Arguing About Things You Do Not Understand

The horrific events in Las Vegas this past week have us, as a nation, wondering why and how we can stop evil this deep. What can be done to stop this madness? Are we safe? How can we ensure our safety at public events? The answers to these questions are incredibly complex as they deal with human behavior. We are complicated creatures, to be sure. This particular evil-doer does not fit the typical profile in any way. What causes a retired accountant with no apparent financial issues, no criminal history or history of mental illness to attack a concert full of innocent people? I doubt we’ll ever know. How can we predict who will commit this sort of crime? I don’t know if we can.

What is predictable, however, is the reaction from the gun control crowd. The blood wasn’t dry before social media and the airwaves were filled with shrill cries for more gun control. It continues to amaze me when people are calling for drastic action in reaction to an event when almost nothing is known about what actually happened. They don’t stop to ask the most basic questions: who? what? where? when? why? Of course, the answers to those questions don’t really matter. They know what they’re going to say before it even happens. Remember, this is the “never let a tragedy go to waste” crowd.

The interactions that I’ve seen and participated in this week show a remarkable level of ignorance among those most strident for new gun regulations. My intention when I started this post was to list the more common statements which are factually incorrect and clearly demonstrate, using facts and statistics, how they were incorrect. But what good would it do? The people who are most ignorant of how guns work, what the laws actually say, how guns are purchased, which guns are used in crimes most often, and who is using them, would not read this post. They believe there is an “epidemic of mass shootings” and “this type of thing doesn’t happen in the more civilized European countries. They have chosen to believe what they’re told by the media and the leftist leaders who champion their cause. They are willfully ignorant, the most dangerous kind of ignorance. Their arguments are based solely on emotional response, the need to DO SOMETHING which I’ve often mentioned.

I have yet to see any of these folks offer a realistic solution which would actually DO SOMETHING. I asked one person directly what new laws would stop an event like what happened in Las Vegas. Her response was to end sales of accessories which enable a semi-automatic weapon to fire at an automatic rate and to increase funding for mental health. I really don’t have an issue with either idea, but even she conceded neither was likely to prevent it. What they really want is for the government to determine what weapons who should be allowed to own. They want the government to know exactly who owns what weapon. There’s only one reason for that. Even though most of them lack the courage to admit it, they really don’t want anyone to own any firearms, period. They are perfectly willing to accept the loss of freedom for the illusion of security. When faced with this argument, I always point out the number of firearms owned by US citizens right now. Are they willing to have the police or military go into private homes to confiscate those weapons? So far, I haven’t had anyone admit they’re willing to let it go that far, but its just a matter of time.

I understand the emotional response to a tragedy like this. I know it upsets me, as a husband and father as much as a gun owner, and I’d hate to meet anyone who wasn’t upset by it. I understand having an opinion about things you don’t completely understand. We all do. But if you’re going to argue about something, you’d have a better response if you were knowledgeable about the subject. The voting public has clearly rejected their argument, mostly because it has no basis in fact. I, for one, am not willing to trade my freedom for a false sense of security, knowing it will do nothing to curb violent crime. They can deny the statistics all they want, it doesn’t change the fact armed citizens are less likely to be the victims of violent crime.

The problem lies with the human heart. How do we determine who has that level of hate in their heart? How do we control what goes on in the human brain? How can we look at a person and decide they’re dangerous? Maybe there are signs we don’t yet know. We should certainly work toward identifying what those signs might be. But how do you do it without violating civil liberties or the inalienable rights of millions who commit no crime? That’s the hard part, and so far no one has an answer.

On Your Feet, Gentlemen!

Like most Americans, I love football. I’m partial to the college game (Go Vols!), but I enjoy NFL games, too.  I don’t follow it like I do college, but if there’s a game on, I’ll usually have it on, even if I’m not watching every play. I have great memories of watching games on a tiny television at my Grandmother’s house after Thanksgiving dinner and of Super Bowl parties with friends.  I look forward to lazy fall Sundays at home with a game on.  Football is great entertainment, an opportunity to escape for a few hours and watch large men wearing plastic armor clobber each other.  But that’s all it is.

After a long day in the field on a recent Sunday, I was looking forward to watching a couple of games and relaxing. Unfortunately, politics has infiltrated football. As if we didn’t have to hear about this debate or that protest enough, now it has come to football. The latest craze in protests, as I’m sure you’ve seen, is for a few incredibly wealthy and privileged athletes to kneel, sit, or be absent from the performance of the National Anthem prior to the game. This is ostensibly to show their displeasure with race relations or something stupid uttered by the POTUS. As if that wasn’t bad enough (and certainly it was), the aforementioned POTUS had to insert himself into the conversation during a public appearance. Now things have really gotten out of hand, with entire teams kneeling, or staying in the locker room during the anthem. This is wrong and reflects poorly on the players, their team, and the league. It does nothing to solve the problems which they claim to be protesting.

Before I go on, I am aware they have every right to protest. I know it, you know it, we all know it.  They have the right, but that doesn’t make it right! By extension, I have the right to think they’re butt-holes for doing it, team owners have the right to forbid them from doing it while on the clock, and fans have the right to not partake of their product because they’re doing it. Constitutional rights do not exempt one from the consequences of their actions.

In addition, I think the POTUS should try focusing on the extremely long list of things which are more important than football. I agree with some of Trump’s ideas and not others. But I find it very annoying that he can’t seem to stay out of things which are just none of his business or shouldn’t rise to the level of presidential concern. He needs better handlers and someone really needs to do away with his Twitter account.  His chief of staff should do us all a favor and take a hammer to the presidential smart phone.

