US guns and the Drug Wars in Mexico

I know, I said I wouldn't get political in this blog. And I am not taking sides on the Mexican Drug Wars (if I did, it would obviously not be on the cartels side). But the thing I would like to talk about is the way many people are using some skewed statistics from this horrible situation to push gun control. This is another case of something that sounds like it may be common sense, until you realize you aren't getting the whole story.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is another gun control fanatic, much like Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago. He has put together a group called Mayors against Illegal Guns (MAIG). Well, I like the sound of the name, but what it really means is that they want to make all guns illegal for civilians. Not so good.

MAIG created an Issue Brief for Congress, which is available here. In it, MAIG talks about recovered guns that are submitted to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) for tracing. Since BATFE requires Federal Firearms License holders to maintain records, they are able to track down weapons that have been sold in the US. Their document contends:

"Since 2006, 90% of the Mexican crime guns submitted for tracing originated from gun dealers in the United States.

New trace data provided by ATF to Mayors Against Illegal Guns show that from 2006 to 2009, nearly 19,000 traced crime guns were originally sold in the U.S. and recovered and traced to Mexican crimes. The raw number of these guns increased from 1,200 guns in 2006 to 5,194 guns in 2009, and the 2009 total is expected to increase as Mexico continues to submit recently recovered crime guns for tracing.

Three out of four crime guns recovered in Mexican crimes and submitted for tracing were originally sold in a Southwest border state. In 2009, 40.0% of the Mexican crime guns that were traced to the U.S. were originally sold in Texas, 36.1% were originally sold in other Southwest border states (Arizona, New Mexico, California), and 23.9% were originally sold in non-border states."

Sounds pretty damning, right? Common sense, right? Well, look again at the wording. Notice the constant use of the phrase "submitted to tracing". The Mexican government seizes a large number of weapons each year, and if they think it may have originated in the US they will make a trace request. But, according to a Government Accounting Office Report to Congress, they admit that of the 30,000 weapons seized in 2008 alone, only 7,200 (24%) of these were submitted to BATFE for tracing. So, the 90% of submitted guns really is 21.6% of all the guns recovered.

Let's talk about what the tracing means. Federal Firearms License holders are required to maintain records for any new or used weapons they sell or transfer. So, getting a hit on the trace means only that at some point the weapon was sold or transferred in the US. It does not mean that the LAST time it was sold was in the US. The record that is the hit on the trace may be many years old, and there is no telling how many private owners had possession of the weapon during the intermediate time. The weapon may have been stolen during that time, or somehow otherwise illegally obtained. It may have been sold or transferred to someone out of the country, who knows.

So, basically what the data shows is that 21.6% of the weapons seized in Mexico at one time or another passed through one of the largest gun producing and importing countries in the world, and were legally sold or transferred while here.The 90% number simply means that of the weapons the Mexican government thinks may have passed through the US actually did. Big surprise there.

Now, more silly supposed common sense. Statistics show that of all the weapons traced, 95% were tracked back to a gun dealer or pawn shop. Does that make you stop and wonder? Well, hardly surprising because THESE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO KEEP THESE TRACE RECORDS!!!! They are saying 95% of the records were held by the only people required to keep records. Of course, that is obvious. But the high percentage number fools people in to thinking it is significant.

The final piece of the puzzle involves the last little bit of common sense. With 30,000 guns seized in 1 year (no information on how many weapons there are, seized or not), I doubt drug cartels are stopping by gun shows, private owners, gun shops and pawn brokers to buy 1 gun at a time. No one is knowingly selling guns to drug cartels here. Someone is buying these weapons, consolidating them and sending them south of the border illegally. Anyone buying a weapon for anything other than their own personal use is breaking a huge number of federal laws, even if it is some guy buying a pistol for his wife. Of the 7,200 guns submitted for tracing, 6,480 had US trace records. So, potentially 6,480 times in this one year alone the federally mandated Brady checks did not catch someone who should have either not purchased a weapon, or were conducting a shell transaction. If the checks were made, the gun dealer was doing his job. It was the federal government who fell down on theirs, and now want to blame someone else for their ineptness.

