Enlightened Conflict

skittles and safety

September 21st, 2016

 

Donald Trump Jr. sent out this tweet last night:

 

skittles-trump-jr

 

<note: the actual metaphor, to be accurate, would actually be 10,000,000+ skittles and one poisoned>

 

I have seen it before.

 

And I have heard the same point made on talk radio with regard to USA accepting refugees.

 

I will not comment on the fact that 80% of domestic terrorism is conducted by non Muslims.

 

I will not comment on the fact that 1 immigrant has been convicted of a terrorism crime since 9/11.

 

I will not comment on the fact that recent terror acts were conducted by legal citizens.

 

I get fear.

I get national security.

 

I get terrorism is named terrorism because it creates terror.

 

I get the link between ‘permitting immigrants/refugees in to a country’ increases some risk of security <albeit a small risk as compared to the risks of everyday life like driving, crossing a street or drinking>.

 

I have one thing to say to everyone, which will be controversial, but reflects the liberty freedomnotfortimidthumbthought of one of the framers of our country and constitution:

 

===============

 

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

 

Benjamin Franklin

==============

 

Ok.

 

I have one other thing to say to everyone, slightly less controversial, but takes a little more thoughtfulness on the part of everyone to think about the true repercussions … this time from one of our greatest presidents:

 

===========

“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves”

 

 

Abraham Lincoln

======================

 

Lastly.

 

Here is most likely the most unpopular thought I will ever share on this site.

 

The current American terrorism problem is not an immigration issue, nor a Muslim issue, it is a domestic issue.

 

Huh?

 

Trump, if he actually had half a brain, would recognize that something he is promoting is actually the best possible long term solution to domestic terrorism – jobs, economy and opportunity.

It isn’t about building a wall across from Mexico <which I could point out that almost 80% of illegal immigrants do not come from south of USA>. It isn’t about ceasing immigrants from any country <and, yes, you continue vetting and stringent processing>. It isn’t about not accepting refugees.

 

It is about making any possible disaffected citizens not become disaffected.

 

It is about insuring everyone has the potential for some level of prosperity if they work hard.

 

It is about insuring there are good, fair jobs for everyone who wants to work hard.

 

Happier citizens who believe the country they live in provides fair opportunity do not conduct terrorist acts.

 

I could argue, and I would, that people come to America to be an American, accept the freedoms America has to offer and is more than willing to live by constitutional law <which is about the only ‘test’ that matters>.

 

If America lives up to its side of the bargain then the people who come have no desire to be receptive to someone suggesting where they are living is not a ‘good’ place.

 

Look.

wrong stupid

The skittles metaphor is stupid and shows a lack of understanding.

 

I don’t need a candy metaphor … if you want to debate what it may mean to allow 10,000 refugees in to a country and the possible risk … just tell me.

 

But suggesting real people are skittles is just stupid and shows an incredible lack of awareness.

 

It doesn’t reflect a ‘smart mind’ <coming up with some visual metaphor> but rather shows a lazy mind who cannot grasp how to properly articulate an issue and have the intellectual strength to debate it on its own merits.

 

In the end it seemed appropriate to offer words I wrote back in My 2013:

 

Liberty is a choice. And with that choice comes some responsibility … and some broad boundaries … an expansive circle as it were.

And certainly some uneasiness within that wide open space … that tumultuous sea.

And unequivocally some fear because of its broadness.

In the end … the enemy of liberty is fear & ignorance.

Therefore to enable liberty there must remain the courage in all of us to accept it even with its imperfections.

Sadly the cost of having true liberty may be lives.

But the true tragedy would be if the cost of liberty was our freedom.

It seems to me that the biggest tragedy would be to have lost lives, people who most likely embraced the full liberty America had to offer, as a means, or an excuse, to kill or restrain liberty.

==============

Me.

 

Good guy with a gun myth

December 15th, 2015

 

guns bang
Well.

 

 

I saw an editorial in USAToday the other day <copied below> that stated what I have always felt but couldn’t know for sure because I have never been in the military and I have never been in a gun fight.

 

 

I have always felt the “if normal everyday people were carrying guns they would be able to stop bad people with guns” kind of a semi crazy thought.

 

 

Conceptually I could understand the logic but being a student of history I have read time and time again that in battle first time soldiers, trained for months before combat, either never shoot their gun or empty the entire magazine in the first seconds of engagement.

 

 

Why does this happen?