Anyway, if I owned an NFL team I would expressly forbid my players and staff from protesting in any visible form during the performance of the National Anthem. They can do that on their own time. They would be heavily fined the first time, suspended the second time, and looking for work the third. I know that won’t be a popular opinion, but I own the team, so who cares?  Heck, I wouldn’t let them have hair hanging outside their helmets either! If I managed the NFL, the team of every protestor would be penalized severely. How about you only get one time out in the second half? Maybe you get a 15 yard penalty on every kick-off? How about a big, fat fine for your team owner? Is your little hissy fit worth hurting your team? If I was in control of the media coverage of the games, no camera would come to rest on someone behaving badly during the anthem. If the media would quit giving them all this attention, they’d quit doing it. I watched the anthem being sung by a very talented young lady at a game last night and the coverage spent the entire time showing the players. This is just wrong.

There is a time and place for protests. There are ways to direct one’s energy where it may actually do some good. The performance of the National Anthem should be a time that transcends politics. Regardless of who is in the White House or what is going on in this country, those few minutes are supposed to be used to honor America and all of the things which make our country great. It is a moment when the focus should be on the pride in being an American. This is not the time to try and make a statement, no matter how valid it might be. Furthermore, pride in your country is not the same as support for any elected official.  The POTUS does not equal the flag. President Trump is not America.

NFL players need to remember they are grown men being paid insane amounts of money for playing a game. They are paid performers, just like actors in Hollywood. As a consumer, I don’t care about their politics anymore than I do about those of the elitists in Hollywood. Instead of being disrespectful and making themselves and their teams look bad in front of the entire nation, they should focus their money and influence on working to solve the problems they perceive worthy of protest. Many of them do just that and should be applauded for their efforts. The youth of today need every positive role model they can get and we all need heroes. There is nothing heroic in behaving badly during the National Anthem. So, gentlemen, get on your feet! Cover your heart with your right hand and think about how fortunate you are to live in a nation where you can become one of its wealthiest citizens for playing a game. That’s not too much to expect. You are professionals. Act like it.

 

Let’s Work with the Dreamers

The President’s decision not to renew Obama’s executive order allowing the children of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. (known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA) has resulted in the reaction most of us have come to expect; instant protests and media-driven hysteria.  Not one person covered by DACA has been deported since the announcement was made, but you would think the buses were lining up even as we speak. I do not like executive orders, including those resulting in something I support.  I would much rather those whose job it is to pass laws do just that.  I understand there are times when issues of national security arise where the President needs to act quickly, but those times are few and far between.  The President has given Congress 6 months to draft some form of legislation concerning this issue and I hope they do.

I will admit to knowing little about the process of being in this country legally.  I was puzzled by the fact that so many of those affected by DACA, the so-called Dreamers, had not simply taken the steps to become American citizens. I did not know until just recently Dreamers were required to follow the same procedures as any other illegal immigrant, which includes leaving the U.S. and requesting to be allowed back in.  I have no problem with people who are here illegally being deported and required to follow the process if they desire citizenship. They are plainly breaking the law and should not be allowed to continue doing so.  The Dreamers, however, constitute a different situation.  They were brought here as children. Many of them never knew their home country and have no home there. Why would they be required to return to a country of which they have no memory?  This makes no sense to me.

I have a pretty simple solution for your consideration. I’m sure there are nuances and legal technicalities which would prevent any simple solution, but you have to start somewhere, and I intend to start with common sense and logic.  So, I’ll lay this out and you tell me what you think.

For those Dreamers who are 18 years or older, if they are employed full time or are enrolled in college, they should be administered the test required for citizenship free of charge as soon as possible.  If they pass, they can take the oath and become full-fledged American citizens.  They should be required to take the test within one year of passage of the bill.

Any Dreamer convicted of a felony, violent misdemeanor, or drug-related crime should be deported immediately.

Any Dreamer who serves in the military receives citizenship along with their honorable discharge or after 4 years of service.

Dreamers who are younger than 18 are afforded these same opportunities upon their 18th birthday.

Anyone not meeting these conditions should be deported as soon as possible.

Once citizenship has been obtained, any special college financial aid or funding geared for Dreamers ends with the end of the current academic year. They will be eligible for the same financial aid opportunities as every other citizen.

This idea will only work if the flow of illegal immigrants and their children is stopped, which will only happen if there are consequences for their decision to try and stay here illegally.  I don’t begrudge anyone wanting to come here and make a better life for themselves and their family. But we are a nation of laws, and there are clear, legal means of living here and becoming an American. If they truly want to be here, they should be willing to take the oath of citizenship and mean it.  If the parents of the Dreamers would have done it, we would not be having this conversation. I would not be opposed to providing a similar opportunity to those adults who have come here illegally.  I see no reason why we can’t encourage those who have grown up in this country to become productive citizens.  They had no choice in coming here, but it should be their choice to stay here legally.  We should give them that choice.

 

Why You Should Not Fear Campus Carry

Social media has been active with the usual gnashing of teeth and cries of doom as Texas’ campus carry laws expanded to community and junior colleges.  Texas is one of 10 states where it is currently legal for licensed students and faculty to carry concealed firearms.  In 2004, Utah became the first state to pass such a law.  There are now 11 states where it is legal for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm to do so on college campuses.  It isn’t quite that simple, as the laws vary greatly by state.  Utah, for example, simply said that state laws applying to where a concealed firearm can be carried apply on college campuses.  Tennessee is on the other end of the spectrum, as only licensed faculty and staff are allowed to carry.  In between, there are limits on where and when weapons can be carried and by whom.  Twenty one other states leave the decision up to the individual institutions, which is a de facto ban on campus carry.  It is expressly forbidden in the remaining states and the District of Columbia.

According to the anti-gun crowd, this is a recipe for disaster and calls for the usual emotional response.  Their protests are what we’ve come to expect and cover a wide array of knee-jerk reactions, but I have condensed them into five basic complaints.

