Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Alzheimer's, Ballistics, Book Conservation, Gardening, Government, Guns, Health, Society
I mentioned in passing a couple of times in the last week that I’d been busy. Part of it was routine management of the BBTI re-launch (we crossed 900,000 hits yesterday), part of it was also just getting a lot of conservation work done (which is going to be an ongoing theme for the coming weeks), but a big part of it was setting up a new forum for neighborhood associations here in Columbia.
This was something completely new to me – so I had a bit of a learning curve to get through. Which is fine, since it’s good to do something completely different now and then to keep things fresh. And little or nothing may come of it; I set it up because I think it is a necessary component for this kind of grass-roots organizing, but I long ago learned that you can’t force people to care about something, at least not enough to actually take action. But I also learned a long time ago that unless I stepped forward to do something I thought was necessary, it too often just wouldn’t get done.
And I think that is what amuses me about this whole thing. I didn’t know how to set up a forum. But I knew that the appropriate software was available to make the process relatively painless (true – and now having done it once I’d have no qualms about doing it again). There was a need, and no one else had yet filled that. So . . . I volunteered.
A small thing. And, like I said, nothing much may come of it. But this is the only way to make progress – to try things out. To plant a seed and try to help it grow, maybe even to grow with it.
And now I can turn my attention back to finishing the Caregiving book, with these two other projects more or less completed. Onward, and upward.
Jim Downey
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Ballistics, Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, Guns, Predictions, RKBA, Society, Violence
For reasons I’ll discuss sometime later, I was digging around in some of my old archive writings this afternoon. And I came across an essay which was intended to be a companion piece to an op-ed I had written for the St. Louis Post Dispatch about 16 years ago (they declined to run it). It’s curious to see how little my opinions have changed in the interim, but also how what I had to say then was somewhat predictive to how things have actually played out, here and elsewhere around the nation. For this reason, I thought I would share it here.
Jim Downey
Cross posted to the BBTI blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concealed-Carry
Recently, I had a column here concerning the radical NRA leadership, and the danger that their attitude of ‘anything goes’ with weapons and ammunition poses to police, federal agents, and the average American. So it may come as a bit of a surprise that I favor legislative efforts to allow most people to carry a concealed firearm.
I do not see a contradiction here. What the NRA leadership is doing to demonize and discredit law enforcement makes us all less safe. Having more law-abiding citizens trained in the safe handling of firearms, and duly licensed to carry those firearm for self defense, would make us more safe. Sure, the ideal solution would be to rid society of all firearms, or at least all handguns. But that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon, with a huge number of firearms already in private hands. Certainly, the criminals aren’t going to give up their weapons. And a crime-fearing public doesn’t want to relinquish their guns, though they rarely carry them in violation of current law.
A concealed-carry law would change the calculus of crime in a very fundamental way.
The calculus of crime is pretty straight-forward: people will turn to crime when they feel that the chances of reward are greater than the risks. Of course, how risk is estimated depends on what one has to lose. If a person has few options other than crime (either in reality or in perception), the threshold of acceptable risk is lower, and the incentive to turn to crime is greater.
There are a number of ways of affecting this equation. A strong moral incentive to not commit crime raises the level of risk. If you believe that you face a final judgement before an omniscient deity, you know that you cannot escape the consequences of committing a crime. Or if violating what you believe to be ‘right’ makes you uncomfortable, the rewards are diminished, and you are less inclined to resort to crime.
A greater probability of being caught and convicted by the criminal justice system likewise raises the threshold of risk. More police, wider law enforcement powers, and mandatory sentences are all efforts in this direction.
A high standard of living raises the threshold of risk (since the potential criminal has more to lose). Attempts to reduce poverty, provide job training, and give people opportunity and hope are based on this part of the equation.
Reducing the incentive also makes sense. This is one of the major premises behind arguments to legalize (and control and tax) some drugs. Legalization would greatly reduce the profit potential for dealers, and keep prices down for addicts, so that they wouldn’t have to turn to crime to support their habit.
These are all general, society-wide efforts. Businesses also tend to employ the same principles. Tighter inventory and accounting control reduce the threat of loss through employee theft and embezzelment, alarms and similar security systems are aimed at stopping burglary, and keeping a limited amount of cash on premises reduces the potential reward to a criminal.
Likewise, individuals apply the same understanding, whether we do so consciously or not. We are more nervous when we are carrying a large sum of cash, because we know that this increases the potential reward to a robber. We avoid dark alleys because this lowers the threshold of risk for the criminal, since there is less chance of that criminal being caught and convicted by the criminal justice system.
