Acceptant, Sublime Silence as a protestant (lower case) Stance for Peace (of mind)

 

Acceptant, Sublime Silence as a protestant (lower case) Stance for Peace (of mind)

 

              Much has been going around men’s rights forums about how and why men don’t talk about their feelings, their problems, much at all with anyone.  “Man-on-the-street” inquiries of who an individual man turns to when they need to vent elicit responses of “Nobody”, “Nobody will listen; I’m a man”, and multiple variations of this.  Not long ago, the term “Toxic Masculinity” was coined by post-modern Feminists, the “Woke” crowd, as nomenclature covering their perceptions of “Traditional Masculinity” and its downfalls.  Their claims are that “Traditional” masculine society forbids men from sharing feelings, communicating mental or emotional issues, that Stoicism teaches men to suppress feelings and show only a strong façade.

              And they’re wrong. Horribly, dangerously wrong.

              Men communicate just fine, WITH OTHER MEN.  That we don’t communicate well with women has been taken to mean that we don’t communicate well Period!  When we have an issue, we normally have a close male friend or two with whom we feel somewhat comfortable venting and trying to discern answers to problems. 

              There are two issues here. The first is that, in general, with exceptions, the feminine aspect of society appears to prefer quantity of friendship over quality.  At least that’s how it appears to most Men.  Perhaps the perception is that quantity IS quality, which I believe many of the masculine personality persuasion would disagree with.  We (in general, for the most part, with exceptions) have smaller Friend circles. Perhaps large groups of acquaintances, but a smaller number we refer to as actual Friends.  Those fewer Friends are often closer to us than the women in our lives, and we trust them deeply.

              A second issue is that men and women communicate very differently, with a different approach, different end goal, for different purposes.  When a man tries to discuss his feelings with a woman, it’s so that she can understand him better, help him find resolutions to issues, be empathetic. When a woman discusses things with a man…well, generally we end up with no idea what her intent is.  We’re told that it’s simply to vent, but the impression we get is very different.  As in many facets of male/female interaction, we end up simply confused.  I’m not saying there is no purpose, simply that the majority of men don’t comprehend it because of apparent inconsistencies and contradictions that the women we discuss the matter with haven’t deigned to clarify.

              And so if we’re going to talk with someone, it’s more likely to be with another man, and we’re exceptionally selective about who it will be.

              Going back to the discussions I’ve seen online and in articles over the last year or so, it’s true that Men tend to hold a lot in.  That isn’t because of Toxic Masculinity teaching us some poisoned version of Stoicism, or having to “Man Up”.  Ladies, YOU are why.  The women in our lives teach us, from a very early age, that talking about issues is useless, perhaps even dangerous.  At best, you’ll listen, and then begin voicing sympathy, not empathy, in very childish tones.  You’ll treat it as if we’ve suddenly become fragile decorations which have inadvertently been pushed to the edge of the shelf, and are on the verge of tilting off a precipice.  At worst…well, it’s difficult to qualify some of these as worse than others.  They’re all perfectly formulated to turn us off from talking to you about anything of substance ever again.  Perhaps what’s prioritized by us is not by you, and so you tell us that our feelings are unimportant and we need to simply move on.  Perhaps you misinterpret our reaching out as a desire for sympathy, when what we’re looking for is a sounding board to help us find solutions.  Perhaps your more emotional-base leads you to believe that a large reaction is appropriate, when what we actually need is calm.

              Or perhaps the woman he tries to open up to is simply paying lip service to it all, but the deeper reality is a desire for a Man to be a strong rock, against which all of the world’s problems crash and break apart.  Standing stout against the onslaught, we’re supposed to remain unflinching to the core.  The immense aspect of feminine society that holds this view becomes derisive.  The “boys don’t cry” narrative originates from women, not men.  From men, the narrative is “boys don’t cry until the hard work is done. THEN you’re welcome to have a breakdown. Just hold it together for a few minutes, then we’ll all go get drunk and fall apart together.” Contrast that with a noticeable proportion of women we hear about, who are aghast at their man not meeting their image of Stoic strength, and so belittle him for having human reactions.  “I don’t want to be with a weak man” is not an uncommon statement. Granted, we can appreciate the sentiment behind that, to an extent, but someone having human emotions and confiding them in their intimate partner is now weak? The narrative of appreciating vulnerability is thrown out the window.

              And so we’re scarred.  Our hearts have been cut by women we’ve loved saying “You have NO right to feel that way” and “That’s not important; let’s move on” when we’ve come to you with problems in life, in the relationship, any issue with which we’re desperately looking for a safe space to off-gas.  Imagine if, from childhood, half of the population around you told you that your feelings weren’t legitimate.  Picture being told “this group of people is better at articulating their thoughts than you/is more in touch with their feelings than you” and that group consistently, regularly berates you for having feelings which differ from theirs.

              Those scars build-up throughout childhood.  Picture yourself inside your own “heart”, beginning childhood with a clear view out, seeing light all around.  Over time that heart is cut by the very people who claim to be THE subject matter experts on feelings.  Over time, those scars cover more and more of your view out, until there are only slivers of light penetrating between them.  When we want desperately to voice what’s going on in our own heads, to release some of that pressure, the one closest to us disregards what we say, tells us we don’t know ourselves, “corrects” our priorities to align more with hers.  We try to look through those narrow cracks between the scars, only to see shadow beyond, obscuring that light we need.

              So maybe you feel that you want the man in your life to open up to you.  You believe that it will bring the two of you together (and it can) if he speaks his mind with as few filters as practical.  You want to be a soft landing pad for him when he feels like he’s on the verge of crashing.  You tell him that he can open up with you, and maybe he tries once or twice, but it tapers off, or maybe it gets cut-off like the self-amputation of a septic limb.  You don’t understand why.  You think back to the narrative you’ve been fed from society, about how men aren’t in touch with their feelings, can’t put our feelings into words, don’t communicate as well as women.  You remember studies that said women are better verbalizers because you use more words than men in a given period (again, as though quantity is inherently better than quality), and so you try to teach him to be more like you.  To speak the way you do.  You try to guide him to do things a feminine way, which in your mind is the better way.

              You get frustrated when he pulls away more.  “Must be that Toxic Masculinity” you think.

              Does it ever, at all, under any circumstances, occur to you that something has happened to change his view of you not as the light shining in, but simply another shadow concealing any light that would otherwise give him hope?  Your childish tone, intended for soothing infants, is completely inappropriate for use with him.  Your disregarding of his priorities doesn’t realign them, it disparages his perspective.  Your culturally-ingrained belief that you are more “mature” than he, and so have a higher EQ than he, with all of the related advantages, blinds you to his capacity and abilities, which might be more expansive than your own in some ways that you are incapable of seeing. 

              Do you want him to see you as the light shining through the cracks between the scars in his heart, rather than as an occluding barrier to hope?  Do you want to be an effective cushion on which he can land, rather than the hard surface on which he’ll simply crash, allowing him respite to collect himself, find new strength, and go back to being that promontory you so often shelter behind?  If you care at all about helping him on HIS terms, rather than trying to “fix” him, by feminizing him, than the best thing you can do is STOP!!!