  1. An increase in firearms on campus will lead to an increase in violent crime.  This is a common theme in just about every anti-gun protest and is simply not supported by the statistics.  Studies suggest the rate of firearms-related crimes committed by persons with a concealed carry permit is about 2.4 per 100,000 people, not even close to the 3,813 per 100,000 for the general population.  By all accounts, those who go through the training and red-tape of obtaining a concealed carry permit are more responsible and safer than the average citizen.  Based on my personal experience, those who carry a firearm on a daily basis are very aware of the responsibility which they have assumed by choosing to go armed.  In searching the internet, I was not able to find a single instance where a concealed-carry permit holder committed any sort of crime on a college campus.  That doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, but clearly demonstrates the rarity of such occurrences.
  2. The college years are marked by excessive alcohol and drug use, which will lead to irresponsible gun use.  Drug and alcohol use are certainly serious problems among college-age students.  In every state, regardless of the laws governing campus carry, it is illegal to be intoxicated and in possession of a firearm.  Period.  It does not matter where you are or whether or not you have a permit.  If you are too impaired to drive, you are too impaired to carry a gun.  For me personally, I won’t even have a beer with dinner if I’m armed.  Legally, I could, but I have made the decision that I do not want any level of impairment if I have to make a shoot/don’t shoot decision.  We should be far more concerned with the damage done to students by binge drinking and driving while under the influence than drunken frat boys shooting up campus.
  3. College students lack the maturity and emotional stability to responsibly carry a firearm.  Tell that to the 18-21 year-olds who carry a rifle every day in defense of this country.  First of all, you must remember that in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, it must be legal for you to possess a hand gun, which means that you must be at least 21 years of age.  Some states allow for citizens as young as 18 to apply for a permit, but only if they are serving or have served in the armed forces.  We aren’t talking about children carrying guns.  We are talking about people our society considers to be adults.  Citizens.  Voters.  Yes, I know that not all 21 year-olds are created equal and I understand college can be an emotionally charged environment.  The pressures of maintaining grades, social interactions, and student poverty are very real.  Again, there is absolutely no evidence that concealed carriers are more likely to snap in such situations than other students.
  4. People carrying guns on campus will distract from the learning environment/create fear among students and faculty.  Why?  This is the least logical of the arguments against campus carry.  As we have already discussed, citizens with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen.  The more obvious question is, how will you know if someone is carrying if they are concealing the weapon properly?  That’s why it’s called “concealed carry”!  There are approximately 15 million people in the US today with a concealed carry permit.  Odds are (assuming you live in a state that actually aknowledges the Constitution) you walk by an armed citizen every day.  If you’re in a restaurant, you might be sitting right across from someone who is legally armed.  The only time you’ll know is if something bad happens and that citizen reacts.  Otherwise, you will never know who is armed and who isn’t.  How is that going to be a distraction?  The media is what creates fear, not legal gun owners.
  5. Campus and local law enforcement are sufficient to keep our campuses safe.  This argument holds as much water on campus as it does elsewhere.  When seconds count the police are minutes away!  If you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you know I have nothing but respect for law enforcement.  They have a nearly impossible and often thankless job.  They do the best they can, but they can’t be everywhere all the time.  For example, the University of Tennessee Police Department in Knoxville has 54 commissioned officers.  There are over 28,000 students enrolled at UTK, along with over 1700 faculty and even more staff.  The Knoxville campus covers 910 acres in the middle of a city of just under 190,000 people.  That means there are 54 officers to keep nearly 40,000 people safe, assuming no one from the outside community is on campus.  Major surface streets run through campus, so there is never a time when others aren’t on campus. That’s about one officer for every 740 people.  Clearly, it is not possible for the police, in spite of their best efforts, to monitor the safety of all of those people.  The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 is a tragic example.  It took the police 3 minutes to arrive on scene once the call was received, then 5 more minutes to gain entry into the building.  That’s remarkably good time given the circumstances.  Unfortunately, it was not fast enough to prevent the murder of 30 people.  Could a student or faculty member legally carrying a firearm have stopped this incident or at least reduced the number of casualties?  We can’t know the answer to that, but logic dictates any type of return fire would have at least distracted the shooter, if not put him down.  Even if it had caused him to panic and end his own life sooner, at least less innocent victims would have been injured or killed.

Sexual assaults on college campuses are becoming more prevalent.  If we continue using UTK as our example, the problem has grown significantly in recent years.  Young women are trained now to fight as hard as they can and make as much noise as possible if they are attacked.  This is good training, but only marginally effective.  Why should we hamstring a young woman’s ability to defend herself by not allowing her the most effective means of defense possible?  Why is it accepted that women will just have to be a disadvantage in a physical confrontation with a male assailant?  Young woman deserve to be able to protect themselves, to be empowered to go where they need to go when they need to go there, regardless of the time of day or whether or not friends can go with them.  Legally carrying a firearm is the ultimate empowerment.  This is one of the reasons why the largest growth in gun ownership in recent years has been among women.

So, what scares you about campus carry?  Nothing should.  In spite of what is being said, no one is advocating for sending hoards of armed teenagers off to college.  Rather, the object is for the laws governing the carrying of a firearm to apply on public college campuses just like they do anywhere else.  As a citizen, why does my right to protect myself end when I cross an imaginary line and enter the campus at UTK?  There are literally places where you’re on campus on one side of the street and off on the other.  Am I more of a threat on one side of the street than the other?  As a parent, I want my child to be able to protect herself when she goes to college.  Sure, I want her campus to be as safe as possible to begin with, but I understand bad things happen in the safest of places.  I hope she’ll choose to get the training and apply for her concealed carry permit as soon as she can legally do so.  Like most everyone who carries, I want everyone to be as safe as possible, except for those who seek to do us harm.  I want them to be scared.  Scared that the next person they decide to mug or worse will be the one to end their criminal career, one way or another.  I want the next lunatic looking for somewhere to go out in a blaze of glory to have a hard time finding a place where they won’t fear being stopped immediately by armed citizens.  Right now, most college campuses are giant targets of opportunity for such people.  Thankfully, the targets get harder every time a state decides to allow campus carry.  If your state doesn’t allow it, I hope you’ll contact your representatives and encourage them to introduce legislation which will change it.  If you oppose campus carry, I hope you’ll sit down and honestly think about the reasons why you feel the way you do.  Ignore what the media tells you and look at the facts.  I think you’ll see you really have nothing to fear.