You cannot train for real combat. You cannot train for being shot at and the thought you may die the next second.

 

 

Suffice it to say, guns or no guns, in Life you don’t know what you don’t know and while you may HOPE you would do the right thing in a situation you do not know for sure until you are actually in it.

 

 

To be clear.

 

professional girl and gunI do believe Americans have the right to own guns <’bear arms’>.

 

I will never suggest ‘taking away’ all guns <although I am not sure anyone truly is>. I would suggest that there seem to be some common sense restrictions on types of guns and ammunition available to every people that may not eliminate all that type of gun violence but would surely limit it.

 

 

Regardless.

 

I don’t want to wrote about gun control.

 

 

I simply wanted to share something I read that seems pretty common sense. It reminds me of what the French Ambassador said to Americans after the Paris terrorist attack when he heard that some American presidential candidates suggested the results of the attack would have been different if France allowed private gun ownership: “Only in the Movies Does Someone Use a Gun to Defend Himself.”

 

 

 

————————-

The editorial was written by James Hatch – member of a Special Missions Unit – Senior Chief Petty Officer James Hatch (USN, Ret.) is the founder of Spikes K9 Fund and a member of Veterans for Responsible Solutions.

11:50 a.m. EST December 11, 2015

Expecting untrained civilians to shoot down terrorists is recipe for more dead innocents.

After the slaughter of 14 Americans in San Bernardino, Calif., when two people armed with high-powered rifles and handguns ambushed unsuspecting Americans in a conference room, United States senator and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz held a press conference to issue a familiar refrain we hear after every major gun tragedy:

If only there had been a “good guy” with a gun there. Or, as Sen. Cruz put it:

“You stop bad guys by using our guns.”

We heard the same call after the recent tragedy at a medical clinic in Colorado Springs, and after attacks in Paris, where 129 people were murdered in a theater by terrorists armed with guns and explosives. That’s when former presidential candidate and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich took to Twitter to issue his call to arms:

“Imagine a theater with 10 or 15 citizens with concealed carry permits.”

I know that the political advocates for this “good guy with a gun” mantra like Sen. Cruz and many of the other politicians and lobbyists think that this is a politically expedient catch-phrase to support their own interests.

I doubt career politicians like Sen. Cruz and the rest of the Washington operators have had much experience with gunfights.

In my experience, being the good guy when the bullets start flying is very difficult.

I say that as someone who spent 25 years serving our military. For many of those 25 years, I was a member of a Special Missions Unit.

I’ve been in dark rooms with “good-guys and bad guys” going at it with guns, and let me tell you something:

Gunfights are crazy.

Gunfights are hard.

On my final combat mission, I was shot in the leg with an AK-47 from about 30 feet away and it blew my femur in half.

I hope that was my last gunfight.

Here at home, there are almost 13 million Americans who have a license to carry a concealed weapon. The vast majority of them are responsible, law-abiding and good-hearted people. Many of them want to be prepared to be the good guy, to do the right thing and to save lives.

I hope they never have to face being the target of a dangerous person with a gun. Because it’s hard to make the right decisions.

There are groups of individuals, like me and my fellow Special Operators, both military and law enforcement, who train for years to be good at close quarters shooting: shooting with discernment, keeping your head clear and making snap decisions before you pull the trigger — all while being shot at by the enemy.

special forces gun

And after dedicating their lives to being good operators in those extreme circumstances, even those professionals make mistakes.

Then consider that people like us trained for firefights for years, and that in many states there is virtually no training required for someone to legally carry a loaded, hidden gun.

So think about 10 or 15 people, who are weekend shooters with limited tactical training, deciding to shoot it out with a criminal in a crowded office holiday party, a medical clinic or a darkened theater, while people are screaming and running, and no one knows who or how many of the people shooting are the “good guys” and how many of them are the “bad guys.”

In some cases, can a “good guy” with a gun neutralize the threat and help save lives? Absolutely. But it doesn’t happen very often. It is, for the most part, a myth perpetuated by people who’ve never been shot at.

I am a proud Navy combat veteran. I risked and nearly gave my life in dozens of combat situations in defense of our Constitution. I value the Second Amendment and the right of responsible Americans to own guns for self-defense.

But people need to know that it is a fallacy to believe that the everyday gun owner can be expected to make all the right choices in a dangerous, fast-moving situation like a mass shooting with high-powered weapons.

