25 November 2009

Bad Humor

Evaluating "Pro Gun" Humor


Every once in a while someone e-mails me some kind of funny pro-gun humor. Sometimes they can be funny. Often they are sarcastic or reflect a cynical humor about the state of legal affairs. But some are funny only on their face and less funny if you're truely law abiding.

This particular item is making the rounds and was forwarded to me by a former coworker. She thought it was funny. So did I, at least on the surface. But there's a serious problem with it that should be obvious.


This Ad Was Posted to
Craig's List Personals:

To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.
Date: 05-27-09, 1:43 A. M. EST.

I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on my girlfriend and me, threatening our lives.

You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason.

My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very Intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, wasn't it?

I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from bare footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as four other people's in the gas station on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!

I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]

I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb ... after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.

Later, I called a lot of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what's going on with that?

Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target. The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number, etc).

In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you ... but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime.

I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider the career path you've chosen to pursue in life.

Remember, next time you might not be so lucky.
Have a good day!
Thoughtfully yours,
Alex

P.S. Remember this motto.
An armed society makes for a more civil society!

At first blush, it's mildly funny that the street thug gets his "just desserts" by becoming a victim of the same kinds of crimes he [and others] would perpetrate against you and me. It's the old an eye for an eye kind of biblical justice.

But let's look at it from a more legalistic viewpoint. When threatened with robbery, our intrepid citizen could have defended himself with his Kimber .45 pistol. And it would probably have been ruled justified.

If he had forced the thug to drop his knife then leave behind his wallet and cell phone and used the thug's cell phone to call police, his actions could be deemed defensible. The knife is evidence, perhaps with fingerprints on it. The wallet identifies the thief and taking the cell phone prevents him from calling his "buddies" to retaliate.

Instead, our citizen turns criminal. He keeps the thug's money and then gives it away. He illegally uses the thug's credit card for purchases, makes threatening phone calls on the cell phone and damages another person's car. By the time he's done, I figure he's chalked up one federal felony, four state felonies and about five misdemeanor crimes.

This kind of behavior is not in keeping with our "law abiding" image as gun owners. It is certainly not the image we want of CCW permit holders! The premise is certainly funny and gratifying for anyone who's been robbed or had their identity stolen.

I think the correct response to this kind of "humor" is that such actions are unlikely by most gun owners or permit holders. But it does point out to the potential thief what could happen if they were given a dose of their own medicine. Fortunately, the vast majority of our citizenry would rather see the thug in jail than commit illegal acts as retribution.

Want to add your comments?

19 November 2009

Terror at Ft. Hood

Islam, Psychiatry and Political Correctness

It has taken me days to learn some details about the Fort Hood, Texas shooting and the man responsible. I will confess to originally having a rather visceral reaction to whole affair. Having sorted out my thoughts a bit better, I find that my anger towards Major Hasan isn't anywhere near as strong as my anger towards those who push "political correctness".

The "executive summary" of the Fort Hood incident is that a U.S. Army psychiatrist, Major Hasan, is also a Muslim. He completed his studies at Walter Reed Hospital but was considered a mediocre student. His duties would be to help soldiers cope with the traumas of war. During his studies, however, he voiced his objection to the Iraqi and Afghan wars as "crusades against Muslims" and equated suicide bombers to U.S. soldiers who fall on a grenade to save their fellow troops.

He was transferred to Ft. Hood in preparation for deployment to Iraq. During the months he was in Texas, he found a great conflict between his duty as a Muslim and his sworn duty as a soldier. This conflict led to his choosing Islam over his military duties and on November 6th, he opened fire on the base, killing 13 and wounding over two dozen more.

Lessons Learned

Islamic indoctrination for most Muslims begins at as soon as they can understand speech and continue for most of their lives. The rules and lessons of Islam are enforced with harsh (and sometimes brutal) efficiency. Islam denies that any other religion is valid. To non-believers (infidels) it denies them basic rights even if they convert under duress - such as a sword at your neck. But most of all, Muslim faith requires its followers to put Islam above all else. This includes any laws or rights others have. It includes violating any oath you voluntarily took.