If concealed-carry laws were in effect, and a significant number of people availed themselves of such permits, this would also change the equation at both the individual and societal level. The threshold of risk to the criminal would rise. Instead of being relatively assured that a law-abiding (and hence unarmed) victim would be unable to respond to a threat of violence, the criminal would have to consider what the chances were that a likely victim would not only be armed, but trained in the proper use of a firearm.
Training would be the key. The military (and a number of states which already allow citizens to carry concealed firearms) have training regimens designed to teach people how to safely use and care for their weapons, when it is appropriate to use them, and what the ramifications of use are. Completing and passing such a training regimen, including periodic qualification on a shooting range, would be necessary to obtain a permit to carry.
And the weapon to be used would need to be licensed. A sample of that weapon’s unique ballistic profile could be put on file for future reference. Carrying a weapon not so licensed should be grounds for immediate revocation of the permit to carry. And there should be draconian punishments for carrying a weapon without the proper permit and training. Police should have broadened rights to search for a concealed weapon using hand-held metal detectors or other new scanning equipment.
What about crimes of passion? Wouldn’t adding more firearms, having them even more handy, increase the number of this variety of murders?
I don’t think so. There are already more than 100 million firearms in this country. Allowing people to carry a small fraction of that number would not increase the risk much. In fact, because of the requirement of training in the safe handling and proper use of concealed weapons, this risk might very well drop.
The experience in those states which have had concealed-carry laws on the books for a few years indicates that there are very few instances of improper use by citizens who hold such permits. And while it is difficult to establish the causal connection directly, the data also suggests that those states have experienced a drop in crime rates greater than the drop in the national average.
Lastly, allowing citizens who have a background clean of criminal activity and mental health problems to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon would do more than just change the calculus of crime. It would shift responsibility. The police really cannot protect us from predators. Often, the most they can do is be there after the fact, to help pick up the pieces of a shattered society, and to try and locate the perpetrators of a crime. A citizen who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon is empowered, with at least some greater control over his or her own fate in the face of crime. This is why many women have sought and obtained permits to carry in those states where such permits are legal.
A concealed-carry law would not be a panacea, any more than any of the other efforts to affect the calculus of crime have been a panacea. But a concealed-carry law could make a significant difference, and it is high time that we give our citizens the tools and training to protect themselves.
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Failure, Government, Privacy, Reason, Society, Terrorism, Violence
A friend sent me this Wall Street Journal article yesterday:
White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation’s drug issues.
“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”
OK, that’s not the same thing as actually changing drug policy, but how you say something matters a lot. As Radly Balko says:
The drug war imagery started by Nixon, subdued by Carter, then ratcheted up again in the Reagan administration (and remaining basically level since) has had significant repercussions on the way drug policy is enforced, from policymakers on down to street-level cops. It’s war rhetoric that gave us the Pentagon giveaway program, where millions of pieces of surplus military equipment (such as tanks) have been transferred to local police departments. War imagery set the stage for the approximately 1,200 percent rise in the use of SWAT teams since the early 1980s, and has fostered the militaristic, “us vs. them” mentality too prevalent in too many police departments today.
War implies a threat so existential, so dire to our way of life, that we citizens should be ready to sign over some of our basic rights, be expected to make significant sacrifices, and endure collateral damage in order to defeat it. Preventing people from getting high has never represented that sort of threat.
The “War on (Some) Drugs” was never really about controlling drug abuse. It was about controlling people, particularly those people who could be easily demonized to give politicians a nice boost amongst their white, middle-class base. It helped to cement the allegiance of local pols and police departments, who got lots of new toys to play with at no cost (local cost, that is), and gave them more power. It eroded our civil rights and constitutional freedoms, and helped to set the stage for further intrusions when the “War on Terror” came along.
Getting rid of the “War” rhetoric doesn’t solve the problems with abuse of authority, but it does help to redefine the relationship a bit. It is a necessary first step in reclaiming some of our freedoms. Let’s hope that it is the first of many.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: General Musings, Heinlein, Humor, Robert A. Heinlein, Society, Survival
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
— Lazarus Long
I can’t believe it.
One of my favorite economic historians from my undergrad days wrote a famous treatise on human stupidity, and it took me 20 years to find out about it.
Sheesh!