When the bullets are flying, determining “who’s who in the zoo” is hard.

If the scenario that Sen. Cruz envisions were to ever unfold, we’d have a lot more dead innocents. And it would probably include some of the “good guys.”

================================

Here is the link to the article: Expecting untrained civilians to shoot down terrorists is recipe for more dead innocents

 

—————

a gun, an individual & a society

October 2nd, 2015

 

 

sad tear miss

===

“Even as we learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this.

Such violence, such evil is senseless. It’s beyond reason.

But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living.

The people we lost in Aurora loved, and they were loved.

They were mothers and fathers. They were husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future, and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled.

And if there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited, and it is precious.

And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives.

Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”

President Obama after Aurora shooting

===

 

 

 

The shooting at the community college in Oregon.
As the president said last night … we seem to be having this conversation far too often in the United States.

 

 

 

Any shooting of innocent people is bad.

 

Bad push back woman-saying-no

Unexplainable shootings seem worse.

 

 

And because they seem unexplainable we seem to want to go back and reverse engineer information and try and explain the action of someone who does something which seems unexplainable to the everyday schmuck like me <to be clear … reverse engineering is 99% accurate … its predictive engineeering that is less accurate>.

 

 

The reengineering always seems to offer possible solutions … and yet … offer no solutions at all.

 

 

And, yet, moments like this make us want to do something … to say something … to solve whatever this something is.

 

 

All the while serious looking overly somber news people all over the country, as well as an obviously aggravated President Obama, comment on and lament what can only be called a tragic situation.

 

 

That is all good … but what none of these people seem to nail down is a cohesive strategy to address fundamental reasons for the amount of gun violence that has somehow seeped into the everyday American Life.

 

 

 

Please note I said ‘cohesive.’

 

 

One shouts ‘its guns!!!’ <gun control issues>.

 

 

One shouts ‘its mental health !!!’ <psychological profiling and privacy issues>

 

 

One shouts ‘its domestic terrorism !!!> <implying it is some thoughtful effort to change something>

 

 

<and a few oddly, and slightly absurdly, shout ‘its Obama’s fault !!!’>

 

 

 

How about we put all the ‘ones’ together and think about a common strategy.

guns society menatl health graph

McTague hand drawn relationship on Gun Issue

 

 

What do all of these have in common?

 

 

There is a gun.

 

 

There is an individual.

 

There is society <the environment in which the gun and the individual reside>.

 

 

Gun control.

 

 

 

I get steamed at both sides on the gun control discussion.

gun control guy

Freedom to own a gun does not absolve the freedom from ‘responsible gun ownership.’

 

 

On the other side … eliminating guns is just not feasible.

 

 

While I certainly don’t have all the political answers I do admit that some aspects of calls for more gun control resonate with me <all the while fully understand that Americans are hardly agreed on the issue with less than 50% wanting stricter gun laws>.
And I do know that “a feeding frenzy of new gun legislation is not the answer.”

 

 

What I do know is that I would rip up all gun control legislation <I believe it is something like over 200 things> and start from scratch.

 

 

 

–      I want responsible people who accept the significant responsibility that comes along with owning a gun to be able to own a gun.

 

It doesn’t seem absurd to demand some level of ‘prove responsibility’ to own a gun.

 

 

 

–       Any weapon the military uses for military action shouldn’t be in the hands of the everyday citizen.

 

 

 

–       Ammunition used for hunting or ammunition for non military use.

 

That’s the only kind of ammunition you can have.

 

 

 

–      No more concealed weapons. If you have one, show it.

 

If I am a non gun owner I want the opportunity to decide to not be near a gun if I want to. If I am a gun owner I want to be fully aware of who else has a gun around me. If I am a police officer I want to be able to see who has what and who doesn’t.

 

 

 

I am sure I am missing something but this whole situation and discussion aggravates my sense so much I leaned in with what I would call the basic common sense thoughts.

 

 

 

The individual <and mental state of mind>.

 

saving yourself

The flippant “it’s not the gun, it’s the person’ argument is downright silly.

 

Please, PLEASE, everyone just accept it is a symbiotic relationship.

One cannot live without the other.

 

 

Next.

 

The flippant “it’s a mental health issue” … well … suffice it to say “yes” … and then point out if you truly believe we can profile everyone in the entire united states, evaluate them on some set of ‘possibility criteria’ and then track them … well … you are on drugs <which is a completely different issue>.

