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.

#ResusWankers

    

    I just read an article titled Freedom Requires Courage. The author makes some great points about Cancel Culture, but something I didn’t see is what the author means by “courage”. Granted, I might have missed it as my mind started wandering off on the tangent I’m writing now.

    The definition I primarily see of “Courage”, in the socio-political context of media, is of people standing up for their stated opinions. “Don’t back down, don’t apologize for saying what you actually feel, don’t withdraw your signature from a document simply because Cancel Culture came for you”. I agree. I think people should stand up for their opinions. They should also be allowed to change their opinions when faced with legitimate evidence. They should also be allowed to be wrong (if they actually are, when discussing something with objective right/wrong solution sets, which do exist). However, I’m going to go the other direction and say that those engaged in Cancel Culture need to have courage. They need to have the courage to allow others to disagree with them.

    As I became more involved with pre-hospital medicine, a good friend told me about John Hinds. He was a trauma doctor who worked motorcycle races in northern Europe. He is, unfortunately, dead now, but his influence continues, and he had a heck of a life. Imagine being a motorcycle-based trauma surgeon at races! Freaking Bad Ass! His “Cases from the Races” videos are amusing when he has to disclose his sponsors. He’s at a medical conference disclosing sponsorship from the motorcycle industry.

    Uhh, Rick, what does this have to do with Cancel Culture and courage?

    I’m glad you asked.

    In “Crack the chest, get crucified”, he is going through his list of the types of people you run into during an After Action Report (AAR), or when discussing a procedure that might not be common under certain circumstances. That’s where I got the title for this post (which he states in the video is open for anyone to use 😊. ). Specifically, I like the idea of “…skeptics are your greatest allies…” (4:33). A true skeptic, not a Wanker, will LISTEN to your argument. They might not like the idea you’re proposing, they will have arguments against you, but skeptics are “…the ones you can turn with a good evidence base…” (5:02). True skeptics are the people who you should engage in “…sensible conversation…” (5:15) with in order to test your ideas.

    Applying this to Cancel Culture, contemporary American social and political “discussion” (more like temper tantrum tirades with arson, looting, and some indiscriminate shooting than “discussion”, but hey, “Tomato/Tomato”, right?): If you support more extensive collectivization of the economy, of goods and services, you should allow free-market supporters to voice their opinions so that you can formulate your arguments in favor of your position. The reciprocal is applicable also: if you are a supporter of a libertarian free-market, let socialists voice their opinions and you can use that as an opportunity to firm-up your arguments. Perhaps both arguments are valid under different circumstances, for different people. I want to live in more of a free-market, you want a collectivized market. Cool. I'll go my way, you go yours, and we can have discussions about it over the interwebs.

    I think this applies pretty much across the board, across the entire spectrum of media-fueled, melodramatic, too-often now violent, “conversations” Western Society is having. Sit down with your opposition and DEBATE the point. Not try to burn down a federal courthouse because you feel entitled to act-out violently in reaction to something that didn’t even involve the federal government, let alone the Judicial Branch. Don’t pull out a pistol and shoot at the feet of an opposing protest, then try to claim self-defense (nope. Nope. NOPE! There’s no self-defense there; you’re just a jackass) (and note: I just called-out both the Left and the Right for violent stupidity, so don't try to accuse me of taking sides in that). Get a latte and a cinnamon roll, and work through your arguments. OMG, you might have to change your mind. OMG, you might have a good point, but can’t articulate it well. This gives you an opportunity to develop better semantics. OMG, your opinion might be objectively right, but for the wrong reasons. OMG, your opinion might be based on good logic, but you came to a bad conclusion. Or, you might be right, have good reasons, articulate it well, and be able to persuade the person you’re talking with. Or, you might be right, have good reasons, articulate it well, and not be able to change their mind. So. What!

    For some reason, We (the collective We), don’t seem to be able to do that. Why?

    My knee-jerk thought is that most people just want their opinion to be made right by fiat, and they want instant results, if not retroactive results. Pass a law supporting me, and that’ll prove that I’m right. Give my side instant "Justice" because we are right and no trial is needed. A police officer murdered someone? ACAB, dismantle the entire institution, and execute everyone in uniform, fire the relatives of officers/agents/deputies/troopers/etc from their jobs simply for being related to someone with a badge. If you oppose me, I’ll dox you and harass you and your family at home, proving that I’m right. Justice wasn’t served fast enough, so I’m going to loot and burn as a means of demanding retroactive justice be applied sans trial.

