10 Rules for dealing with the police
Cato.org is hosting a premier this Friday for “10 Rules for Dealing With the Police”.
If a free society depends upon an informed citizenry exercising oversight of its government, then more people need to know how to handle themselves in a police encounter. Is cooperation always the best course of action? Or are there times to assert the constitutional right to refuse consent to a search of one’s home or belongings? A new documentary film answers those questions and more in an informative and entertaining series of skits narrated by Baltimore trial attorney Billy Murphy (from HBO’s The Wire). Learn how the safeguards of the Bill of Rights operate outside of the courthouse and on the street. Learn how to make smart decisions and respond effectively to police misconduct.
The trailer:
Good info to know.
Necessary reading
Joe Huffman is one of the best reasoned, most reasonable gunnie voices out there. This essay is required reading.
MAIG’s secret plans
Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has obtained a copy of New York mayor Micheal Bloomberg’s recommendations to the Obama administration on how to restrict gun ownership. It’s worth a read.
Kudos to Sebastinan. He is doing some great work out there.
Uncomfortable realizations
My journey in becoming a gun owner and a gun rights activist has been punctuated by a series of uncomfortable realizations. I think that this is the journey that lots of new gun owners face. Each step is a revelation of the reality of the world around you.
I discovered the first uncomfortable realization in reading Mas Ayoob’s excellent book “The Truth About Self Protection“. The lesson was simple: there are Bad Guys* out there, and they don’t think the way you and I do. They are not deterred at all by the thought of visiting violence on another human being. They are at best agnostic toward violence…it is just another part of their job. At worst, they welcome violence and the power that it gives them over other people. But either way, you are not an individual to these Bad Guys. You are a resource.
The second uncomfortable realization is that you are on your own. Simply put, you may be called on to defend yourself someday from a Bad Guy. The lawless looting in the wake of hurricane Katrina is a classic example. The police couldn’t protect anyone. It doesn’t take a Katrina. Bad Guys are out there, looking for victims every day. And, as the saying goes, when seconds count…the police are only minutes away.
The third uncomfortable realization is that if you are going to have to defend yourself, you should use the best tool for the job. This is where a lot of people, I believe, break down and compromise. The tremendous number of goofy self-defense gadgets on the market are a testament to that. Even worse are articles like this one that Don Gwinn found, in which the city of Oak Park is giving whistles to its citizens, presumably so that the would be attacker will crap their pants and run away when confronted with the deadly whistle. Or this page, in which the Illinois State Police recommend that you vomit on yourself if you are a victim of sexual assault in order to discourage the attacker. I’m a 5’10″, 170 pound skinny computer geek. There is no way in hell that I am going to be able to fight off an attacker with a nail file. A firearm gives me the ability to defend myself…it brings me to parity with those who want to do me harm.
Which brings me to today’s uncomfortable realization, which I had in reading the linked Oak Park article. The chain of thoughts went like this:
- Certainly the government of Oak Park knows that there is the possibility that their citizens will need to protect themselves. Why else would they issue whistles to the populace?
- The ISP must know that their advice in defense of sexual assault is ludicrous. I mean, they deal with criminals every day, right? They know that there is no way that an average citizen can fight off 250 pounds of yard-hardened criminal.
- If there is one thing that we have learned in the 20-odd years of the restoration of concealed carry rights, it is that it doesn’t make things worse. I happen to believe, based on Dr. Lott’s work, that it in fact REDUCES crime, but you don’t even have to go there. It certainly doesn’t make it worse. If it even saves one life, it is worth it, right?
- Although I’ve been picking on Illinois, since Don made the links easy, examples are rife throughout the country of governments trying to chip away at citizen’s gun rights.
- Cognitive dissonance. One the one hand, governments know that citizens need access to firearms to protect themselves, and yet they seem hell bent on preventing access.
Uncomfortable realization: Your government doesn’t think you are worth saving. It is more important to them preserve their power then it is for you to be safe. You are nothing to them. A cog. Replaceable. Not worth protecting.
Uncomfortable realization number five: Number four looks an awful lot like number one….