Well, just in case you too missed this little gem, I offer:
THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY
By Carlo M. Cipolla
Go. Read the whole thing. It’s not too long. And if you have a wry, cynical (maybe even sardonic?) twist to your view of the world (as I certainly do), you will laugh your proverbial ass off. Maybe even your real ass. But since most people need a bit of convincing to actually *read* things these days, here’s a taste to whet your appetite:
THE FIRST BASIC LAW
The first basic law of human stupidity asserts without ambiguity that:
Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
At first, the statement sounds trivial, vague, and horribly ungenerous. Closer scrutiny will however reveal its realistic veracity. No matter how high are one’s estimates of human stupidity, one is repeatedly and recurrently startled by the fact that:
a) people whom one had once judged rational and intelligent turn out to be unashamedly stupid.
b) day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one’s activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments.
The First Basic Law prevents me from attributing a specific numerical value to the fraction of stupid people within the total population: any numerical estimate would turn out to be an underestimate. Thus in the following pages I will denote the fraction of stupid people within a population by the symbol σ.
There, if that doesn’t get you started on the right track, there’s no hope for you: you’re one of THEM.
As a friend of mine always says: “Don’t let the bastards get you down.”
Of course, he means the stupid people.
But you knew that.
Right?
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Alzheimer's, Art, Ballistics, Book Conservation, Politics, Preparedness, SCA, Science Fiction, Society, Writing stuff
There are other things I should be writing. Revisions for the BBTI site upgrade, work on the Caregiving book. Even (laughably) my own fiction.
But I’m in a bit of a reflective mood. And something I heard the other day has been churning around in my head. It’s this:
The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in. He must reflect what is projected upon him. And he must have a strong sense of the sardonic. This is what uncouples him from belief in his own pretensions. The sardonic is all that permits him to move within himself. Without this quality, even occasional greatness will destroy a man.
Recognize it? That’s from Dune. I’ve been listening to the recent audio version of the book as I’ve been doing conservation work. I usually only listen to books I know well, because for the most part I need to maintain my concentration on the work at hand. But having a favorite book rolling along in the background is a help, allows me to get technical things done while engaging part of my creative mind, eases the hours to pass. Anyway, I was at a pause between tasks, and that quote came up (it’s actually a quote in the book, and referenced as such at a chapter heading, as a way to explain something about the main character.)
If Frank Herbert hadn’t read The Hero with a Thousand Faces, he should have. That’s very much an insight of which Campbell would be proud. But then, I have long recommended Dune to any and all who would want a good primer on personal politics disguised as a SF story. Herbert’s understanding of myth was considerable.
Anyway, the passage caught my attention. And I spent the next little while musing on it, and how I had understood it and incorporated it into my way in the world when I was very young.
No, I am not saying that I am “great”. But I have been touched by myth, and had momentary brushes with greatness. Recognizing those moments, and understanding the role I played within them, made the experience all the more enjoyable – and less risky than if I fell into the trap of believing my own press releases.
See, there’s that sardonic touch – the wry, self-deprecating cynicism that disarms critics and endears friends. And it is not an artifice. It is who I really am – some deeply seated self-defense mechanism which has allowed me to play with greatness but not to be captivated by it. Nonetheless, I am conscious of it – aware of how the sardonic wit gives me latitude and a certain insulation from praise or popularity. Because of it, I have known when to walk away from lusting after greatness, how to shut my ears to the siren’s call which has destroyed others.
The one thing I worry about – well, ‘the one thing I wonder about’ is perhaps a better way of phrasing it – is whether this ability to walk away means that I have never risked enough to actually *be* great, and so have missed opportunity. Oh, I have come up to the line many times. And crossed lines which most people would not have had the nerve to cross. I have risked life and limb, reputation and financial security (and sometimes lost those bets). But there have also been times when I walked away.
Was this prudence, or was it fear?
Hard to say.
Jim Downey
* Full quote here. The first sentence of which is what I used as the motto for my Paint the Moon project, one of my more creative brushes with greatness.
Filed under: Ballistics, Emergency, Flu, Government, Guns, Health, Pandemic, Predictions, Preparedness, Science, Science Fiction, Society, Survival
Couple minor things . . .
The Ballistics by the inch site has broken 700,000 hits. The related blog has been getting more hits than this one, but I think that is mostly due to our recently having completed the second sequence of tests and starting to talk a bit about that.
Looks like things are stabilizing for now with the H1N1 virus. This is good, even if it means less publicity for Communion of Dreams. Yeah, I know, I’m not nearly as cynical as I like to pretend – I would rather not have a global pandemic, even at the cost of a bit of fame. Oh well, at least I have reviewed my preparations for the coming Zombie Apocalypse.
I still keep spending too much time flinging rocks. Being obsessive-compulsive is sometimes a pain.
Maybe more later.