 

 

An Open Letter to Police Officers

Officers,

I’m writing this post for you today because I am tired of hearing about your brothers and sisters in blue being killed simply for doing your job. I’m tired of the disrespect and suspicion shown you by the press and some members of the public. I want you to know they don’t speak for the majority of us, and certainly not for me.

I read with horror the story about New York City Police Officer Miosoti Familia’s death on Wednesday. She was stationed in a mobile command center on a dangerous street in the Bronx when a recent parolee walked up to her window and shot her in the head. Thankfully for the tax payers of New York, he was shot and killed later as other officers tried to apprehend him.  Officer Familia was 48 years old and had been on the force for 12 years. She left behind a 20 year old daughter, 12 year old twins, and an elderly mother for whom she cared. She was not involved in a felony arrest or even a traffic stop.  She was simply monitoring a street, trying to keep local citizens safe. She had no connection to the parolee. Her only transgression was wearing the uniform and being on duty at that particular time and place.

Crimes like Officer Familia’s assassination have become far too common.  Already in 2017, 28 officers have died due to violence in the line of duty.  That figure represents 41.8 percent of the 67 officers which have died this year. But more seriously, it represents a trend toward the targeting of officers for no other reason than they represent the police. Last year saw several attacks on officers, most notably the sniper attack in Dallas which killed five officers and wounded seven more, as well as a similar incident in Baton Rouge which left three officers dead. Both shooters claimed to be angry about the treatment of black people by white police officers. That’s an odd motive since slain Baton Rouge Police Officer Montrell Jackson happened to be black. I think the more important color in both cases was blue. Police blue.

Officers, I was raised to respect you and to seek you out in times of need. I was raised to be respectful of you regardless of the nature of our interaction.  I’ve had positive and negative interactions over the years, but I’ve always tried my best to show you respect. Today, it has become acceptable to hate, and even attack, police officers as a form of protest over perceived abuses. This was inevitable, given a national administration prone to instantly and publicly blame you after any instance where an officer killed a suspect. It didn’t matter the facts were yet to be known about the case. It didn’t matter that the involved officer’s life, as far he knew it, was about to be over. It didn’t matter that he might have been saving the lives of others as well as his own. All that mattered was making political hay out if it by fanning the flames of divisiveness and racial hatred. Of course, the true believers in the press were perfectly happy to assist by showing partial cell phone videos, interviews with crying relatives, and cherubic photographs of the smiling victim. Never mind that smiling kid had just tried to take the officer’s gun. All of this then became the constant news cycle loop for days, followed by detailed coverage of the protests and statements by Eric Holder condemning the police. Miosoti Familia got press coverage for one day. All of these ingredients have created a fetid stew of hatred which is now being acted out in violence toward all of you.

I’m sure your work is very satisfying. Helping people, protecting them everyday must be fulfilling and why most of you do it. I can think of no higher calling. But it comes at a high cost. Every day when you put on your badge, you know today could be your last day, your end of watch. That’s true for all of us, but your odds are higher when you run toward the gunfire instead of away from it. The courage it takes to do your job leaves me in awe. Every day, you see people on their very worst day. You are expected to maintain a level of professionalism in the face of everything from disrespect to homicidal rage few can muster and you are not allowed to make a mistake. Not one. Every action will be critiqued, second-guessed, and likely tried in the court of public opinion if not a court of law. Even when it is proven you acted properly, your career could still be over. And, you do all of this for meager pay and very little appreciation from those you protect.

I want you to know there are many, many of us who have the utmost respect for you and appreciate the sacrifices  you and your families make to keep our streets safe. I want you to know what is shown on cable news is not representative of how most of us feel. Most of us are more likely to buy you a cup of coffee or pay for your lunch than to swing a fist at you. I know you make mistakes. I know you accept the fact that if you make a mistake which costs someone their life, you are held accountable. But you deserve justice, just like anyone else. It is a sad state of affairs that finds us at time where the badge makes you a target. Please keep your head on a swivel, be safe, and know you are appreciated and respected.  If necessary, I and many others have your back. Thank you!

Paul G. Avery

The Frustrated Americans

What Should the NRA Say?

What is there to say after a tragedy? It’s always difficult to know what to say when some terrible event happens to us or in our nation. Too often, we feel like we have to say something, even if we don’t really understand the situation. This is true of regular folks, politicians, and organizations.  Conversely, there are times when something does need to be said.  In those situations, the right words can be difficult to come by, but are so very important, and silence is deafening. The National Rifle Association (NRA) finds itself in just such a situation following the resolution of the trial of the officer that killed Philando Castile.

As a refresher, here’s a run down of the Castile case.  On July 6, 2016, Philando Castile was stopped ostensibly for a broken tail light.  Castile was a 32 year old school cafeteria worker near St. Paul, Minnesota.  He was driving with his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, and her four year old daughter.  He was pulled over by St. Anthony’s Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez, who believed Castile resembled a suspect from a recent robbery.  At some point during the stop, Castile stated that he had a firearm on him.  In spite of Yanez’s orders to not reach for the gun, he felt that Castile was in fact trying to draw his weapon.  As a result, Yanez shot Castile, who died at the scene of his wounds.

As you no doubt remember, Diamond Reynolds, who was riding in the passenger seat, broadcast the aftermath live over Facebook.  I will say that her attitude and actions while watching her boyfriend bleed out were deeply disturbing, but she isn’t the subject of this piece, so we’ll skip her for now. Her video, of course, ignited another series of protests and borderline riots before any facts were known.

