I don't see how it is based on any real facts.

"If someone with a concealed weapon was there, they could have stopped this man."

No, you have it all wrong wrong.  The problem is not that there should have been more firearms at Cafe Racer or in Aurora, Colorado.  The problem is that Stawicki and Holmes had them.