Jim Downey
Filed under: Emergency, Flu, Government, Health, Pandemic, Politics, Predictions, Preparedness, Society, Survival
. . . well, certainly not a babe (in either sense of the term):
Biden says avoid planes, subways; puts out clarifying statement
Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he would not recommend taking any commercial flight or riding in a subway car “at this point” because swine flu virus can spread “in confined places.” A little more than one hour later, Biden rushed out a statement backing off.
“I would tell members of my family — and I have — I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now,” Biden said on NBC’s “Today” show.. “It’s not that it’s going to Mexico. It’s [that] you’re in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. …
“So, from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation. If you’re out in the middle of a field when someone sneezes, that’s one thing. If you’re in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it’s a different thing.”
Biden has a small problem – he says what he is thinking. Which is dangerous for a pol, and it never ceases to amaze me that he has managed to get as far in politics as he has.
Anyway, it is revealing what he said, even if the White House made him backpeddle. And I think that it is probably fairly good advice at this point. I know that I would have serious second thoughts about doing much traveling on public conveyance at this point. But semi-hermit that I am, that’s pretty easy for me to say (and do).
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Emergency, Flu, Government, Guns, Health, Pandemic, Predictions, Preparedness, Science, Science Fiction, Society, Survival, Weather
“Foraging?”
I chuckled. “Yeah.”
“But I thought you already had like 40,000 rounds of ammo,” said my friend.
“You exaggerate.”
“Yeah, but not by much.” He laughed. “So, what were you foraging for?”
“Oh, just decided to top off some of the usual supplies we have at home. You know how it is.”
He did. He too lives in the Midwest, where a winter storm or spring flood or summer tornado can leave you isolated without power or the ability to get out for upwards of a week. “So, you really think this is the start of a pandemic?”
“Probably not, but it is too soon to say. But even if it isn’t, there could be a panic, which could be almost as bad.”
“Yeah, good point.”
* * * * * * *
WHO says swine flu moving closer to pandemic
BERLIN – The World Health Organization warned Wednesday that the swine flu outbreak is moving closer to becoming a pandemic, as the United States reported the first swine flu death outside of Mexico, and Germany and Austria became latest European nations hit by the disease.
In Geneva, WHO flu chief Dr. Keiji Fukuda told reporters that there was no evidence the virus was slowing down, moving the agency closer to raising its pandemic alert to phase 5, indicating widespread human-to-human transmission.
* * * * * * *
“You know, this is all your fault,” said a different friend.
“What is?”
“The swine flu.”
“How do you figure?”
“I read your book. I know the backstory. This is how it starts, isn’t it?”
“Well, something like this, anyway.”
“So, what’s next?”
“Aliens.”
He laughed.
* * * * * * *
Jim Downey
Filed under: Babylon 5, Emergency, Flu, Health, Iraq, NPR, Pandemic, Predictions, Preparedness, Science Fiction, Society
I’ve often written about the prospect of a pandemic flu, and how it relates to what I did with the backstory for Communion of Dreams. And I can’t help but think when I see/hear something like this that this is exactly how the first reports of such an evident would come:
Fear, anger and fatalism over swine flu in Mexico
MEXICO CITY – The schools and museums are closed. Sold-out games between Mexico’s most popular soccer teams are being played in empty stadiums. Health workers are ordering sickly passengers off subways and buses. And while bars and nightclubs filled up as usual, even some teenagers were dancing with surgical masks on.
Across this overcrowded capital of 20 million people, Mexicans are reacting with fatalism and confusion, anger and mounting fear at the idea that their city may be ground zero for a global epidemic of a new kind of flu — a strange mix of human, pig and bird viruses that has epidemiologists deeply concerned.
* * *
Scientists have warned for years about the potential for a pandemic from viruses that mix genetic material from humans and animals. This outbreak is particularly worrisome because deaths have happened in at least four different regions of Mexico, and because the victims have not been vulnerable infants and elderly.
NPR and other news outlets have picked up on it this morning, as well, with the story still lost in the ongoing economic collapse, renewed violence in Iraq, and political struggles of several stripes. Just one more story. But, finally, the big one?
We’ll see.
Jim Downey
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, NYT, Privacy, Society, tech
N.S.A.’s Intercepts Exceed Limits Set by Congress
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.
Hey, it’s no big deal. Just a small bout of ‘overcollection’. Like having a few too many Tupperware containers, right? Or like being a bit ‘overdrawn’ at the bank. You know, to the tune of $1.3 Trillion or something. Easy mistake for anyone to make.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Communion Of Dreams 