The investigation resulted in Officer Yanez being charged with 2nd degree manslaughter and two counts of dangerous discharge of a weapon. He was tried and found not guilty of all charges on June 4, 2017.  Yanez said that Castile was excessively defensive and appeared to be reaching for something on his right side, in spite of being ordered to not move. Like every officer in the age of the cell phone video, Yanez was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before he was ever formally charged. Since the trial ended, the dash-cam video of the incident has been released.  I’ve watched it several times and it provides little clarity. It shows an officer who is genuinely frightened, but it does not show us if he reacted properly or not.  It seems that he fired very quickly, maybe too quickly, but we have to remember that none of us were there.  Not one of us really knows what happened in that car or what was going on in the officer’s head.

The aftermath of the jury’s decision has been predictable, if somewhat subdued.  Even though not more than a few dozen people saw the presentation of the evidence or heard the testimony during the trial, there are millions of opinions about the outcome.  I’ve been silent on the matter, just because of the above.  I don’t have enough information to really form a solid opinion. I think Yanez reacted too quickly based on what I’ve seen, and I saw no evidence that race played a part in his decision to fire. I could be completely wrong, but that’s how things appear to me.

The largest stream of vitriol I’ve seen is directed at the NRA.  Every Twitter post by the NRA right now is answered by trolls bringing up their lack of response to the verdict.  The general premise of the replies being the NRA and all gun owners should be greatly upset by the decision because Castile had a permit to carry his gun. Do they think a permit is a magical shield which relieves the bearer of all responsibility to follow an officer’s orders? Do they also think the permit itself telepathically communicates its presence to any officer in the vicinity before they are within conversational range? These folks then make yet another incredible leap of logic and declare the NRA has been silent because Castile happens to be black. Frankly, it won’t matter what they say or if they ever say anything.  The same people attacking them for not saying anything would no doubt attack anything they did say. I’m an NRA member and have been for many years, but I don’t know why there has been no formal comment from them. I suspect they feel the jury did its job and actually didn’t find sufficient evidence to convict Yanez, so there isn’t much to add. In the immediate aftermath, they had the good taste to say very little, unlike so many who didn’t let the last shell casing hit the ground before they tried to turn the event into political hay. NRA contributor Colion Noir has been anything but silent, expressing himself eloquently in a video and very personal Facebook post.  I urge you to watch and read Mr. Noir’s contributions regularly.

So what should the NRA say about this situation? I feel it safe to say no one within the NRA has more information than any of the rest of us. Assuming for a second the verdict in this case is just (based on law and evidence, not how we feeeeeeeel about it), I think they should issue a cautionary statement for those of us who carry concealed. They should emphasize the importance of being calm and doing exactly what the officer tells you to do when you encounter law enforcement while armed. Part of our responsibility as gun owners is to do everything we can to prevent something so innocuous as a traffic stop from turning into an armed confrontation.  We owe it to those who protect us to not put them in a position where they feel threatened. At the same time, as citizens, we have an expectation of either walking away or heading downtown in one piece, even if we’re legally armed. I think the NRA should simply express the sympathy many of us feel for Castile and Yanez and remind us all to be safe and responsible gun owners.

In the end, there is nothing which can be said to make this terrible situation better. A young man is dead and another’s life will never be the same. A little girl will have to live with what she saw for the rest of her life. I don’t know if it had to be this way or not, but words won’t fix it.

National Reciprocity Now!

Now is a great time in America for those of us who have chosen to be responsible for the safety of ourselves and our families by carrying a concealed firearm.  As of 2016, there were over 14.5 million citizens with concealed carry permits across the country, an increase of 1.73 million people over the previous year.  In addition, it is now possible to obtain a concealed carry permit in all 50 states, although it is much more difficult in some than others.  Also, there are now 12 states in which no permit is required in order to legally carry a firearm.  All of this in spite of 8 years of an openly hostile administration and never ending lies and intentional ignorance on the part of the leftist press.

One of the issues that still needs to be addressed is the hodgepodge of laws concerning the concealed carrying of a weapon in different states.  Today, states generally fall into one of three categories: no permit required, shall issue, or may issue.  In states where no permit is required, if it is legal for you to possess a handgun, you can carry it.  “Shall issue” states are required to issue a concealed carry permit to every citizen who meets the legal requirements.  “May issue” states restrict the rights of its citizens through the use of high fees, excessive paperwork, long wait times, and requirements for proof of need.  It is possible to obtain a permit in these states, all in the Northeast except for California, but it is difficult.

In an effort to alleviate some of the confusion, many states recognize permits issued by other states through reciprocal agreements.  My Tennessee permit, for instance, makes it legal for me to carry in every state except California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.  Vermont is also listed as not recognizing Tennessee permits, but to their credit, Vermont recognizes no permits as they are a true Constitutional carry state.  Others states should pay attention.  Most states have some similar reciprocity agreement with other states.  That’s great, but imagine traveling across the country and having to figure out where you’re legal and where you’re not.  Those of us who travel for business or make their living on the road have to be very cognizant of where we’re going and which states will be crossed in getting there.  Many of you will remember the 2009 arrest of Brian Aitken, a legal gun owner from Colorado who was arrested after travelling to New Jersey with two unloaded and inaccessible hand guns (along with scary standard capacity magazines and defensive ammunition) buried deep in his car.  Fortunately, his sentence of seven years in prison was commuted in 2010.

With the White House and both houses of the Legislature controlled by those more friendly to personal defense, it is time to remedy the situation by instituting national reciprocity.  The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38) will do just that.  The bill was introduced on January 3, 2017, and currently has 199 co-sponsors.  With the exception of  Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas, every co-sponsor is a Republican (go figure).  Simply put, the bill will require every state currently issuing permits for concealed carry to recognize the permits issued by every other state.  To me, this is simple logic.  What other inalienable right protected by the Constitution varies from state to state?  Imagine if your speech were limited in one state more than another.  What if you could only go to a certain church because of state laws?  Would it be OK for the police to need a warrant to search your property but not that of citizens in a neighboring state?  No, such abuses of Constitutionally protected rights would never be tolerated.  This is precisely what has been done with the Second Amendment and I see no reasonable argument for allowing it to continue.  Yes, I understand that there are limits on even inalienable rights.  In the case of states that limit a citizen’s ability to legally carry a firearm, they are denying them the essence of the right.  This issue was headed to the Supreme Court in the case of Peruta v. California, but SCOTUS, in a move that proves they are no longer capable of impartiality, has just decided not to hear the case because neither side felt assured of winning.  Read that again slowly.