              Don’t try to realign his priorities to match yours; you have a completely different approach to life than he.  A stereotype that I run into constantly is women caring about making things look comfortable, but not caring in the least about the strength of the foundation that comfort is resting on.  They disregard the robustness of underlying infrastructure, so long as the façade looks ok.  If this is you (and it likely is, whether you admit it to yourself or not), then shut up and listen.  Actually listen to what he says.  It’s highly likely he is choosing his words carefully.  Each and every word matters.  Not simply the words independently, but also how they interact.  You’re accustomed to talking around things, expressing immense narratives about relationships and their interplay, and not getting to the underlying point in any manner we’re able to comprehend.  You use significant volumes of implication, and believe that the meanings and loci are obvious.  Conversely, you assume we’re doing the same thing and end up disregarding much of what we say in the belief that we’re speaking with the same form and function as you.  Men tend (with exception, in general) to be more explicit, getting directly to the point.  There might be some background, but it’s because he believes that’s necessary for comprehension.  He might seem to ramble slightly off-topic, but it’s likely he’s trying to contextualize his message in the belief that you’ll have a more complete understanding.  Listen to EVERY word.  Consider how the words fit together.  Keep in mind the context of the situation when interpreting.  When you believe that he’s off-topic, he’s actually addressing a branch of the main topic that he feels is significant.  You saying “stay on topic” shows him that you don’t understand what he’s trying to say, and discourages him from opening up in the future.  What’s the use of talking with you if you won’t understand?  Instead, ask for clarification.  Ask him to explain how the two seemingly unrelated narratives actually fit together, so that you can expand your perspective of what he’s trying to communicate.  Further, he will often need you to do the same.  When he asks “You said XYZ a few months ago, and now you’re saying ABC. What’s up?”, he’s trying to understand.  Don’t blow up at him for not reading your mind; take the time to explain the difference, what changed, how the two things either don’t conflict, or why you changed your mind. Otherwise you simply confuse him, and your irritation will cause him to pull away.

              When he expresses a feeling, and you get mad at him for feeling it, now he’s consoling you for being angry about how he feels.  How can you rationally expect him to ever open up to you again?! “How dare you say that!”.  The proverbial “The audacity of him” meme.  Well, that audacity wasn’t in insulting you, it was in assuming that you were a safe place to discuss his feelings.  His audacity was in believing you when you said he could open up to you.  His presumptuousness was in believing that you considered him your equal, and would treat him as a legitimate human being.  He rashly assumed you could ever consider his perspective as valid, and listen to what he had to say with an open mind.

              I keep falling off the hill into negativity.  Sorry ‘bout that.

              Don’t treat him as a child.  That’s inappropriate, demeaning, demoralizing, and shuts him down.  Listen to what he says.  If he provides clarification when you repeat something back to him, that isn’t an attack on you.  It’s a desire to be understood.  When he vents his feelings, even about you, take it in stride and work with him to figure out why he has those feelings.  He knows that the feelings will pass.  He doesn’t base his identity on his feelings.  He does, however, know what he’s feeling and is trying to communicate an issue with you.

              Your man isn’t going to look at the world the same way you do.  Nor should he.  Men are not women, no matter how much you (usually subconsciously, but sometimes with full self-awareness) try to force the situation to be otherwise. Once you accept that, and its legitimacy, you’ll have a foundation upon which to build substantial comprehension of your man’s outlook and message.

              Recognize that he is going to prioritize much different aspects of life than you do. Please trust me when I say that you drive him utterly crazy with much of what you do. Your desire for seasonal decorations, decorative pillows, and to rearrange the living room 5 times a year make absolutely no sense to us whatsoever.  All of those changes disrupt the Peace he desires at home.  They introduce a chaos that causes anxiety.  You see them as “pretty”; he sees them as stressful. 

              Your knee-jerk reaction is to say “men are more simple than women”.  I strongly, vehemently, passionately disagree with that wording.  “Desiring to avoid unnecessary complication” is not the same as “simple”.  It means we guard our attention and cognitive capacity carefully.  We don’t see a legitimate reason to waste physical and mental energy putting up Halloween decorations, only to take them down and put up Thanksgiving decorations that’ll then be taken down for Christmas, etc, ad infinitum.  Why was the couch just fine against that wall for a few months, but now it needs to be moved? “It was boring; I wanted to freshen things up”.  Again, this makes little, if any, sense to a man.  We want to find the optimal locations for furniture, and never move any of it ever again unless something significant happens to necessitate moving things.  More than that, it introduces the idea that you’ll eventually get bored with him, with the life you’ve built up until now.  The masculine idea is “If it isn’t broken, or if the change doesn’t make things more efficient or effective in some substantial manner, then leave it alone!!”  He wants to come home to peace, not another change that he doesn’t comprehend the reason for.  That isn’t him being “simple”, which the speaker often uses as a synonym for “dullard”.  It means he knows his threshold for stress and wants a significant buffer between reality and that threshold, so that he can deal with spontaneously encountered stressors more effectively.  Changing the seasonal decorations introduces chaos and disrupts his peace.

Rewinding back to the title of this piece:  Men will go silent when we perceive silence as the only means of avoiding being belittled, demeaned, degraded, disrespected, whatever we’re accustomed to experiencing when we voice our emotions.  We will find ways to offline, to appear to be answering inquiries when we don’t actually respond with anything substantial.  Whatever the execution, it’s simply an attempt to maintain peace of mind in an environment in which we feel unsafe expressing ourselves.

We might occasionally try again, finding the courage to voice our position on something.  Perhaps she does something that we find minorly disrespectful, and we can see that it wasn’t intentional on her part.  We see an opportunity to achieve a stronger intimacy with deeper interpersonal understanding.  That attempt requires a lot of effort, though, and we go into it fully expecting disappointment.  More often than not, our expectations are fulfilled as she is offended that he felt the way he did.  She will refuse to acknowledge any legitimacy of his subjective experience because it doesn’t align with her perceptions. He is wrong for not feeling the way she does, and she will ensure he is made aware of that.

Sometimes our feelings on a subject might build up until we aren’t able to hold something back. By that time, our frustration has built to a sufficient level that we express ourselves in a sub-optimal manner, often exacerbating the tension.  This will inevitably result in our apologizing for hurting her feelings, and the knowledge that we’ve dropped back into one of the despised stereotypes of relationships.  Now she’s offended that he had a negative emotion, that he didn’t like something she did, that he had the audacity to bring up in an aggressive manner.

Yes, he would have been better served if he had taken a non-aggressive approach.  He is fully aware of that.

Is she able to see how things got to that point? That there is culpability plenty to be spread around?

              My narrative does bounce around some, but it’s all branching from the same theme:  Men and Women are not the same.  We overlap quite a bit, but it’s those areas outside of the overlap that cause the conflicts. 

              So I’ll stop at this point and try to summarize my point:  Stop treating your man as if he’s a woman.  He isn’t your female friends.  He isn’t going to view the world the way they do.  He doesn’t have the same relationship with emotions that you do.  He doesn’t choose the same words, or approach communication from the same basis as you.  That said, the two of you CAN still construct some modicum of effective communication if you both accept that there are differences.  Since this is written from the male perspective, I’m emphasizing those areas we want women to improve.  That doesn’t discount that we can do the same.  This is simply Andro-centric (just as the mental health industry is gyno-centric and treats men like broken women).

              LISTEN to what he says.  Not every other word, not to the first sentence and then stop, not in the belief that he’s speaking the same way you do and so you have to infer his point.  He is MAKING his point, explicitly and directly.  Stop looking for hidden meanings.