    Back to Courage (with a capital C). Facing off against SRT/SWAT and throwing Molotov Cocktails at them isn’t courageous, it’s suicidal. No, it isn’t “standing up to tyranny” when you started it by damaging property, looting stores, and engaging in physical violence against everyone around you, no matter their affiliation or intent. That's just being a #ResusWanker. If you don't know already, Resus Monkeys are famous for throwing their own feces all over the damn place. If you can't make the connection...I can't help you.

    Non-violent protests have more than double the success rate of violent ones. Sitting down over a chocolate orange baby bundt (seriously, ya gotta try it, it’s really good) and TALKING is more effective. You’ll be taken seriously, even if you’re wrong. Yes, that’s a form of Tone Policing, and I’m not ashamed of it in the least. Screaming like a 5-year-old who didn’t get the candy bar they wanted does not a positive impression make.

    And listen. Listen to the person you’re talking with. I abhor socialism in all its forms, but I’ll let the socialist have their say. Unfortunately for me, it takes me a week to come up with a well-reasoned retort, but maybe I’ll remember it the next time we meet. I won’t start yelling vacuous moronicisms at him, not letting him get a word in edge-wise, with the intent of “cancelling” his voice. That doesn’t lend credibility to my fundamental message, or me as a person.

    Have the Courage to let someone articulate their view. Don’t “cancel” them for not seeing the world the way you do; use it as an opportunity to develop your evidence and reasoning. Formulate well-reasoned arguments that can turn a skeptic to your view. If you can’t, then accept that you might be wrong (if only in part), and should re-think your position.

    I could probably keep going, but I'm getting hungry and I bet my puppy needs to go out to pee, so you can thank my stomach and puppy for this one actually being short.

Toxic Masculinity: Stoicism, part 2

More of my almost-inane drivel arguing against the post-modern narrative of "toxic" masculinity.

The first argument against Stoicism that I'll address is that it is a means of surrendering to "fate", that all things are pre-determined, and thus unavoidable. Lucius Annaeus Seneca, more commonly known simply as Seneca, provided many texts regarding Stoicism.

His approach is described as "passive", as accepting of fate and perceiving that the individual has no impact on events. I have to agree with Steven Gambardella, the author of that linked article, that being passively accepting of some predetermined fate is unhealthy. I absolutely do NOT like the idea that my life is preordained. I have no idea if my actions are of any significance, even marginal on the macro-scale, but I find it necessary to believe that I make my own decisions, even while recognizing socio-cultural influences on my viewpoint.

Perhaps my approach is a "cheat" to some extent, but I often take a stance similar to what Mr. Gambardella articulates as "taking the colloquial meaning of “stoic”, an attitude to life, to stand for “Stoicism”, a school of philosophy that attempts to explain life." I do this with many things. I like to look for fundamental principles which I perceive as being applicable in broader circumstances. I like to strip-away anything I view as superstitious in nature, because they induce significant variation from the functional base and are too easy to misinterpret and misuse, and find the underlying principles that are shared throughout all interpretations and applications.

I'm certainly not well-read on Stoicism. I can't (yet) quote Marcus Aurelius's Meditations; I've not read more than a brief review of Cicero's attack on Stoicism when defending Lucius Murena (referenced below). That said, I've not seen the passiveness Mr. Gambardella describes. Certainly our current circumstances are the result of past decisions and actions. Of course we can't always predict what effects our decisions will have. I don't see that as meaning that we have no influence on our "fate". I found myself here as a result of a multitude of factors, but I'm now in a position to influence the outcome of THIS situation. I want to make the best decision I can right now, taking into account past mistakes, successes, and consideration not only for my own welfare, but that of everyone and everything possible. I can't do that if I've acted impulsively from knee-jerk emotions, or if I deliberately maintain an excessively-emotional response which clouds my judgement. I have to recognize the pleasure or pain which initially motivated me, and integrate that with my intellectual capacity to find the most constructive outcome I'm able to create. 

Another argument against Stoicism, actually a set of arguments, was used in a political corruption trial. In 62 BCE, a trial against Lucius Licinius Murena saw Marcus Tullius Cicero, defense, facing off against Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder), as prosecution. Cicero's successful argument was not actually regarding Murena's actions or character, but rather he chose to simply attack the prosecutor's Stoic philosophy.