Truth is, way too many people are being killed in these stupid skirmishes. Way too many innocent civilians are losing their lives because the Mexican government can't keep its house in order. Even if you totally remove the guns that came from the US, the drug cartels would still have huge arsenals to draw from. So blaming the human devastation that takes place along the Mexican-US border on the guns is ludicrous. Let's blame it on the drug cartel leaders, who have ZERO respect for human life. And on the cartel foot soldier, who is willing to kill, main, torture and rape to make a buck. And finally on the Mexican (and to a lesser extent US) government for allowing such an evil group to gain so much power that they are now uncontrollable.

One last thought. Since 2006, over 23,000 people have been killed on these drug wars. Of that number, only 8-10% have been police, military, security or public officers. So over 20,000 innocent civilians have been unable to protect themselves from these murderous fiends. Maybe, instead of worrying about how many guns are in cartel hands we should think about arming the people who live in these areas. Just like common criminals, these murderous thugs may just think twice about opening fire in a crowded market place if they knew that almost every single person there had a weapon to defend themselves with. During World War II, it wasn't the French and American army that caused so much havoc for the Germans. It was the armed civilian resistance fighters who fought back, knowing that they were at least partially responsible for securing their own safety. This unconventional warfare had many times the disruptive power of a military attack. Or the tremendous disadvantage our own military saw in areas where you can't tell combatants for civilians, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia or Viet Nam. Maybe we should be paying more attention to arming the defenceless and then see how things progress.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't really out to get you....

OK, I really don't consider myself paranoid. I don't spend my days wearing tin foil hats, watching for the black helicopters and complaining about the liberal elite/biased media/military-industrial complex. I would say I live in level White and Yellow on the Cooper Color Code. For those of you who may not be familiar with this, Lt Col Jeff Cooper wrote a seminal work called Principles of Personal Defense where he adapted the Marine Corps readiness color codes.

The color code has nothing to do with tactical situations, or even with alertness. It actually dealt with a persons state of mind, pertaining to everything around them. Think of it this way; it isn't determined by the actual amount of danger that you feel, but by your mental state in terms of noticing and dealing with any dangers that might come up. It has as much to do with being a pedestrian on the street or walking up stairs as it does preparation for an attack. You don't "set" yourself in one of these conditions. You just always "are" in one of them, and you determine how you move between them. By default, if you are not in one of the elevated conditions, you are in Condition White and a potential  "victim" of whatever occurs around you. . Everyone should pay attention to this, not just armed citizens.

Cooper's color code looks like this;

• White - Unaware and unprepared. If attacked in Condition White, the only thing that may save you is plain dumb luck, or the inadequacy or ineptitude of your attacker. If you are confronted by something nasty or a car suddenly swerves on to the sidewalk, your reaction will probably be "Oh my God! This can't be happening to me."
• Yellow - Relaxed alert. No specific threat situation. Your mindset is that "today could be the day I may have to protect myself." You are simply aware that the world is a potentially unfriendly place and that you are prepared to take care of yourself, if necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and realize that "I may have to REACT today." You don't have to be armed in this state, but if you are armed you should be in Condition Yellow. You should always be in Yellow whenever you are in unfamiliar surroundings or among people you don't know. You can remain in Yellow for long periods, as long as you are able to "Watch your six." (In aviation 12 o'clock refers to the direction in front of the aircraft's nose. Six o'clock is the blind spot behind the pilot.) In Yellow, you are "taking in" surrounding information in a relaxed but alert manner, like a continuous 360 degree radar sweep. As Cooper put it, "I might have to shoot."
• Orange - Specific alert. Something is not quite right and has gotten your attention. Your radar has picked up a specific alert. You shift your primary focus to determine if there is a threat (but you do not drop your six). Your mindset shifts to "I may have to shoot HIM today," focusing on the specific target which has caused the escalation in alert status. In Condition Orange, you set a mental trigger: "If that goblin does 'x', I will need to stop him." Your pistol usually remains holstered in this state. Staying in Orange can be a bit of a mental strain, but you can stay in it for as long as you need to. If the threat proves to be nothing, you shift back to Condition Yellow.
• Red - Condition Red is fight. Your mental trigger (established back in Condition Orange) has been tripped. If "X" happens I will shoot that person.