              If he expresses his emotions to you, he has REASONS for feeling the way he does.  He will TELL you those reasons, directly.  You won’t like it.  Tough shit.  If you want the relationship to have a solid foundation for longevity, you had better accept what he says as having some truth, if only subjectively.  If you really can’t handle what he says, then leave him in peace and find someone else who will let you be dismissive.

              Keep in mind that while you remember everything he does, putting it on a scoreboard, using it as ammunition in a magazine that you load when it’s time for an argument 7 years after the fact, HE remembers what you do also.  The difference is that 90% of what you do is simply stored in a file that is used to establish a pattern of behavior.  If that pattern is of disrespect, he will withdraw from you.  If he brings anything up, it’s with the desire to understand, to give you benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to explain so that he doesn’t feel disrespected.  If you can’t provide that, then he’s going to disengage.  Slowly, over time, it will all build up until he is physically present, but no longer actively engaged in the relationship.  Given enough disrespect, having our feelings dismissed enough times, we will find a way out, and you won’t comprehend what happened.  You’ll blame him.  He does have some responsibility for the failure of the relationship, to be sure, but you had better look in the mirror and admit your own culpability or you’ll see this same outcome repeated the rest of your life.

              And it’ll always be someone else’s fault, won’t it?

A response to Michael Shermer's Quillette Op-Ed "The Cause of America's Gun-Death Epidemic? It's Guns"

 On June 15, 2022, Quillette.com posted an article titled "The Cause of America's Gun-Death Epidemic? It's Guns".  I strongly disagree with much of what the author says, and put together a rebuttle.  Quilette declined to publish my article, which they have every right to.  I've decided to "self-publish" here, mostly for safe keeping.

Inanimate tools are not to blame for human behavior.

A rebuttal to Michael Shermer’s “The Cause of America’s Gun-Death Epidemic? It’s Guns”

 

 

              In “The Cause of America’s Gun-Death Epidemic? It’s Guns”, Michael Shermer claims irrefutability of the idea that severely restricting legal firearms ownership will slash the majority of firearms-related deaths dramatically, if not completely.  I will concede some validity to specific aspects of this claim, but I will also strongly question the fundamental bases of his approach and the practical applicability of his proposals.  Additionally, I will argue semantics.  Many people will consider this last to be an invalid approach.  I, and quite a few others, however, will maintain that Mr. Shermer’s semantic plays, identical to those used by many of his social and political perspective, are misleading and do not allow for a whole-of-concept approach to what we believe is THE fundamental issue: a mental health crisis at a cultural-level.

              To begin: The claim that there have been 260 mass public shootings in the United States so far this calendar year. 

              An immense stumbling block to communication between the viewpoints on any subject is semantics.  How do we each define anything? How do we each use any specific word? When we don’t use words the same way, or define them similarly, it becomes difficult for us to reach across the aisle and have effective dialogue with those we see as opposition to our social and political viewpoints.  What I’m getting at is: “how do YOU define a mass shooting?” 

              Since the recent Uvalde, TX incident, which Mr. Shermer uses to exemplify a different aspect of this subject, I have seen some claims regarding “mass shootings” which I consider misleading.  What is a “mass shooting”?  The Gun Violence Archive (GVA), Mr. Shermer’s source, defines it as any incident in which 4 or more people are shot in a single incident.  This is a usable definition if all you are looking for is a generalized view of GUN DEATH (emphasis mine).  However, lumping criminals shooting at each other in with Active Shooter Events is highly misleading.  While those of Mr. Shermer’s social perspective may discount the underlying intent and social setting of an act of violence, I argue that it is important.  Limiting the definition to that of the FBI’s “Active Shooter Event”, there are significantly fewer.  The FBI’s Active Shooter site does not seem to have 2022 statistics readily available, but looking at 2021 as a recent example, they cite 61 as having occurred, while the GVA lists 692 “Mass Shootings”.

              Certainly, there may have been quite a few more “Mass Shootings” than “Active Shooter Events”, but what does that mean?  Comparing the definitions, “The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” While the GVA only defines it as ”four or more shot in a single incident”. 

              The FBI’s definition should be broader than the GVA’s, given no lower limit to the number of people shot, only that it occurs in a “populated area”.  That includes religious venues, parties, parks, schools…anywhere in which large numbers of people may congregate.  Contrasting that with the GVA’s, it should include significantly more, but doesn’t.

              I browsed the GVA’s list of incidents and noticed a couple of characteristics:  all of the events I followed the links for (which was only a handful) occurred in dense, urban settings, and occurred between criminal elements using illegally possessed firearms.  A shooting between gang members in Chicago, involving illegally purchased firearms, resulting in 13 injuries may well fall under “Mass Shooting”, but is the gun to blame for human criminality, the criminal tendency to violence, and the likelihood of people who tend to behave impulsively to end up in a criminal lifestyle?  No. Does the firearm make it easier for a criminal to kill people? Of course.  If we blame the gun, as Mr. Shermer’s phrasing, and that of the GVA, appears to, we seem to be outsourcing responsibility from the criminals to the tools they use.  You blame the tool used, and believe that we should be protected from threats, including from ourselves, by removing one of the tools used.  We (“pro-gun”, pro-civil rights) blame the individual, and believe that we should be free to do what we wish, so long as that does not harm anyone else.  When it does, and only then, action should be taken by The State, specifically against the individual at fault.

              My primary point with this introduction is that these semantics, and the context of their use, lead a casual reader to believe that there were 692 Active Shooter Events (ASEs).  This has a more significant emotional impact than “…rival gang members shot at each other..”  I see this as a deliberate manipulation of the readers’ emotions.  Understandable in the over-generalized context of Gun Death, but nuance is necessary to understand and properly address the deeper problems.  Criminals killing criminals is quite a bit different than criminals killing innocent civilians.

              Two paragraphs later, Mr. Shermer states it “obvious” that “But for the gun, none of these mass public murders would have happened…”.

              This ignores incidents of “mass public murders” using other weapons.  The most notable was in Nice, France, where a moving truck was used to kill 84 and injure hundreds.

 The U.S. Department of Justice has commented that they have no realistic idea how many times automobiles are used in the commission of crimes of violence because it hasn’t been properly studied.  As some in law enforcement predicted decades ago, a reduction in criminal access to firearms is likely to lead to an increase in the use of automobiles as weapons.  “Substitution effect”, which is denied by some, but recognized by criminals.  I’m not sure how to address that without solid research into the use of automobiles as weapons, which simply isn’t available.  Mass Killings are committed with any tool the offender can find.  A mass stabbing in Japan lead to 19 people killed.

 Another, in China, saw 33 people killed and 130 injured.  These numbers should not be dismissed.  Mr. Shermer’s statement that mass murders would not happen without guns is inaccurate, and discounts the Substitution Effect he later dismisses as invalid.  Those wishing to engage in violent acts will use whatever tool they can find, be it a gun, an automobile, a knife, anything.

              I’ll again touch on the correlation with automobiles, but with some restraint.  The “pro-gun crowd”, which I prefer to call “pro-Civil Rights”, often compares automobile-related deaths and injuries to those involving firearms.  There are many good reasons to do so.  I’m going to use some comparisons, and use President Biden’s own comments about firearms-related deaths surpassing those of automotive deaths as the counter to anyone who says they aren’t the same.  “If he can use it, so can I”.  Not the most adult argument, but the others would take much longer to articulate.