The CCRA is a great start, but it will not end the confusing array of laws governing firearms across the country.  It will not necessarily prevent outrages such as the one which happened to Brian Aitken.  As a gun owner, it will still be incumbent on you to know the laws of the place in which you are travelling.  That will remain part of our responsibility as law-abiding gun owners.  But it will ensure that your right to carry your weapon concealed is protected regardless of what other draconian laws exist in a given state. As such, I fully support the CCRA and I hope you will as well.  Please consider contacting your Representative and urge them to support H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

As always, I thank you for reading!  I hope that you’ll leave your comments on the page and share this post.  You can also find us on Twitter @FrustratedAmer4.

 

 

 

Why?

Look at this photo.  Look at it and remember when your child was 8 years old.  I remember it like it was yesterday.  Like my own daughter, this little girl was loved by her parents, liked by her classmates and teachers, and had a nearly limitless future.  This little girl’s name is Saffie Roussos.  On Monday night (May 22, 2017), Saffie attended the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England.  I don’t know Saffie, but if she’s anything like my daughter, she was still excited by all the things she’d seen and heard as the concert ended around 11:30 pm.  She was probably already thinking about what she was going to tell her friends about the show the next day as she exited the arena into the foyer that leads to the parking garage and Victoria Station.  That’s where Saffie died.

Saffie Roussos was one of 22 people killed by a terrorist suicide bomber Monday night.  She was the youngest.  She was 8 years old.  Eight. Years. Old.  EIGHT YEARS OLD!  Her short life was ended by a coward wearing a suicide vest who undoubtedly believed he was doing god’s will.  The murderer was a 22 year-old man of Lybian descent with possible ties to terrorist organizations in that country.  He was known to British security agencies and had been reported to have been radicalized, likely by some hate-spewing nut-job imam on the internet (merely an assumption on my part).  I will not give him the honor of using his name and you sure as hell will not see a photo of him on my page!  He entered the foyer as it filled with men, women, and children leaving the concert after a night of fun.  He wore a vest packed with explosives, along with nuts, bolts, and nails so he could be sure to injure as many people as he could.  He approached the doors at the busiest exit from the arena and detonated his vest, killing 22 people and injuring 116 others.

The other 21 fatalities included three 14 year-old girls, two 15 year-old girls, a 17 year-old girl with her 19 year-old boyfriend, an 18 year-old girl and two 19 year-old girls.  The rest were adult men and women ranging in age from 28 to 51 who were there primarily with their adolescent children or simply to pick them up after the concert.  Marcin and Angelika Klis were there to pick up their children, who are now orphans.  Philip Tron died while picking up his partner’s daughter, Courtney Boyle, who was also killed in the blast.  It seems apparent that this attack was targeted at young girls.  I don’t know anything about Ariana Grande’s music, but I would assume that her target audience consists primarily of adolescent girls.  I’m sure the planners behind this knew that very well.

With that in mind, let’s apply a logical analysis of this situation.  A 22 year-old man has somehow been convinced it will help his so-called religion defeat the infidels of the decadent West by killing himself and as many little girls as possible.  I want someone to tell me what threat any of the victims posed to his religious beliefs or his “people”?  A large portion of the audience probably wasn’t even old enough to vote, let alone cause any harm to him or Islam whatsoever.  All any of these people were doing Monday night was trying to have a good time and give their kids a fun experience.  And yet, somehow, they all deserved to die in the twisted eyes of the mullahs and imams who continue to brainwash these weak, stupid individuals who continue to commit these heinous acts.  How is it possible to make someone believe that their religion not only condones the killing of innocent civilians, but demands it and rewards it?  How do you hear reports of nurses washing bits of blood and flesh off of children and cheer?

As sad as this is, I didn’t react strongly to the news of this attack initially.  Yes, you feel bad for the people involved, but it has almost become common.  But then I saw this picture and the pictures of the other victims.  My blood turned to ice, then started to boil.  I keep seeing my little girl’s face when I look at Saffie’s.  She loves going to concerts and is quickly approaching an age where she’ll want to go to more.  I can not imagine what Saffie’s parents are going through.  They will never get over this.  I would never get over it.  I feel for the first responders and doctors who treated so many injured people, so many who were so young.  I feel for the Muslims who go about their lives every day like everyone else, but have to deal with the acts of fanatics like this.  I keep coming back to one question: why?  Why did Saffie and the others have to die that night?  I don’t have an answer.  I’m afraid there isn’t one.

Hug your kids extra tight.  Not one of the parents thought that Monday would be their child’s last day on earth.  But do not live in fear.  The only way this enemy wins if we change the way that we behave and limit our own freedoms.  Be vigilant, be careful, but do not be afraid.

Mountain out of a Molehill: Sheriff Clarke’s Uniform

A recent Twitter rant about Sheriff David Clarke’s uniform went viral to the point of being reported by the media. The problem is, it is chock full of logical and factual errors. The series of tweets railed against his uniform, accusing the Sheriff of wearing unauthorized items and implying (but not stating outright) stolen valor. Media reports took it one step further (imagine that), with headlines like  “Looks like Sheriff David Clarke’s “army” medals might be B.S.” Social media comments outright accuse him of stolen valor (even using the sharp sign, err… hashtag), along with the usual foaming-at-the-mouth ad hominem tirades.