Many people (including myself) think there is a 5th level, Condition Black. Where Red says "if x happens, I will shoot", Black says "now x has happened, and I am squeezing the trigger".

Condition Orange is really fairly stressful. You have identified a specific thing that concerns you, so your level of attention starts to narrow and focus on the potential threat. You can't stay in this state for long, because you are so focused and intent. Condition Yellow allows you to remain in it for much longer periods of time, but everyone slides in to Condition White. Inadvertently when you are in public and talking on your cell phone, or reading a book. But intentionally when you are in your own home without a specific threat of danger.

So, is spending most of your day out in public in Condition Yellow being paranoid? I say no, it is being quite rational. It simply means that you have chosen to take responsibility for your own safety, regardless of where you are and whether you are armed or not. Condition Yellow is every time you stop at a crosswalk and wait for the signal to change instead of blindly walking out in traffic and hoping you don't get run over. It is every time you hold on to the handrail on the stairs in case you slip rather than throwing yourself headlong and out of control down the steps. And it is every time you thinks "hey, those three guys just suddenly walked out of that store and are right behind me". You aren't wishing for anything bad to happen, or even exactly expecting anything bad to happen. But you are aware that something might, and you chose to maximize your chances of remaining safe.



Because I refuse to allow my health, happiness or life to be dependant on dumb luck, or somebody else's good will.

Defenseless

Image by Oleg Volk

What would you do?

I just heard a really interesting story. A man was on his way home after spending the day at a public gathering. He had his young daughter with him, and was driving through a fairly average part of town. He came to a red light, stopped just behind a cab. After the appropriate period of time, the light changed. The cab didn't move. A short wait, a short beep on the horn, and still nothing.

The man pulled out, going around the cab that was still stopped. As they were passing the side of the cab, the cab driver started waving his hands trying to get the driver to stop. After a very, very brief hesitation, the man continued his drive home.

A short distance down the road, his daughter asked him, "Daddy, why didn't you stop?" The man explained to his daughter that, although things looked ok at the time he had no idea of what would happen if he did stop. After all, with his daughter in the car, his most important task was to make sure she was safe, and he wasn't willing to take a chance. If things had looked like there was a real problem, he would use his cell to call the appropriate people to help.

I know this story sounds harsh and very unfeeling. In a civilized society, people are supposed to help each other. There was no obvious problem, so why not at least stop and see what was happening. It would have taken just a second, what could go wrong?

Well, lots. First, this man had a young charge that he was responsible for, and this limited his ability to take chances. Who did he owe more consideration of, his daughter or this stranger? Had he been alone, he may have at least slowed down, rolled down the window and asked what the problem was. But he couldn't in this case.

While things appeared safe, there are many scenarios that could have taken place. Maybe the cabbie was having simple mechanical problems, and then the man could have called a tow truck. Maybe the cabbie was a little disturbed, and just wanted to yell and rant at someone. But, just maybe, the cabbie had this planned along with an accomplice hading in the bushes. When the innocent driver stops, the accomplice sneaks up up behind car while the cabbie distracts him. Maybe a gun pops in through the window, and the man gets car-jacked. Or the accomplice gets jumpy, and pulls the trigger by mistake. Or, just maybe, the cabbie and his accomplice have already decided they wouldn't leave a witness behind and will just  pull the wallet out of a lifeless body.