              Returning to the point: it’s inarguable that firearms-related deaths would drop, but to claim that mass murders would not happen without guns is completely ignorant of human ingenuity with tool use and violence.  Mass murders have occurred with knives, automobiles, and every tool humanity has invented.  To be sure, firearms make mass murder easier in many ways, but they will still happen after civilian firearms ownership is more tightly restricted.  Those wishing to kill large numbers of people will find another way.  If Mr. Shermer had said that banning certain firearms would make mass killings more difficult, I would agree with him.  However, the claim that none would happen is far from realistic.

              Mr. Shermer does make a point that many with my perspective see as fundamental to the subject, but then uses the logic in a way that we would not recognize.  “…every act of gun violence has a unique deeper cause”.  Yes, absolutely, and if we address those deeper causes, it won’t be necessary to trample the rights of the millions of gun owners who use their firearms for completely legal, most often entirely benign, purposes.  To oversimplify, if we could magically take firearms away from everyone, globally, we would still face the facts of mental illness at the individual and cultural levels (which occasionally manifests violently, though to be sure mental illness does not EQUAL violent tendencies), and violence in basic criminality, as well as impulse-management issues (“crimes of passion”), and other underlying psychological and cultural causes.  To contrast, if we effectively addressed the mental health of individuals and our culture, one could (again, oversimplifying) arm every individual on the planet without fear of them misusing those guns for illegitimate purposes. 

              Would anyone deny that western culture is experiencing dramatic increases in mental illness of various kinds?  Generalizing from the available material, such as the Psychiatric Times article “Mental Health in America: A Growing Crisis”, among a multitude of other sources, our collective mental health needs are unmet and degrading.  This is another rabbit hole I’ll only skim around, and I’ll simply say all of humanity, though specifically America in this context, would benefit more from effectively addressing mental health than from taking firearms away from those who are not violent.  Suicide? Of course it’s a problem, and a growing one.  Taking firearms away from the general public would increase survivability for individual attempts, but many people experiencing suicidal ideation will attempt it multiple times.  Looking at the underlying reasons any individual might attempt suicide, recognizing that approximately half of suicidal people will try multiple times, and addressing why they feel the need to do so, would more effectively reduce suicide deaths than simply taking away one tool used.  Further, addressing the cultural issues leading to criminal violence would do more to reduce that facet of the subject, as well as reducing criminal violence using other tools (knives, automobiles, baseball bats, ad nauseum…) than simply limiting one tool.  If one is going to downplay the Substitution Effect, I ask for an explanation of why England has instituted restrictions on knives.

Mr. Shermer refers to my approach as the “overdetermination problem”.  I don’t see an issue with that.  I would refer to his as an “underdetermination problem”.  Rather than addressing the root causes of violent behavior, he would limit access to one of the tools used, imposing severe legislation on an immense group in reaction to the criminal acts of a very few.  Millions of Americans own a wide variety of firearms, and at most go hunting and kill a deer.  Many more simply shoot paper, or soda cans.  Contrast that to the relatively minuscule aspect of the gun-owning population who engage in violence.  Using that logic, we should be exceptionally prejudiced against the overall Muslim population for the actions of a few extremists.  Is that approach not criticized regularly?  Are mass punishments not considered unethical?  How is this different?  

I do hear the retort: “This is different because children are being killed and we can do something about it.” Certainly, we can, but not at the expense of the 99+% of us who legally own firearms and pose absolutely no threat to society whatsoever.  Civilian firearms ownership might even be beneficial to society.  The linked article shows that approximately 10% of active shooter events in 2021, as defined by the FBI, were stopped by armed civilians.  That is not a statistically insignificant number.

              A little further into the article, Mr. Shermer uses the JFK assassination as an example of his point.  In a discussion with similarly minded people (I recognize the confirmation bias and ask forgiveness.) we question his semantics.  Lee Harvey Oswald’s gun killed JFK?  From that standpoint, it could be argued that JFK was killed by hydrostatic shock INDUCED by the impact of the bullets from Oswald’s gun, not the gun itself.  Should we then outlaw hydrostatic shock?  Yes, that sounds silly, but then would we restrict the possession of the firearm, absolving Oswald of some responsibility, burdening non-violent firearms owners with the consequences of an individual’s criminal actions? Why does such a significant, vocal, aspect of society hold the tool responsible for the actions of the person, and specifically with regards to firearms violence?  Gun manufacturers are threatened with lawsuits, but automobile and alcohol manufacturers have no responsibility for the 11,000+ deaths from DWI crashes each year?

My side of the aisle sees this comparison as directly, utterly relevant.  If we’re going to place blame on the tool used, should we not do it across-the-board with every machine and tool humanity uses?  Should we not also restrict automobiles from those with no DWI convictions because we can’t predict who the next intoxicated driver will be to murder school children? How about banning those same from being able to purchase alcohol?  Perhaps we could initiate a National Instant Check System for alcohol and automobile purchases?  If someone has a history of substance abuse, how can they be trusted to soberly operate an automobile? 

              I strongly disagree that “overdetermination” obscures necessary action, or even that legislation is the best approach.  Legislation may be necessary for some issues, or even some parts of issues, but Americans have become dependent on it to solve problems that might better be addressed with education, with enhanced access to mental health resources, with a recognition of objective values such as respect for other people, with a return to valuation of adulthood and the related impulse management.  Instead, we have the legislative equivalent of Maslow’s Hammer:  When the only tool one has is law, one sees every problem as necessitating legislation.

              The subsequent comparison of murder with firing squad executions almost made some remote sense to me, up to and including the statement that a criminal murder “…was a crime perpetrated voluntarily by one person”.  It fell apart, though, with the conclusion that somehow illegal violence committed with a firearm is the responsibility of the gun, while legal violence is somehow the responsibility of The State. 

Why the divergence when each is an act of violence perpetrated by people against people?  The State can find other means of violence in pursuit of justice (lethal injection, gas chamber).  Is this not an example of the Substitution Effect?  Does ultimate responsibility not fall on The State, and its designated actors?  The only difference seems to be the legality of the use of violence.  Is it ok to kill simply because a representative of The State has said that it’s ok?  The executioners might not have known which of them had the live round, but they still each went into the execution with the knowledge and intent that they could be the one firing the live round, and they still aimed and pressed the trigger.  “I was following orders”, or some variation thereof, hasn’t been acceptable as an excuse since the end of WWII, but now it is when arguing a difference between murder and State-sanctioned execution?  That seems like a double standard.

              And so, we segue into The State’s responsibility in acting against criminal violence, as shows up later in the article.  Mr. Shermer uses the Active Shooter Event (ASE) in Uvalde, TX as an example of “armed good guys” not being an effective counter to criminal violence.  This event has captured the political realm, and the gun rights cause, for a number of reasons.  Mr. Shermer’s use of it as an example is notable because part of his argument is based on misinformation about law enforcement tactics in addressing active shooters.  No, the “well-armed good guys” did not sit around, restraining parents from saving their own children, cowering away from the situation.  Uvalde Police had officers inside the school approximately three minutes after the assailant entered.  They effectively cornered him, and isolated him in a location where he barricaded himself.  Those officers suffered gunfire from the assailant, but effectively stopped the killing by putting the assailant in a position where he no longer had access to victims.  That is one of the goals of the common tactics currently employed.  Once the active shooter is barricaded, there is no longer need to press the threat, and others can be evacuated away from the scene while law enforcement attempts to negotiate with the aggressor.  During this, there was a contingent of more than 20 law enforcement personnel inside the school attempting to get the door to the room in which the assailant had barricaded himself open.  It proved impossible (for technical reasons) until they were able to locate a key to the room.  At that time, they made entry and confronted him.  Nobody was sitting around, wallowing in cowardice.  No law enforcement personnel were allowing children to be killed.  The agents and officers inside were beside themselves with frustration and anger that they were stymied from engaging the threat by a locked door.  Parents were prevented from entering the school because they would have presented the shooter with more targets, potential victims.  Their children were already being evacuated through windows and doors in other parts of the school.  In the end, it was “good guys with guns” who ended the situation, and all of the reports otherwise are misreporting on the part of the media and bad information released by the Texas Department of Public Safety. 