Let me attempt to inject some sanity into this ridiculousness, if you please. Scattered within said 14-tweet screed, the author asserts the following: “You see all that shit pinned all over his dress uniform jacket? That’s not supposed to be there”, as well as “On the left side, you have what appears to be more badge replicas/pins and several ribbons, one of which looks unauthorized.” Also, “… and then up top, you have the flag pin arranged on the lapel as though it’s part of the uniform code. Pretty sure it’s not.” My problem with this is not his attack on David Clarke. If you read the entire series of tweets along with other of his writings, it is blatantly obvious he has an axe to grind with Sheriff Clarke. That’s his problem, not mine. I’m not here to defend the Sheriff, that’s his job. I’m here to defend logic. My first issue with this is quite simple, and best described in question/answer format. Who sets the uniform standards for a Sheriff’s Department? The answer: THE SHERIFF. Period. End of story. Therefore, every single point raised above is absolutely incorrect. If the good sheriff wants the uniform to be a pink leopard-print romper with a green Borat mankini on the outside, then that’s the uniform code. Another burr under my saddle was this gem: “It’s literally a sloppy assortment of badge replicas arranged neatly…” Which one is it? It’s either a sloppy assortment, or it’s arranged neatly. It cannot be both. My second issue is that in all the pics which were posted as evidence, I did not recognize one single solitary piece of military insignia. I will concede, however, the last point in time I was subject to Army uniform regulation (AR 670-1) was likely before the author of that rant was a gleam in his daddy’s eye. There are undoubtedly many pieces of authorized insignia which have been added to the mix since I’ve been out. That being said, the burden of proof is on the doubter. It is his job to specifically identify each piece of wayward insignia and why it doesn’t belong, according to standard. I won’t hold my breath.

The remainder of his missive is, as I mentioned above, mostly personal attacks on the sheriff. As I also mentioned previously, that’s not my problem. I’ll leave it at this; for the sake of logic, if you wish to raise an issue (with anything, not just this), be precise with your statements. Be accurate with your accusations. It is hardly within the realm of logic to accuse one of wearing unauthorized uniform items/uniform not being up to code when the target of your attack is the one who sets the code. Chill. AR 670-1 doesn’t apply to a sheriff’s department.

Whether or not said code is over the top is a separate issue from the above, and certainly open for discussion. Now that it has been mentioned and I’ve looked, his dress uniform jacket does look a bit busy. Frankly, though? I’ve got better things to worry about.

I do find it puzzling from a logical perspective to see this story was picked up by the media. Politically, though, it’s easy. If David Clarke was an outspoken Democrat and/or a Hillary supporter, there would have been nothing but crickets on this one. David Clarke’s only real sin is being a black man who supports Republicans and speaks out against the terrorist group BLM.

Cut Through the Noise: The Truth about Suppressors and the Hearing Protection Act

 

On January 9, 2017, the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 was introduced in the House or Representatives (H.R. 367) and Senate (S. 59).  The bills are identical, each seeking to reclassify sound suppressors for firearms as regular long arms.  In my opinion, this is a bill which is long overdue.  By removing the $200 tax and onerous regulations on suppressors, they will become more affordable and accessible to American shooters, making shooting sports safer.  I see no downside, but that isn’t stopping the usual gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by those who oppose anything making gun ownership easier or actually safer.  As is often the case, many of the objections I’ve heard are based on misunderstanding and outright falsehoods perpetuated by the media.  What I’d like to do with this article is provide you with some facts about suppressors, including a little history, what they actually do versus what you may think they do, and why this bill is a good idea.

The modern suppressor was invented in 1902 by Hiram Percy Maxim, the son of the inventor of the first portable, truly automatic machine gun.  Maxim’s device was patented in 1909 and was widely marketed to hunters and shooters across the country.  They were available to everyone and were popular devices.  Maxim’s Silencer (a misnomer that we’ll address shortly) was a tubular device that contained a series of baffles which trapped the escaping gases from the muzzle of a firearm, greatly reducing the report, muzzle flash, and felt recoil.  The same basic principals are used in modern suppressors.

The passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 changed everything.  The original NFA was the first widespread attempt by the American government at gun control.  The act was largely a response to the waves of crime perpetrated by the likes of Al Capone and John Dillinger during the Prohibition era.  At that time, anyone could own an automatic weapon, although there were very few available and they were expensive.  They were, however, used by gangsters such as Capone and Dillinger in the commission of their crimes.  It was thought that if those weapons were banned, the result would be a reduction in crime (if this sounds familiar, you’re right).  Interestingly, the authors of the NFA were actually more concerned with handguns than machine guns and wanted to ban them as well.  The National Rifle Association (yes, the NRA) successfully lobbied to remove handguns from the bill.  The authors of the bill knew very well the American people would never allow their 2nd Amendment rights to be stripped in such a way, so it was decided to regulate these weapons through taxation.  The NFA placed a $200 tax (equivalent to about $3500 today) on “firearms”, which it defined as “a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition”.  In addition, anyone who manufactured, imported, or sold these items was required to be registered with the Treasury Department and pay a hefty tax, and anyone owning these types of weapons were required to register them.  Private sales between individuals were not allowed.

To read the original transcripts of the hearings that lead up to the passing of the NFA, please follow this link and download the document available on Google Books.  It is a fascinating read and will be covered in more detail in a future post.  Interestingly, there was almost no discussion of so-called silencers throughout the proceedings, so it is unclear why they were included at all.  Gangsters the likes of Capone and Dillinger did not generally use suppressors.  They staged their crimes in broad daylight, relying on sheer audacity and superior firepower, not stealth, to commit their crimes.

Today, suppressors remain legal, but are not simple to acquire.  The $200 tax has not changed, although subsequent legislation and the creation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive (BATFE) has added layers of aggravation to the process.  Assuming you live in one of the 42 states where it is legal to possess a suppressor, the first step is to pick out and purchase the one you like.  Once you have made your purchase, the dealer maintains possession of the suppressor as you await approval from the BATFE.  You must submit two copies of completed BATFE Form 4, two finger print cards, two copies of your passport photo, and a completed BATFE Form 5330.20.  To complete Form 4, you must obtain certification from your Chief Law Enforcement Officer.  Once all of this has been submitted you wait for at least three months, and usually longer.  Once your purchase has been approved, the seller will receive one copy of your Form 4 with the tax stamp and will be allowed to release your suppressor to you.  Simple, huh?  That’s all you have to do to purchase a metal tube filled with baffles, which is legal to own and makes shooting safer.  Our government at work!