Processing information is the key, and understand the consequences of decisions.  If the driver had stopped and something went wrong, there would have been potentially bad consequences. But, had the man stopped with his daughter in the car and something went wrong, it could have been infinitely worse. If the man alone gets injured, he would have been upset. Had he been killed, his family and friends would have morned him. But if his daughter was hurt in a situation that he could have easily avoided, the man would have been devastated. Had she been killed, and he survived, the grief and guilt would have been unimaginable. He would have lived the rest of his days knowing that HE was the one who made the bad choice that cost her life.

Decisions are a cost/benefit analysis. You look at what will happen if you do something, and what will happen if you don't. But you also have to take a look at the likelihood of success or failure, as well as the consequences of those.

Take Russian Roulette. Take a 6 shot revolver and put 1 bullet in it. Spin the cylinder, put the muzzle to your head without looking and pull the trigger. Statistics tell us that you have 84.4% chance of surviving, which most gamblers will tell you is pretty darn good. But it is the COST of that bad outcome that totally out-weights the good odds that keeps you from doing it.

I leave you with one more thought on the cost of making a poor decision, based on the cost of a bad outcome. The odds of being killed by lightening are 2,232,000 to 1, which are really in your favor for living a long life.

BUT it really, really sucks to be the 1   ...........

Could anti-gunners really be right?

I have been listening to some pro-Second Amendment podcasts lately, and typically enjoy a majority of the content. There is always a lot of good commentary on gun rights, weapons, concealed carry and the proper use of all this. But, I have been really getting aggravated by the attitudes of many of the podcasters. This attitude is really just a reflection of the close-minded public who are often their listeners. No, not everyone who listens to these podcasts is a neanderthal, mouth-breathing idiot. But they are not always the intelligent, open-minded thinkers they should be. And the simple fact of the matter is both sides of the gun debate are just as guilty.

No matter the topic, there will always be at least 2 viewpoints. The basis of an meaningful conversation is the intelligent exchange of ideas. There is very little doubt that neither side is even remotely interested in changing their minds, but logical discourse can sometimes cause someone to see something a little differently than they previously had. It is unlikely that there is going to a be a complete reversal in anyone's stance, but their ideas may be changed forever, no matter how slightly.

The enemy of intelligent conversation is contempt. Too often people will stop listening to their opponenet and just feel contempt. Contempt is defined as:

"The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn."

The problem with contempt is that you no longer just disagree with a person's ideas, but you begin to really despise the person. Instead of defending your viewpoint, you now attack their character. It has stopped being intelligent discourse, and has now become ridicule and stubbornness.

Do not for 1 second get me wrong; I think that 99% of what anti-gun or anti-carry people use in their arguments is wrong. Either misinterpreted, or outright incorrect. Sometimes even knowingly misrepresented, to support an incorrect assumption or stance. But just because these individuals have what I believe to be wrong information does not make them any less human than you or me.

In today's society, it is very easy to get in to an "us versus them" mentality. White vs black vs brown. Christian vs Muslim. Democrat vs Republican. Taste great vs less filling. Whatever. But the thing that makes this country so great is that you can live, worship, vote or just feel any way you like. But sometimes the "patriots" who so loudly proclaim their worship for the Second Amendment forget about the First Amendment. Eveyoen is entitled to their own opinion, and if you don't agree feel free to question them on it. But don't just say "you're an asshole" and walk away.

If there is any one thing to blame for the general decline in public behavior, I think it is a lack of respect for others. We have become cut off from the general population around us, and spend our time huddled with like-minded individuals and beating our fists on our chests about how right we are and how wrong the other guy is. In today's 24 hour news cycle, where information is bombarding us from all sides so quickly we barely have time to process it, we have lost the ability to think. Why actually form an opinion of our own when we can take one from someones 15 second sound bite? Why spend the time discussing important issues with others who may have differing points of view, when we can just listen some more to Anderson Cooper, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck or even Jay Leno?