              Using that incident as a springboard to address the larger subject of “a good guy with a gun”, it was only days later that a legally-armed woman with a pistol stopped a man who attempted to shoot-up a party.  No members of the party were injured; the assailant was killed.  A criminal, intending to kill innocent civilians, was stopped by an armed civilian.

              This scene plays-out tens of thousands of times every year, possibly more.  A FBI study conducted between 2007 and 2011 found that Americans use firearms an average of 67,740 times every year of the study in legal, justified self-defense.  This is the most statistically conservative number available.  Some other studies have found that firearms are used in self-defense millions of times every year.  Sticking with the lowest number, is 67,740 self-defense uses insignificant?  Some groups believe so.  “If it saves just ONE life”.  Ok, while we can’t realistically posit how many lives were saved within that number (some uses might merely have saved property), we may be able to guess that it’s quite a bit more than one.  Even the authors of the study acknowledge that their numbers are likely low because of the reticence on the part of many legal gun owners to report defensive uses, and the fact that many small departments do not report their statistics to the FBI.

              Many of Mr. Shermer’s view will argue that only The State should be able to take action against criminals.  Anything else is “vigilante” in execution.  This presupposes that The State is responsible for individual security.  Unfortunately for that approach, placing responsibility for individual security with The State is unreasonable and impossible.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled many times that state actors cannot be held responsible for the security of individuals.  The case that comes to mind easily for me is Gonzalez v CastleRock, but there are many others.   Even the case of Deputy Scot Peterson, who did not stop the shooter in Parkland, is taking years to play-out, and I expect he will not be held responsible because of the related SCOTUS rulings.  Perhaps he is a coward for not confronting the shooter, but as a representative of government, he has zero constitutional responsibility for the security of the individuals in the school.  I predict any conviction will be for something else.

              So who is responsible for my security, and yours, if not The State?  Aren’t the police supposed to stop violent criminals?  Why can’t we simply rely on them, and abdicate any self-reliance to The State?  Another complex issue that I’ll be able to only skim the surface of.  I’ve already mentioned legal obligations, and the fact that law enforcement has no constitutional responsibility for the security of individuals.  Taking a step from there, where does The State’s responsibility begin and end, and where does the individual’s responsibility, if any, fall?  I’m going to use a timeline provided in “Self-Defense and the State”, a 2008 paper by Kimberly Kessler Ferzan of the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School.  While Ms. Ferzan adroitly avoids taking sides on the issue, she does an excellent job of exploring the subject.  In this paper, she lays-out a generalized timeline of a hypothetical criminal attack, and describes where The State has responsibility, and where an individual, as the victim, is able to act.  An individual cannot take preemptive action against a threat without it being unjustified.  An individual must not act after-the-fact or it is vigilante justice, essentially murder.  However, at the instant their attacker engages, the individual is the sole party in a position to defend themselves.  The State does not have the resources to protect every person at any given time, while each individual has the ability to develop the capacity for self-defense, defense of family, and of society, if they choose.  If the individual chooses to abdicate that responsibility, turning it over to The State (which has no responsibility to them, and lacks the resources to defend individuals), they deliberately leave themselves defenseless in hopes that an absent State actor will miraculously appear to save them. 

              As The State has no responsibility to the individual, the individual is the only actor in a position to defend themselves, and historical statistics show that firearms are effectively used an enormous number of times in self-defense by individuals, why are we going to restrict law-abiding individuals from possessing an effective tool for a task they have sole responsibility and ability to engage in?  In order to restrict those same tools from use by criminals and potential criminals?  Once again, we are proposing to pre-emptively punish the majority for the actions of a small minority. 

              “But you don’t NEED an AR-15!” 

              Well, define “need”, and so what.  I don’t need my BMW motorcycle, and I can easily kill someone with it if I chose.  I don’t NEED my 65” OLED television, and it could be used as a weapon (though not nearly as easily).  I’m going down a slippery slope with my examples, but my question is “What does ‘need’ have to do with it?”  When did “need” come into play?  Who is making the determination of “need”? 

              “AR-15s are not good for self-defense”.  I’ll not beg to differ, I’ll DEMAND to.  AR-15s, and all of the firearms of remotely similar design, are exceptional self-defense tools for a myriad of reasons.  If you want a technical list of why they work wonderfully, feel free to ask.  Otherwise, it’ll take too much space and this piece has already experienced some significant “mission creep” from my original intended word count.  Suffice to say, this genre of firearms is designed in ways that make them exceptional defensive tools, and there are many documented instances of civilians using them as such.

              One of the largest disagreements between “my” side of this issue, and that espoused by Mr. Shermer may likely stem from a difference in how we apply ethics.  In Johathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind:  Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion, Haidt articulates his research finding in exploring how humans derive ethical principles.  This came to mind because of a comment made in response to his article.

A “RayAndrews” makes the surprising comment, in the replies to Mr. Shermer’s article, that “American gun nuts…value their assault rifles more than they value their children”.  This claim is atrociously disrespectful, and reflects a significant difference in ethical approaches between our opposing perspectives.  Perhaps we value our firearms BECAUSE we value our children.  Perhaps we value the ownership of tools which can be used to effectively stop criminal behavior because we DO value society.  I’ll wager this doesn’t make sense to RayAndrews and Mr. Shermer because of how they view the application of an ethical foundation we share, but which we don’t approach similarly.

Looking at the center standard deviations of gun owners (recognizing outliers in every personality spectrum), we believe that we are responsible for our own defense, our own security.  While most may not train to the extent that law enforcement does, they are still more than minimally competent.  Some go so far as to train to a skill level that far surpasses the majority of law enforcement.  Even with a relatively low level of skill, these people are taking responsibility for themselves, their families, their communities, and society at large.  They are taking the steps necessary to intervene if faced with an unavoidable, violent confrontation, and allowed the opportunity.  Infinitesimally few are of the illusion that a firearm provides invincibility or magic powers to stop crime.  They merely want the ability to do something constructive, something positive, to stop a criminal attack when possible.  If not possible, if the opportunity isn’t presented, then they’re in the same situation they would have been otherwise.  From a macro-level view, they are shouldering the responsibility of providing for the security of society.  99% of firearms owners will never have to use them as other than hole punchers in paper targets.  That remaining 1% may only save property, or they may save lives, their own or of those around them.  There’s no way to know, but why take the chance? 

Perhaps there’s an element of wanting to be protected from ourselves on the part of those who want to ban some or all firearms from civilians? Perhaps there’s a desire to not have to carry the burden of responsibility?  A benevolent government will watch over us, take care of us, like a parent.  When your infant grabs something potentially dangerous, you take it from them because they can’t understand how to use it correctly.  If one wishes to remain in such a protected state, that is certainly their prerogative.  Many of us would prefer to exercise our own sovereignty and take what we view as adult responsibility.