On bigotry and opinions
A bigot is a person who, without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
— From Wikipedia, article on “Bigot”
My earlier post, “Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis” has prompted a few responses, and a few further thoughts. Take a look at the definition, and then re-read the corresponding threads.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck….
Catherine responds
Catherine has responded to my post “Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis”
While the original post was indeed inspired partially by Catherine, it is part of a much larger trend. the same pattern repeats itself over and over again in the blogoshpere. But Catherine was kind enough to reply, so allow me to retort.
You are wrong on many accounts:
1. I was not spouting. I have an opinion and I am entitled to it.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. The point of my post, as I believe the points of my confederates, was to point out that your opinion was based on ignorance. Your augment is literally of the variety “The sky is green. It’s my opinion and I am entitled to it.” Certainly, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. If you disagree with our facts, then refute them with your own.
2. I have suggested that the approach be far different. If you want a discourse on the topic and really want to educate as you say you do, I think it would be better to do it in a manner that actually indicates that you would like a discourse rather than lecturing and indicating that you think someone who wants gun control is just dumb. That goes nowhere.
I have never called you dumb, Catherine. And I will state again, now, for the record: I do not think you are dumb. I think your arguments are ill-informed and made from ignorance. And I think your case is weak. I have historical precedent, statistics, and yes, a bit of snark to support my case. You have feelings and your opinion. I believe my case is stronger.
3. Statistics can be skewed either way.
Really? The CDC and the FBI skew their own statistics? My numbers come from the source. I don’t filter; I don’t have to. If you disagree with my interpretation, then by all means let’s discuss it.
4. I was not arguing. It was my opinion. The pr-gum(sic) bloggers went on my blog and argued. I only questioned and refuted some of the arguments that did not seem well supported. Others were never backed up with anything.
Horsepucky. You made a political statement in a public forum stating that you believed that MY civil rights should be abrogated. That’s a mighty serious thing. Understand, it is the semantic equivalent to standing on a street corner and saying “I don’t think women should have the right to vote because some of them vote for stupid things.” Then, when you are understandably challenged, you respond with “Well, that’s just my opinion.” It may be your opinion, but it is an ignorant, bigoted opinion, and I am going to call you out on it.
If you feel that any of my assertions, or those of my fellow bloggers are incorrect or poorly supported, I would welcome the opportunity to debate you on the merits of the argument.
5. There is no “appeal to emotion.” It was my opinion and how I feel about the topic. My blog is a forum for expressing my opinions.
From your blog:
When you watch this video think about those who needlessly died yet again because of America’s obsession with guns. Seven people wounded, two dead. The largest mass shooting in the history of Miami. The National Rifle Association (NRA) should be so proud today. More dead and they and their members are to blame.
The bloodbath in Liberty City was the result of an assault rifle-wielding murderer who unleashed a spree of bullets on people playing an exceedingly dangerous game of street dice.
Yep, no appeal to emotion there. Catherine, words and phrases like “bloodbath” and “obsession with guns” tend to…um…appeal to emotion. Q.E.D. (A little lawyer lingo, there.)
And, while we are on the topic, American’s “obsession with guns” didn’t kill anyone. A maniac with a rifle did. Punish him, not me.
6. You are definitely wrong on this one. If you look at the sequence, I never called Rustmeister a name. One day after our conversation was over i received a pingback from his blog. On his blog he said in essence that I was stupid, crazy and delusional. So who called who a name?
After that, I wrote a post calling it the way that i see it. He’s an NRA shill as I see it based on the badges on his blogs. I also personally think he’s a right wingnut since I do not believe that the Second Amendment stands for the proposition that you need guns to overthrow the government, as gun bloggers were saying on my blog.
*Sigh*….where to begin here? First, I have gone through the tracks, and I can’t find any place where Rustmeister called you a name. I disagree with your characterization that he said that you are stupid, crazy, and delusional. I did note that one commenter called you delusional. I certainly have never called you a name. I have characterized your arguments as weak and being made from ignorance.
As far as the “propaganda corps” badges…you can read the origin here. I’ll summarize: We are all the unorganized milita. You are an attorney…look up the original citation. Not in any way related to the NRA. Rust may, in fact, be a shill for the NRA. But the propaganda corps doesn’t prove that. And calling him a wingnut is an ad-hominem.