Big shock here, so you better sit down...... Everyone who disagrees with you is not a demon bent on nefarious corruption of your soul. They are poeple just like you and me, who happen to have been exposed to different things and have formed different opinions. There are no doubt people who will lie, cheat and make up facts to push their own gun control agenda (and we all know gun control isn't about guns, its about control). But there are also armed militia running around in paramilitary garb, bent on violent revolution and trying to overthrow the government. These are the 1 or 2% extreme examples, and most of the rest of us fall somewhere in between. Talk to each other civilly, exchange ideas rationally and treat each other with common courtesy, just like your mother taught you when you were a child.

The biggest mistake I think people make is to listen to nothing but sources that they agree with. If you already feel a certain way on a topic, how much more are you going to learn from similar viewpoints? Want to learn something for real; try listening to someone you has a different take on things. Yeah, maybe they are wrong. Yeah, maybe they will never agree with you and tell you how right you are. But they will point out potential flaws in your big picture, and allow you to reinforce your opinion or refine it based on new information.

Why go through all this trouble? Why leave yourself open to new (and potentially troubling) insights on things that matter to you, when you already have the whole thing figured out? Our side is right, and theirs is wrong. Well, the simple truth is neither exactly right or wrong, and hopefully both sides have some information that can be brought to the party. Nothing is ever black or white, or absolutely static in nature. No one is completely right, or completely wrong. Circumstances change, situations change. think for yourself, understand both sides of a topic and choose your own viewpoint. THAT is going to be much closer to the truth than either one of the polarizing extreme viewpoints.

And after all, isn't the TRUTH what we are after?

The myths of Gun Control - Part 1

I have been seeing a lot of ideas that seem to have taken on a life of their own regarding benefits associated with gun control. While at first blush they seem to make sense, if you dive a little deeper you quickly see that they really don't hold water.

I heard that recently Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (who inherited his job when Rod Blagojevick was impeached) has been trying to get a referendum question on the ballot for this November that reads:

"Shall the Governor and the members of the Illinois General Assembly enact legislation to ban the sale of semi-automatic and assault weapons that are used by criminals to threaten the lives of law enforcement and the people of Illinois?”

First off, a couple things about the actual wording. It must have been crafted by one of those polling organizations to be something insidious that seems innocuous. And notice how it lumps together a simple semi-automatic weapon and an assault weapon.

I doubt anyone wants criminals to have weapons that kill law enforcement or anyone else. But this question is about banning the sale to everyone, not just criminals. Well, I'm sure almost everyone. I bet Gov. Quinn's State Police protection details will still have them. And Mayor Daly's Chicago Police protection detail. And any other politicion or influential person who can get pretty much whatever they want anyway.

So, basically it is just the ordinary citizen of Illinois that will not be able to have these. And of course the criminals. After all, we don't want these criminals to walk in to their local gun store and purchase these. Oh wait, I forgot. Since over 65% of felony arrests are repeat offenders, most of them are already prohibited from owning a weapon of any kind any way. By Illinois law, and federal law.

So since criminals can't actually buy their weapons retail, we will have to try to get the gang bangers who are selling guns out of their trunks on the street corner to abide by this new referendum. Thank goodness that THIS law will finally get these illegal gun sellers to pay attention, rather than the myriad of state and federal laws already on the books that they are currently ignoring.

We all know that laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. By definition, the criminal element DOES NOT pay attention to laws. Otherwise they wouldn't be criminals. So the ultimate purpose of a law like this, should it take effect, would be to deny the law abiding citizen the most commonly used firearm for self-defense purposes. Of yeah, how about a huge number of weapons that are used for hunting, target shooting and other recreation. All those would not be for sale in Illinois any more.