 I’ve heard the argument that firearms are too complicated for people to use correctly without immense hours of training that are limited only to the military and law enforcement.  From that logic, I will argue that automobiles are significantly more complicated than firearms, and obtaining a driver’s license in the U.S. usually requires little, if any, training and testing.  There are no background checks for buying a car.  No special licensing specifically to manufacture or sell automobiles, as there are for firearms.  There are no federal laws requiring specific methods of shipping cars as there are for firearms.  There are no restrictions on who may own and operate an automobile based on history of criminality or substance abuse.  Does someone NEED a F-350 dullie?  Imagine the damage that could do to a crowd at even moderate speed.  Can the average person safely drive a Ferrari?  Likely not, so why let them even try when they’re most likely to hurt at least themselves, if not others also?

Rather than stepping back to a time when children were taught firearms safety in school, which also helped reinforce mindful self-control with a recognition of consequences, we’ll simply take guns away from everyone who complies, and bludgeon the remainder with threats of State-sanctioned violence.  Rather than addressing underlying causes of criminality, suicidal ideation, poor decision making, we’ll take a legitimate tool away from all who accept such legislation.  The State will protect us from those who don’t comply, won’t it?

I could easily continue to argue my viewpoint, but I had intended to keep this much shorter.  There is an expansive list of points on which the anti-gun advocates and I will disagree, from technical points to ethical.  We seem to have a significant portion of this country, and The West in general, which desires to divest itself of responsibility for its own security, and is repulsed by the idea of being individually responsible for the collective.  On the other hand, we have a large aspect of our country that believes it can, and should, attempt to take some proactive responsibility, if only minimal, for their community’s safety.  From arming themselves for church, to carrying a concealed pistol when out running errands, and nobody the wiser unless a threat presents itself and there is opportunity to intervene.

I am knowingly oversimplifying, but this is a reduction of much of the viewpoint of the side of the issue I identify with.  We advocate shouldering responsibility at the individual level, and minimizing that of government.  We believe that we should not be protected from ourselves, and should be free to protect ourselves, our families, our community, and perhaps society, if necessary.

I don’t disregard the legitimacy of the concerns of Mr. Shermer and those who share his view on this subject.  I fully recognize that their ethical structures lead them to the conclusions they do.  Those of us who own firearms actually do share the same ethical foundations they’re basing their views on, and also want to live safely.  We simply see it as being our own responsibility to achieve that safety.  We believe that people have an obligation to take care of themselves, their families, their communities, proactively, not passively delegating that to an entity that lacks the correlated responsibility.  While the idea of teachers being armed is abhorrent to some, we see it as worthy of applause.  Carrying concealed weapons is not looking for violence, it is being prepared for violence if it comes to us.  We don’t fantasize about shootouts in the mall; we think about the possibility of being stuck in one, and plan for how to get our family and everyone near us out of the situation as quickly and effectively as possible.

I cannot support building a society in which firearms are banned except for use under very strict circumstances, in which “assault rifles” are removed from civilian hands, and in which you can delegate your security concerns to The State, which has no legal responsibility to you.  If you do believe that is the best route, feel free to follow the U.K.’s example, as appears to be happening.  Subsequently ban knives, after the disregarded Substitution Effect leads to criminals using those.  After that, I’m sure another implement will be used by criminals, and warrant legal restrictions.  I, and those who share my ethical approach, cannot approve of that world.  Not because we value an AR-15 OVER our family, but because we value our family, and so desire the tools to protect them.

 

 

Here I go again...

 Hey, world, it's been a couple of years. I just haven't had much strike me strong enough to feel the NEED to blog.

Until Now.

So, for those who don't already know, I'm a Libertarian. Not full-on "Anarchy in the USA!!!" type, but I do believe government needs to back off and let us make our own decisions and experience the resulting consequences. As such, I follow some Libertarian and "Austrian School" economics sites. For the most part I agree with what they say, but every now and then I run across things like this:

Look, I get it. Law Enforcement's use of force is under a hell of a microscope in our society right now. Some of the cases have legitimately been bad uses of force, but it kinda looks like the majority have been perfectly good on the part of the Officer/Agent/Trooper/Deputy/whatever. 

There are a bunch of smaller problems that are packed into the macro-level issue. I could easily address the news media's desire to make everything they report as melodramatic as possible, especially the negative things ("If it bleeds, it leads"). There are some fundamental social issues contributing to criminal violence (discrediting of impulse-control as an adult value, and its subsequent contribution to criminality, misinterpretations of the appropriate uses of violence, we could go on and on). What I want to address here is only those issues specifically listed in the post I posted the screen shot of above. That's ALL. I'm not going into any other facets of the issue, full stop.

I say that now, but I bet I end up going off on tangents a few times. 

ANYWAY,

First and foremost: Qualified Immunity.

This term keeps getting thrown around in various media. "Repeal Qualified Immunity", "Police Officers are using Qualified Immunity to get away with excessive force", "Law Enforcement believes they can violate our rights and hide behind Qualified Immunity".

So...

What EXACTLY is "Qualified Immunity"?

Let's break it down, and then look at the actual legal definition. 

First of all, "Qualified". In what universe is "Qualified" a synonym for "Blanket"? Not the one I live and work in. Being the cis-het Anglo male I am, I subscribe to racist, sexist, patriarchal concepts like "objectivity". In keeping with that, I'll look up the dictionary definition of "qualified". 

Look closely at that bottom one: "Modified, LIMITED, OR RESTRICTED IN SOME WAY". In other words, there are qualifications that have to be met in order for something to be applicable. 

I think you can already see where I'm going with this point, but I'm going to follow it anyway.

Now for "Immunity". 

Again, we're looking at the last entry. Even better, Dictionary.com even adds the part about "...on certain conditions.", so it's...QUALIFIED? But I'm getting ahead of myself with that.

Ok, so "Qualified" explicitly indicates restrictions, and "Immunity", in the legal context, is pretty straight forward in that it's an exception to prosecution UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS

Now for "Qualified Immunity". For this one I'm going directly to Cornell Law School's website. I've gone to them a number of times to find legal definitions and specific statutes.

I strongly advise reading the entire article at the link I provided above. There are examples of judicial precedent that illustrate the concept well across a broad variety of positions, including police.

As provided in the first paragraph, public officials are still expected to face consequences for the irresponsible exercise of authority, but should be shielded "...when they perform their duties reasonably". I won't even go down the rabbit hold of what constitutes "reasonable".

So, "Qualified Immunity". When a Police Officer engages in their assigned duties in a manner consistent with training and policy, in congruence with law, they are protected from FRIVILLOUS suits. Under those circumstances, an Officer is immune from prosecution, and the burden falls on the agency itself. HOWEVER...if an Officer engages in their duties in a way that is inconsistent with policy and law, falls outside of their training, they're screwed. 

Qualified Immunity is NOT Blanket Immunity. It is NOT “an absolute shield for law enforcement that has gutted the deterrent effect of the Fourth Amendment.”, as that quoted SCOTUS Justice should know if they weren't trying to score political points rather than interpret law. 