 

 

We cannot institutionalize everyone, or anyone, who has thoughts of suicide, moments of anger at society <or some aspect or group they focus their anger on> or even people with depression and some inclination of some public display of their overall dissatisfaction with Life.

 

 

Professional health needs to suck up their pride, and differences, and come up with some basic assessment tool. By the way … has anyone ever heard of ‘social media tracking?’ I can almost guarantee that 90% of all Americans leave an internet footprint … and 99% of the assholes who pick up a gun and shoot some innocent victims certainly do.

 

 

I would subjugate one of my privacy freedoms, as a citizen, if the professional health industry said ‘we have a specific assessment tool which will be scanning all online activity which reflects indicators of mental health issues tied with possibility to pick up a gun and kill innocent people.’

 

 

C’mon.

 

I have probably met a half dozen social media tracking companies with some technology that tracks words and clicks and even your breathing <it seems> to such a point I am pretty sure they can accurately tell me when I will need to go to the bathroom.

 

 

For fuck’s sake.

 

 

Amazon knows what I want before I want it … certainly we can come up with a tool like this.

 

 

Beyond the professionals … there is … well … people … uhm … you & I <and their relationship with potential ‘tragedy creators>.

 

 

 

I don’t want to go back to Soviet communism where neighbors reported on neighbors to the KGB … but … for cryin’ out loud … if we simply raised our hands for the people we were 80% sure needed some help … at minimum … they get help … and even better … we cut down on these tragic events by 80%.

 
To be clear on that last point … perfection may be sought … but will never be attained.

 

Evil does win on occasion <whether we like it or not>.

 

 

 

 

Society.

 

 

Let me begin with …

 

The picture emerging of Mercer is of a killer who had an interest in mass shootings, having reportedly recently posted on a blog about a gunman who killed two US journalists live on air in August.

He described Vester Flanagan as a man who “wanted the world to see his actions” before adding: “Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

 

 

Oh.

 

Let me add …

 

In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.

 

 

 

I sometimes think we are our own worst enemy.

 

 

Regardless.

 

Let me tell ya one thing I know for sure … if someone wants to commit suicide and leave a legacy <be in the limelight> that people will remember forever … just do it, or something, in front of today’s media <and then the entertainment industry will run with it from there with TV specials, movies, docudramas, whatever>.

 

 

 

The core of much of the entertainment industry in America – movies, TV shows and, yes, I consider today’s cable news as entertainment <albeit disturbing entertainment> – is based on killing and violence.

 

 

We glorify the violence & the violent at the same time as we are saddened by it.

 

 

While we show the violent as ‘evil’ we just as much showcase them as misguided or ‘faults of society’ <not forcing any accountability or personal responsibility for actions on the asshole who actually pulled the trigger>. Our society breeds a sense of ‘victim’ even for the purveyor of the tragedy.

 

 

Society?

 

better than yesterday

Shit.

 

 

 

Well … we just need to be better dammit.

 

<sigh>

If not us then who?

 

 
Look.

 

 

The champions for gun ownership point out that the Constitution of the country gives people the right to own guns.

 

I would suggest those people think contextually with regard to that thought … at the time America had no standing army … just citizen militia. Everyone was expected to pick up their gun in defense of this new nation we had just created.

 

Basically, at that time, everyone served in the military.

 

 

I would suggest to the people who suggest ‘more guns’ that maybe if we had a mandatory one year military service for everyone then everyone would be properly trained as well as properly assessed.

 

 

note:

The Swiss require part-time military service from each male citizen between the ages of 18 to 34. Women may serve voluntarily. In a nation of eight million people, about 20,000 soldiers a year attend basic training for 18 to 21 weeks

 

 

Do I truly want that?

 

No.

 

 

Do I truly believe it would resolve a shitload of the issues we have now with regard to guns and violence?

 

Yes.

 

 

I am all for maintaining our constitutional rights, but, please, PLEASE, could gun rights people think about the context in which the constitution was crafted.

 

 

In the end.

 

 

I am all for responsible people owning hand guns. That is their choice and, as a country, we deemed that as one of our inviolate rights.

responsible act feel

 

I am all for responsible mental health profiling.

 

 

I am all for a responsible society.

 

 

 

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite.
I am sure I am missing something and I am relatively sure I will come back and rewrite portions of this but this topic makes me so angry and so sad at the exact same time I just gotta stop for now.

Enlightened Conflict