7. I received threatening emails and some very not nice comments from people. I decided to shut down comments and delete because I felt that it was harassment. That’s my choice. When I am getting threatened, I choose to shut down and not post anymore comments form anyone and to delete comments. I reserve that right. It was also based on advice from the authorities.
You may or may not have received threatening emails, I have no way to know that. You are certainly entitled to shut down comments on your blog. I certainly have never threatened anyone, and that hasn’t been the behavior that I have exhibited from the vast and overwhelming majority of the pro-gun folks that I know.
If you felt the need to contact the authorities, perhaps you wouldn’t mind posting a copy of the complaint?
The bottom line is that i may not agree with your arguments, mostly because they are obviously canned,
See, here we go again with the ad-hominems. In what way are they obviously canned? If you disagree with my facts, then produce some of your own. If you disagree with my reasoning, then attack that.
but you can score a lot of points with people by first asking them why they favor gun control and then not making fun of them because they place human life over an assault weapon.
Believe it or not, Catherine, I place much, much more value on human life than an assault weapon. If we could save a single human life by banning all guns, I would be the first one in line to turn them in. But the sad reality (not opinion, fact) is that is has never happened in the history of the world. Ever. This is the spirit embodied in Joe Huffman’s Just One Question. If you (or anyone, for that matter) can answer it, then I will be convinced.
I never want all guns banned. My father and brother own / have owned guns. I would never want them taken away from them or anyone else, but I do not see the point of having assault weapons.
So you don’t want theirs taken away, but you want mine taken away? Am I missing something?
Catherine, you have sated many times that you have an opinion, and are entitled to it. And I agree, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But, when you present an opinion based on emotion rather than reason, delete comments of people who disagree with you, and ignore facts that don’t fit your world view, you make your opinions look silly and bigoted.
The times, they are a changin’
Armed Schoolteacher reports a neutral, even fair report on a pro-CCW poll in Illinois, of all places.
Concealed carry permits in NC are at an all time high. You simply can’t get on the range without a wait, sometimes up to an hour.
The dynamic duo report fantastic success getting NRA sign-ups in PA, over 600.
And Ride Fast reports signing up 442 new NRA members, almost double the usual average, in..wait for it…California. San Francisco, for goodness sake.
The worm is turning, folks. The battle isn’t won, yet, but we are getting close to a tipping point.
Groupthink
A few bloggers have commented on the Brady campaign’s recent attempt to get Kristen Gillibrand to abandon gun owners.
From Paul “Sad Panda” Helmke:
“She’s saying she realizes that she represents a statewide constituency,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “One way she could prove she has evolved is to push this issue.”
I didn’t realize there was an official, statewide feeling that gun rights were not respected in New York. That might be news to a few New Yorkers.
Is it just me…
…or have gun rights gone mainstream?
I spend most of my time in the blogosphere reading the gun blogs, but I will occasionally browse over to the some of the better known politics blogs as well. And I see a lot more gunblogs on their blogrolls. And the Examiner has taken a local column written by David Codrea, made it national, backfilled the local column, and expanded the local to about half a dozen cities, including my own native Charlotte.
It’s standing room only at my local range/gun shop. They frequently have an hour’s wait to get a lane.
Then, yesterday, on the local radio station, they interviewd Dan Starks about concealed carry, and it was an amazing, upbeat interview talking about how great it was that people, women especially, were learning to protect themselves. And if click over to Dan’s site, he is running CCW classes every week, sometimes twice a week, and they are full!
As an aside, Dan is an excellent instructor. He taught the CCW class for both my wife and me. Great guy, great class.
License to purchase ammo in NC?
From Alphecca. It seems that the Durham City Council is asking the state legislature to consider it…so it probably isn’t a big issue yet. The article says that:
Whitley’s proposal — modeled on existing law in Illinois — would require gun owners to secure a permit from the local sheriff’s office before buying ammunition.
The Illinois law has done a bang-up job reducing crime there, too.
Do your part!
-
-