The primary reason suppressors were ever restricted and remain so is simply that most people do not understand what they actually do.  Maxim’s name for his invention, silencer, was more for marketing purposes than a functional description of the device.  The rise of spy movies in the mid-20th century showing assassins moving through the darkness and dispatching their target with a silencer-equipped pistol with barely an audible sound have reinforced the misconception.  Silencers do not actually silence the report of a gunshot, they merely suppress it.  Hence, the use of the term ‘suppressor’ by people in the industry.

The sound of a gunshot is produced by two different phenomenon that occur simultaneously when a shot is fired.  As the projectile leaves the muzzle of the gun, the gases created by the burning propellant escape, causing a pressure wave that is perceived by the human ear as a loud blast; a BOOM, if you will.  The second is the projectile breaking the sound barrier, which produces a sharp CRACK.  With the exception of specially produced sub-sonic ammunition, almost all commercially available calibers exceed the speed of sound at the muzzle, which is approximately 1125 feet per second (fps).  Suppressors only attenuate the sound produced by the escaping gases.  Each of the baffles inside the suppressor captures a portion of the gasses and directs the remainder forward into the next baffle, rather than outward in all directions.  They do nothing whatsoever about the sonic boom created by the projectile after it leaves the barrel, and this is a significant portion of the sound profile of a firearm. Using a suppressor also results in less felt recoil, which is conducive to accurate shooting.  If you’d like to see more information on this and how your ear perceives the sound, check out this series of slides prepared by Phillip H. Dater, MD.

The decibel (dB) level of a gunshot is dependent on many factors, including caliber, muzzle velocity, barrel length, and position relative to the muzzle.  The decibel level of a variety of calibers of ammunition is presented in the chart below as the blue bars.  This information is based on the work of James E. Lankford, who compiled the data from a series of five different studies.  They are presented as the peak decibel level for each caliber.  I have simplified Lankford’s data somewhat, as he lists numerous calibers and the weapon from which each was fired for testing. According to OSHA, “exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure levels”.  Sounds that exceed 140 dB can cause permanent hearing damage immediately.  As you can see from the chart, every caliber produces sound levels in excess of 140 dB.  If you think it’s ok to go out and shoot your .22 without hearing protection, you’re wrong.

 

Unsuppressed and suppressed decibel levels of common calibers.

OSHA further requires hearing protection to be provided to workers who are exposed to long term noises over 85 dB, which provides a good threshold for safe levels of noise exposure.  This level is represented by the yellow line on the chart.  Based on my own quick search of several manufacturers,  suppressors reduce the dB level between 20 and 40 dB, depending on make, caliber, and a number of other factors.  For this article, I have assumed an average of about 30 dB in noise reduction for every caliber.  That number is represented by the red bars.  The chart clearly shows that for every caliber, with the exception of the .357 magnum, suppressors reduce the dB level to below 140 where permanent damage can occur immediately, but for no caliber does it reduce the level to below the 85 dB level.  In other words, suppressors reduce the sound of a gunshot to a safer level, but not to the point where hearing protection is not necessary.  When you see our movie assassin fire a shot which goes “fffft”, that’s Hollywood magic, not real life.

Even though suppressors do not make gunshots safe for unprotected ears, there are numerous advantages to their widespread use.  Those of us who hunt understand that it is almost impossible to use hearing protection while hunting.  Great improvements have been made in electronic ear muffs that allow for normal hearing while canceling out any sound as loud as a gunshot.  They make it harder to distinguish between birds scratching in the leaves and deer walking right behind you, however.  The same is true for bird hunters.  Shotgun blasts tend not to be as painful as rifle shots, but a day in a dove field where the hunter might fire 50 rounds or more can do a lot of damage without protection.  Electronic muffs do not lend themselves to shotgun use and plugs prevent the hunter from hearing calls from other hunters, either identifying birds coming in or cautioning against shooting at low birds or non-game species.

For new shooters, the noise and recoil associated with shooting can be intimidating. This can lead to poor habits such as flinching, poor trigger control, and failure to follow through.  A suppressor reduces both the noise and the felt recoil, making learning to shoot a more pleasant experience for the student and the instructor.  As for ranges, many are under threat of closing as housing developments spring up on adjacent properties and fill with people who do not like the noise.  The use of suppressors can make ranges better neighbors and opens the opportunity for new ranges where none could have been built before.  If you frequent an indoor range, you know that you often have to use both ear plugs and muffs in order to shoot comfortably.  Even then it can still be very loud.  I think suppressors should be a must for indoor shooting.  For those who shoot a lot, such as law enforcement and competitive shooters, the use of suppressors during practice will help prevent the cumulative damage which comes from firing thousands of rounds of ammunition, even with protection.

As you can see, there are many good reasons why the Hearing Protection Act should be passed and no reason it should not be.  Criminals do not use suppressors.  Period.  They are big, bulky, and very obtrusive, all things that criminals try to avoid in a weapon.  Poachers, by and large, are not concerned with noise.  They rely on isolation and often darkness to conceal their activities.  If suppressors become more easy to obtain, there will not be roving bands of assassins murdering people at will with their totally silent guns, any more than concealed carry laws have led to the “blood in the streets” about which the anti-gun folks warned us.  Friends, I hope you’ll support the passage of the Hearing Protection Act by contacting your representatives and letting them know that you want to see a piece of truly common sense legislation concerning guns pass.  You can follow this link to get the information for your representatives, or you can submit forms here expressing your support for the bill.

As always, thank you for reading!  I hope you found this article informative and that you’ll share it with your friends.  Please leave me a comment here on the page.  Remember, ignorance is our common enemy!