We don't need another horribly restrictive law on the books that will do no real good in combating crime. We need to enforce the ones we have. In fact, imagine what would happen if we actually identified the responsible citizens amongst us, investigated their background to make certain they didn't have any hidden criminal background, and actually gave them a license to own a weapon to protect themselves and others around them. Imagine a criminal not actually knowing for sure if the person they were about to victimize had a firearms or not. I bet they would quickly become much more selective in their choice of targets. Wouldn't that be nice?

Hey, wait a second, We already do that. It is called concealed carry permits, and 48 states in the country already allow this to one degree or another. And every time a state passed a law and entered in to the group, it saw a decrease in the incidence of violent crime. EVERY TIME. Even though there were predictions of blood running in the streets, which never happened. NEVER. Maybe it wasn't the guns, maybe it is just some type of coincidence. Maybe something else caused the decrease in crime, but a decrease occurred none the less.

Fortunately, this wrong-headed question will not be on the ballot this time. The petitioner needed 83,000 signatures of Cook County residents, and they fell well below that number. But they tried to proceed anyway, asking to move forward with the petition anyway. Fortunately, the Cook County Electoral Board listened to arguments against this petition, and rejected the petition on August 20th.

When you carry concealed, people look at you differently

I have recently been reminded that, while most people are pro-gun or at least ambivalent, very few people are totally comfortable knowing the people around them have a weapon. It was someone how is pretty close to me, who has been making comments that I would have never expected. I really am not sure where this attitude comes from.

I think many people have a hard time believing that the people around them are as responsible and intelligent as they themselves are. My theory is it comes down to the old saying; people are smart but a person is not.

What does that mean. Well, basically the study of group psychology can allow us to very accurately predict what a group of people may do in certain circumstances. A group of people is much more controllable, because the majority of people thinking one way will tend to cancel out the actions of the few that think otherwise. Notice I didn't say the majority would do the right thing, they just will do what most of them think is right. Sometimes this is a very big difference.

On the other hand, a person is very uncontrollable. How a single person reacts in any situation is governed by how they process that information, which comes through the filter of their experience. What might cause concern in a group could cause panic in a person. What causes a stiffening of the resolve in a group could cause a violent backlash in a person.

I think it is this basic concept that scares people when they find out someone near them has a weapon. Suddenly, you have to be concerned about all the things that have happened in that persons life up to this point, in the context of how that will affect how they react in any given situation. And that is an uncomfortable position.

Think about this: when those of you who are shooters go to the range, how do you feel about the people or person in the lane next to you? Do you trust them to be safe, or do you keep your eye on them to make sure they don't do something to endanger you? It might be a stranger, or your best friend, but I generally become quite aware of what they are doing and how they are handling that remote control death dealing device called a handgun.

I think anyone is uncomfortable allowing other people to make life and death decisions for them, and that is basically what happens when someone carries a weapon. No doubt, this power of life or death will only come up in very grave circumstances, but it is always somewhere in the back of your mind. If there wasn't some possibility of needing it, no matter how remote, why would anyone carry a handgun? Even if you are not paranoid, just knowing a handgun is in the possession of someone around you means your life depends on their actions.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you should not carry your weapon because of this. Once you make the decision to carry, this is just one of the many things you will have to deal with. But it is just human nature for people to look at you differently when they know you are packing.

Personally, that is why I think it is called concealed carry. Concealed means concealed, and no one should know you have it. Don't show it off, brag about it, let it "accidentally" flash or print. Honestly, if you are the kind of person who needs to show off that they have a gun, then you probably aren't the kind of person who should have one. And that includes feeling the uncontrollable desire to wear your "Glocks rock" t-shirt, or your camo "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out" ball cap when you are going about your daily errands. Save that stuff for the range or your next IDPA meet.

People will only treat you differently if they know you are carrying, so don't let them know. Just be the average guy next door that people smile at, or give the head nod to. The kind of person they shake hands with when they meet them, or make polite conversation with while waiting in line. The only person who knows you have your weapon on should be you, and everyone will be fine. Because, to steal a thought from Clint Smith "carrying a handgun is comforting to you, but probably not to the people around you".