If your religious beliefs are so strong that you place them "above all else" then swearing an oath means little. Swearing an oath to any organization can be negated by showing it is contrary to Islamic law or rule.

In England, Muslims have challenged long standing English laws by proclaiming them superceded by Muslim Law. In otherwords, that which Islam permits is always legal, everywhere for Muslims. This has been used to make child beatings and child murders a "family matter" not subject to the courts. So far, it hasn't worked.

Political Correctness is self-defeating. It has been established there were "warning signs" exhibited by Hasan in the months leading up to the shooting. His outbursts of anti-war sentiments, his praise of jihadists and calling the conflicts genocide against Muslims. Several of his concerned classmates - officers in the U.S. Army - talked to their superiors about Hasan's views. But when it came down to making a formal complaint, they all declined.

Why? Because, no one wanted to appear racist. Without a formal written complaint little could be done to look into Hasan's rantings or his mental state. Despite the concerns and fears of his fellow doctors, the fear of being called "racist" or "anti-Islamic" won out. Thus, political correctness becomes de facto thought-control. We are afraid to voice our concerns lest we be marked with scarlet letter "R" for racist.

Mass shootings depend on defenseless victims. Once again this serves as a prime example of the defenseless being targeted. Even though a military base like Ft. Hood has thousands of weapons present, they are kept secured. Only authorized military police may carry weapons routinely. Soldiers qualifying at the range are strictly supervised and weapons returned to the armory.

There is no doubt that Major Hasan knew this. It is standard protocol on U.S. Bases in this country. This policy serves the interests of the military and I am not criticizing it. However, it does show us that even the presence of thousands of weapons cannot deter someone, if those weapons are unavailable when needed. Killers may be deranged, but they aren't stupid. They deliberately select locations that are unlikely to have firearms or people who can defend themselves.

Seek, engage, destroy. These are the newest tactics to handle public shooting events. Rather than waiting for superior numbers or the arrival of a SWAT team, officers are being trained to aggressively seek out and engage the shooters to save lives. This was demonstrated to us by the outstanding performance of Sergeant Kimberly Munley (pictured) of the Ft. Hood civilan police agency. Munley engaged Hasan and shot him several times, despite being shot in both legs and her right hand.

Munley, stands barely five feet tall and is described as "petite". Armed only with a handgun, she showed the world that it doesn't take a big, burly male soldier or police officer to stop such an attack. Anyone with solid firearms training and maintaining their focus should be able to do the same. Of course, such actions require training ... and lots of courage. Munley's performance tells us she has the courage of a squad of soldiers.

Psychiatry is still a primitive medicinal practice. When compared to other forms of medicine, it sometimes seems no better than visiting a witch doctor. Too much is subjective, based on opinions and indirect inferences. And this case points out how even a "qualified" psychiatrist can not diagonose his own mental instability.

There have been sufficient cases of one individual being declared dangerous or incompetent by one psychiatrist only to be pronounced utterly sane by another. This is one reason I am always suspicious of any psychiatrist. Plus one always wonders about what kind of personal biases and prejudices the psychiatrist brings into the diagnosis.

Political correctness, inflexible Islamic teachings, psychiatrists who are not, themselves, subjected to "analysis" and defenseless victims all contributed to this tragedy. It is doubtful the military will change its policy of unarmed soldiers on U.S. bases due to safety concerns. Islam is unlikely to change either. But we can strive to choke off political correctness and make sure psychiatrists are more stable than their patients.

Do you have comments?
Want to add your voice?
Send comments to: editor@handgunclub.com



17 November 2009

Firearms and Psychiatry

Psychiatric Myopia

An article on the Psychiatric Times website shows the narrow-minded myopia with which the medical community views gun ownership.

The referenced article is titled Firearms and Mental Illness, written by Donna M. Norris, MD and Marilyn Price, MD. A good, unbiased psychiatrist might have a field day dissecting their article.

They first bolster support for their idea that "restrictions" on gun ownership extend back to the 18th century. However, back then there were "common sense" rules, like telling Martha not to store the 2 pound keg of black powder near the fireplace and no firearms in the courthouse.