This very immediate case of Derrick Chavin should illustrate the matter well (though it won't matter; there will still be calls to end Qualified Immunity because...politics).  I wasn't on the jury, NONE OF US know all of the facts (despite what CNN and BLM are telling you), and it isn't my intent to get into the debate of Right/Wrong. All I'm saying HERE is that it seems rather obvious that Qualified Immunity didn't save the Officer. A jury determined that his actions were a primary contributor to the death of George Floyd, and he was found guilty. Qualified Immunity did NOT protect Mr. Chavin, as its detractors claim it would have, and for the very reasons I've already outlined.

This is one of the concepts that scares the ever-loving heck out of law enforcement personnel. Non-LE folks think the agency is going to protect the individual Officer no matter what, but those of us on the inside know that's far from the truth. Fall outside of policy even a minuscule fraction, and you'll be hung-out to dry, abandoned by the agency to fend for yourself. Law enforcement agencies aren't run by folks with a lot of street experience. They aren't commanded by men and women (or however they choose to identify) with scuffed boots and holster wear on their guns. Those in charge got there by pushing for promotion, having great paperwork, and being a good bureaucrat. What do bureaucrats do? Everything they can to reduce liability for the agency! Liability = money! Budgets are limited, and so are agency reputations. If the Bureaucratic Officer In Charge thinks one of their Officers has deviated from policy or law in any way, no matter how minor the infraction, that Officer will feel the full wrath of the Inspector General/IA/whatever, all the way to the Supreme Court if deemed necessary (which has happened a few times, in ways you likely aren't even aware of. Rabbit Hole).

So let's say we get rid of Qualified Immunity. Shortly thereafter an Officer does something, ANYTHING, that doesn't meet the current standards for Social Justice. Their strict adherence to policy, law, their training, none of it makes a lick of difference. The Court of Public Opinion has spoken, the Officer is now on trial. 

I'll ask you this: Does it matter that the Officer did the right thing? Does it matter that they'll be cleared of criminal prosecution? 

NO!

They're ruined!

They have now had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to not go to jail for doing the right thing.  GoFundMe only helps to a point, and doesn't do a thing for one's professional reputation. That Officer is now a lightning rod in the eyes of future employers.

And they did everything right!

Let's look at another example: Emergency Medical Technicians. Do all of our patients live? Nope. Do we do everything humanly possible to make sure they live? Yup! Would that matter without Qualified Immunity? Nope.

Again, this isn't blanket immunity when someone screws up. If I were to exceed my scope-of-practice and perform an intervention that I'm not trained and approved for, I'm justifiably screwed. Hell, even if I did it correctly and the patient lived, I'd lose my license for exceeding my scope-of-practice. Yes, I could be punished for doing what was needed for my patient to have a positive outcome, because my actions would have exceeded my...wait for it...training and the policies governing how I execute my authority. What Qualified Immunity does for the EMT is protect them from FRIVILOUS lawsuits when they did everything right, and the outcome wasn't good. If I find a patient in a state of severe dehydration, experiencing rhabdomyolysis, and the resulting kidney failure, I'm going to do all I can to keep them alive so they can reach a higher level of care (a hospital's Emergency Department). I am certified to provide IV fluids, an intervention that is appropriate for this situation. I'm permitted to administer EXPIRED IV bags (within limits), for reasons I won't go into (chemistry, budget and supply, blah, blah). Let's say I administer IV fluids to said patient, running two bags into them while waiting for an air ambulance. Let's also say one of those bags was expired by a week. NOT a significant amount of time (expiration dates have a lot of leeway), and so perfectly safe.

Now let's say the patient dies after two weeks in the ICU. Everyone involved did absolutely everything they could, within their scope of practice, to save the patient. We are all covered by Qualified Immunity.

Now remove Qualified Immunity. The patient's family decides to sue everyone involved. I'm dragged into it, and my derriere is keelhauled because I used an IV bag that was expired by a week. Every expert involved knows what I did kept the patient alive, but I'm still in front of a jury of 7-11 cashiers and retired janitors trying to explain why the expired IV didn't kill the patient. How much do I have to pay in legal fees? How long am I out of work for this? Will I be acquitted, or go to jail?

Qualified Immunity saves my butt in this situation because I did everything within policy and law.

Funny how that works. Do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason, and you'll be ok. Screw any of those up and you're up a creek. 

I'd love to see politicians held accountable for their actions, but that'll never happen, and that is its own subject.

Moving on...

What are going to be the consequences of removing Qualified Immunity? It's already happening: many officers are retiring as quickly as possible, moving to other states, staying on the job without actually working for fear of frivolous accusations if they do anything, or simply quitting. A direct effect of that has been seen with the defunding efforts, as there are fewer patrols, fewer resources, and criminals know that they're less likely to be caught.

I believe Qualified Immunity will be removed. It's too political an issue. Legislators will find it easier to do that than take any substantial action, and they know they'll face no repercussions for the long-term effects. Hell, they'll likely be reelected for it, no matter the increases in violent crime.

More could be said on that, but I've beaten that dead horse a good bit at this point: Qualified Immunity is NOT utter, complete immunity from consequences when an Officer does something wrong. I would argue that politicians and the media are deliberately pushing an incorrect interpretation of it solely for political purposes and to stir-up more drama. No matter their reason, THEY won't feel the effects down the road, you and I will. 

Moving on (again)...

"Ban dangerous police practices like no-knock warrants"

I love that the people who cry for this one have no tactical acumen whatsoever. 

Perhaps we could RESTRICT no-knock warrants, but BAN them? 

Why do they even exist? Well, from the perspective of Law Enforcement and prosecutors, it's pretty simple: We want the criminal suspect to have as little time as possible to destroy evidence and retrieve weapons. When all goes well, the entry team is in the building and controls everything fast enough to prevent violence (YES, that IS one of the intents) and seize evidence. A judge must sign-off on the arrest warrant's execution (agree that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Officers must make an unannounced entry), so it's not like the team makes the decision on their own. 

With that said, no-knock warrants have gone horribly bad enough times that they could use some revision. Incorrect addresses, over-zealous officers, excruciatingly-bad luck. Murphy's Law is always in effect.

So how about a look at revising them rather than banning them? No-knock warrants serve a vital purpose. Without them, more criminals are going to be released because evidence was destroyed, and more people (Officers and criminals both) will be injured or killed because criminals weren't controlled quickly.

Next: "Push for better de-escalation and use-of-force training". 

Well, y'all already have that. Hell, our most recent use-of-force refresher was directly taken from a marriage counseling handbook. You think I'm exaggerating? It wasn't about policy, law, ethics, nada. It was about "seeing the situation from the other person's perspective". 

I won't deny that has its place, but not in a use-of-force situation. It's necessary in the lead-up, to try to avoid having to use force, but once the bad guy decides they want to throw-down, I'm not going to see a damn thing from their perspective. I'm going to do all I can to stop the fight as quickly as possible.