In fact, the first page and a half claims that State and Federal laws require more reporting of "mental illness" histories, but are still lacking. The second page contains three long paragraphs about suicide and firearms. Their most significant fact is 46 people a day committed suicide with a firearm daily in 2005 or 53% of the total. Of course, they don't tell you that a whopping 70.7% of those suicides also involve intoxication with drugs and/or alcohol. It would seem that drugs and alcohol are much more of a problem for depressed people.

As I read this article, I noticed that both early in their article and later, these doctors denied there was a confirmed link between "mental illness" and mass shootings or acts of violence. In the first paragraph, they state:
While violence is often portrayed in the media as related to persons with mental illnesses, there are limited research data to support this idea.

Later, as they turn to the topic of suicide, they make the curious statement that ...
Persons with mental illnesses and/or substance abuse disorders are frequently perceived by the public to be dangerous, and their inclusion in the NICS data bank is controversial.

Apparently the psychiatric field doesn't "perceive" the mentally ill or those with substance abuse as "dangerous". Or they are saying public perception is wrong, I'm not quite sure. I was expecting them to claim that public policy was in error to include the mentally ill in NICS checks. But, there's more of course.

I continued reading and expecting them to discuss how the entire handling of mental illness and firearms ownership has been overplayed or overblown. Especially when they said ...

the vast majority of violent events are not perpetrated by persons with mental illness. However, there is a well-documented correlation of violence for individuals with substance abuse disorders. Thus, it is unclear whether a database of mentally ill persons is a deterrent.

Admittedly, if we take every violent act in the country, we might agree. However, it is the repeated violent acts of rapists and mass murderers that get our attention.

But these doctors ignore evidence as plain as their noses. In the first few postal shootings in the 80's, three of the four suspects were being "treated" for depression and other mental disorders. The Columbine killers had been taking psychiatric drugs. The Virgina Tech shooter is another example. In other shootings we have heard the person was "in therapy" or had "stopped taking their medications".

The article even touched on Federal requirements for a "relief from disabilities". In theory, this allows you to get your 2A rights back when you're put onto the NICS prohibited list. While this is true, we've also seen how Congress can de-fund such programs, which allows them to claim there is "a process", with no one to administer it.

Their "conclusion" is much like today's practice of psychiatry in that it falls far short of being effective. In short, it's nothing more than a very general warning for doctors to know what the state laws require and that attesting to a patient's "cure" ...
may impose potential legal liability for a patient’s future acts.

So, instead of examining the real issues with modern psychiatry, the laws and public perceptions, we get an article that appears to support more restrictions, calls for more reporting of "mental illness" interventions and a warning that doctors may face liability for releasing a patient from a "prohbited person" status.

First, let me say that true mental illness affects a great many people. I'm not talking about those with a fetish for washing their hands or always lining up eating utensils perfectly, but those who are mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others. These folks need and deserve treatment. Their rights should be carefully guarded and the opinions of their doctors challenged.

Next, if you are ever in a situation where authorities are called and want you to get a "psychiatric examination", never force them into making it an involuntary commitment. Not even for one of those 24 hour holds in the county hospital. Once it is involuntary, it gets reported. This is not always the case for voluntary check-ins. An involuntary stay might effect your ability to purchase firearms in the future.

Doctors want to reduce the stigma associated with the term "mental illness" so that people are less afraid to seek help. However, at the same time, they still advocate having the ability for a doctor to deprive a free man of his rights with just a signature. And once that is done, it can be frightfully difficult and expensive to reverse it.

We should re-examine whether mandatory reporting is necessary or even desireable if we want more people to seek help. Unfortunately, from what I'm hearing, most so-called psychiatrists are nothing more than dispensers of happy-pills.

Many people have episodes of depression that are perfectly normal. The loss of a loved one, family breakups, financial losses, etc. Sometimes the emotions are severe enough to warrant seeking help. Other times folks just need some advice on keeping their sense of perspective.

If the medical community is serious about expanding mental health care services, they will re-examine their prejudices against firearms ownership. In addition, they will work with legislatures to ensure people can be released from prohibitions once they have passed through a crisis point. But I won't hold my breath for these changes. Not when so many psychiatrists themselves have a prejudice against firearms.
Have something to say? Want to disagree?
Send comments to: editor@handgunclub.com