De-escalation is kinda touchy. When done right, by the right person, in the right circumstances, with the right suspect, it works out wonderfully. Unfortunately it isn't a perfect science, and isn't always effective. (damn, that one has a lot of pop-ups. Sorry). No matter how much a bystander wants law enforcement personnel to calm someone down, it simply isn't always possible. There will ALWAYS be the necessity to use some level of violence against violent criminals. Further, cameras won't see many of the things the Officer did, and so won't provide sufficient evidence. Law Enforcement is, by its very nature, reactionary. If an Officer is facing-off with a suspect, the Officer is watching that suspect's body language, listening to what they're saying, trying to predict what the suspect is going to do next so that the suspect's violent behavior can be stopped quickly. We don't have to wait until the gun is pointed at us, we just have to determine if the suspect is serious, and look for the minute movements that indicate they're going to do something in the next couple of seconds. I can't find a link for it, but there is a video shown in training in which a suspect is leaning against a wall, with a revolver pointed down at his side. Officers are trying to talk him into surrendering, when suddenly one of the cops shoots the guy. There was a huge outcry until the news footage was closely examined to prove that the suspect had cocked the hammer on the revolver. The Officer interpreted that as an indicator of imminent violence, and did what was necessary to stop it. The Officer was REACTING to what the suspect did. All the while, the other Officer on-scene was trying to talk the guy down.

De-escalation is great, when it works. Training for it is ok, but not a magic wand. You can saturate every Officer/Agent/Trooper/Deputy/Etc in all the marriage counseling handbooks you want, and some suspects will still refuse to de-escalate. Verbal Judo is awesome, when we have a chance to use it. When the suspect is amenable to de-escalation. However, when the suspect decides they want to fight no matter what the Officer does, then what? Please explain to me how to de-escalate someone shooting at you, attacking you with a knife, a baseball bat...how do we do that without reciprocal violence? Magic nets that wrap the suspect up, preventing them from further violence? Sounds cool. Perhaps Doctor Strange can lend us his cape for that.

In one of the conflict management classes I taught at the academy, we specifically qualify the material by saying it won't always work. Try to avoid violence. Do your reasonable best to talk the suspect down. While you're doing that, be ready to use violence in reaction to what the suspect does. If they take an action that indicates they're going to initiate violence, stop them as quickly as possible.

None of that will ever be enough for the anti-police crowd. That side of the socio-political spectrum wants to believe that there are ways to talk anyone down, that everyone can be dissuaded from physical violence, or if not, then the Officers who are wounded or killed "signed up for it".

No, we didn't. We signed up to protect society. Well, those of us who are excessively idealistic did. We can't do that if we're dead or injured. 

On to the last point, and here I'll actually agree: 

 "Stop criminalizing EVERYTHING"

Holy crap, people, when are you going to get it through your heads that we don't actually NEED all of these laws. I'd love for legislators to have to do a calculation for how many people will be killed in the enforcement of a law, and articulate that IN the wording of the statute. Every law passed has the potential to get someone killed for not abiding by it. There's a meme somewhere (I couldn't find it today) that says all legislation should end with "...or we will kill you".

Every time you want a law governing soda straws, rain water collection, neighborhood noise curfews, cigarette taxes, everything, you are empowering someone to enforce those laws. In order to enforce them, those Officers must be equipped to engage in the use of some level of defensive force. Further, you are criminalizing not only the behavior, the action, but making a previously-law-abiding demographic into criminals. How many of them have hurt anyone? Likely very few, but now they're subject to law enforcement use of force to stop them.

Has someone smuggling cigarettes violated a law? Certainly. Have they caused harm? Only to the tax revenues of the state they smuggled the cigarettes into?

Granted, often their profit goes to fund larger criminal activities, but IF THE CIGARETTE TAX DIDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE WOULDN'T BE A PROFIT TO BE MADE!

Obviously the stated (bullshit) intent of deterring smoking didn't work or people wouldn't be looking for cheaper sources of cigarettes, so that excuse to legislate is out the window. Now we have the problem of potential violence with the enforcement of the laws relating to cigarette smuggling. Every tax statute can be summarized with "Pay us or we'll use violence to force you to pay us". Even without firearms (as some say taking guns away from police would somehow solve the issue), police would still have to use some kind of force in the enforcement of laws. All it takes is one cigarette smuggler saying "screw you", and now force is being used. Someone gets hurt, maybe killed. Why? Because one state had a higher tax on cigarettes than another. 

But, as I addressed previously, somewhere (I couldn't find it, but I know I've addressed it elsewhere), I strongly believe legislators fall into the trap of the Law of The instrument, or "Maslow's Hammer".

The only tool they have is law, so they assume everything has to be legislated. We, the collective voting public, fall into the same trap. Don't like the neighbors having loud parties? Have a local ordinance passed instituting a restriction on noise levels and related curfews. "There should be a law" is the old saying, and I say

No!

NO!

Sometimes law is the wrong instrument to apply to a problem. Often it is applied incorrectly; the wrong thing is legislated. 

Instead, we should make as few laws as absolutely necessary. Those laws that are necessary should be considered as long as possible. Future consequences should be taken into account. Secondary and tertiary effects should be considered. "We Want Change NOW" sounds wonderful, and feels empowering, but the legislative process should be drawn-out, allowing passions to disperse so that cooler heads are writing the statutes. 

Why criminalize something? Is it REALLY necessary? Murder is already illegal, but now we're going to make it illegal-er because some aspect of it ignites social passions? A certain tool was used, so that makes it worse? Killing someone with a car is ok, but with a gun isn't? 

Rabbit Hole, Rick. Back on track.

I agree that we need to stop criminalizing every stupid thing that comes along. Someone wants to collect rain water? Ok, so what. It's not like that water somehow disappears from the universe, never to be seen again. Tax cigarettes? Great, until there's a shoot-out with people smuggling cigarettes across state lines for a profit.

Criminalizing a behavior doesn't make it go away, it just drives it underground. You want it to be illegal to 3D-print a firearm? IT ALREADY IS. How is making a new law going to stop anyone from doing it in their basement and selling the end product to gangs? It won't! Want to end Qualified Immunity for police? Do you even understand what Qualified Immunity actually IS? (no, you don't, but feel free to continue with the illusion that you do, since it seems to make you feel empowered).

If fewer behaviors are criminalized, there will be fewer encounters with law enforcement. Fewer encounters means fewer instances in which violence will erupt. Police don't simply stop you for no reason (despite what your cousin says). They have to see some action that violates a law that they're expected to enforce. Is it a stupid law? Maybe! If so, why was it passed in the first place? Why was it kept? 

I'd love to see legislators held accountable for the destructive effects of their actions, but that'll never happen. Damn shame, too. 

All police do is enforce laws. You want to reduce encounters with them? Reduce the number of laws we're subjected to. Make the act of creating laws more difficult by requiring deeper analysis of the potential effects. Require longer time periods for debate. Stop electing legislators based on the number of laws they've passed, as though that's some kind of trophy list. And hold them accountable when things go bad! In the end, EVERY law enforcement use of force started with a law that had to be enforce. Was it actually worth it? 

Instead, how about we start encouraging mature behavior. Rather than impassioned outbursts, let's have politicians who behave in a reserved manner, who encourage interpersonal respect and well-considered behavior. How about WE, the voting collective, stop electing the lesser of the evils, and stop tolerating horrible behavior on the part of our elected officials, and set the example. How about we discourage our children from impulsive behavior. No more "follow your heart" and "do what feels right", but instead consider the ramifications of one's behavior.

No, that's all too difficult. Instead we're going to continue to outsource responsibility, demand our politicians pass as many laws as possible to regulate behavior, then get angry when the enforcement of those laws results in injury and death. We're going to criminalize everything possible, then neuter those required to enforce the laws, then get angry when criminal violence expands. In response, more laws will be passed, necessitating more law enforcement, leading to more violent encounters with police. All because we, as a society, insist on using Maslow's Legislation to control everyone around us.