Cicero led the jury to see Cato as intellectualizing the case. Cicero appears to claim that Stoics are incapable of compassion; have a harsh view of punishing indiscretions; and are "absolutist", not lending legitimacy to relative values, disregarding opposing viewpoints.

When stoics refer to being "indifferent" to others, that is not intended to imply that they strive to not care about anything at all, to achieve some disconnection from our universe, seeing it all as unworthy of consideration. The intended meaning is that the external influence could be good, could be bad, or could be neither good nor bad. As explained by Diogenes "The Stoics say that some things that exist are good, some are bad, and some are neither good nor bad. The good things, then, include the virtues...The bad things include their opposites...neither good nor bad are all those things which neither benefit nor harm" (Tad Brennan, The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate, Oxford: Clarendon, 2006, p, 119). A stoic is, therefore, not lacking in compassion, but rather sees that many experiences, many influences, most actions, are not necessarily bad or good, but simply are. Nothing more.

While this might not be a directly-successful argument in favor of Stoic compassion, it should illustrate that Stoics are not unsympathetic. A lack of sympathy would have Stoics disregarding many human characteristics, many people, as unworthy of existing. If you can't be good, you must be bad, therefore you are not worth regard. That extreme is a foundation for the actual nihilism we find in the writings of the Columbine shooters, and those kids were most definitely NOT stoic in any sense. (as part of a project for work, I've found a website containing the writings of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. I almost linked them here, but though better of it. Those kids most certainly fell in the furthest standard deviation of some of the worst behavioral characteristics humanity is capable of, and I firmly believe they were simply a symptom of post-modernism and its innate, selfish disregard for the value of others, and its celebration of impulsivity and the empowerment of excess emotionality, but that's another discussion entirely). Contrary to Cicero's argument, Stoics recognize that few humans have the capacity to achieve the ideal position of Sage, similar to a Buddha. As such, our imperfections must be accounted for. Cicero attempts to claim that Stoics view "All sins are equal, so that every misdemeanor is a serious crime..." This is a disingenuous argument, which is easily countered with the Stoic acknowledgement that every individual is capable of making progress towards a higher state, what Buddhists would call Enlightenment. Stoic philosophy does see somewhat of a binary solution set in that they believe that all sins originate from a singular, fundamental aspect of humanity, "a vicious state of soul". However, this does not mean all destructive actions are equal in a practical sense. Proper Stoics recognize a scale of application, do perceive the use of deadly force against an existential criminal threat as different from murder. Shoplifting bubblegum is not the same as a Ponzi scheme.

I understand how a "telephone game" version, a misinterpretation, of Stoicism would develop over time, leading to a "toxic" version of it. Men HAVE been exposed to the idea that they shouldn't ever express any emotion, which is unreasonable and unhealthy. Taking a Vulcan approach of "pure logic" is impossible and undermines the health of our limbic system, which would introduce some severe dissonance. I also believe that this view of Masculinity and Soicism have developed over time, slowly warping the original intent, creating a distorted view that certainly has had a destructive effect on society. However, I believe that this distortion is NOT the reality of the original, moderate, intent.

I fully admit that I take a slightly more Zen-style approach. I'm not Buddhist, but the Buddhist approach, as I described in part 1, simply resonates well with me. I see many similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism, and I'm not the only one to view them as analogous. I think the description here in Daily Stoic is outstanding: They both advocate seeking happiness from an internal source, so that the ups and downs of life will not be your masters. As philosopher and author Nassim Taleb once wrote on the similarities between the two: “A Stoic is a Buddhist with attitude.”

I perceive one of the most important aspects of both philosophies is the essentially INTERNAL basis of emotional health. Looking to an outside party to provide for your happiness will only lead to disappointment. We must be secure within ourselves, with who we are, in order to be capable of happiness. We must recognize and manage our emotional state on our own. That doesn't mean you don't experience good emotions as a result of being around certain people, from engaging in certain activities, but rather that those provide pleasure, not happiness itself. The Dali Lama is quoted as saying:

          Now sometimes people confuse happiness with pleasure. For example, not long ago I was speaking to an Indian audience at Rajpur. I mentioned that the purpose of life was happiness, so one member of the audience said that Rajneesh teaches that our happiest moment comes during sexual activity, so through sex one can become the happiest. He wanted to know what I thought of that idea. I answered that from my point of view, the highest happiness is when one reaches the stage of Liberation, at which there is no more suffering. That’s genuine, lasting happiness. True happiness relates more to the mind and heart. Happiness that depends mainly on physical pleasure is unstable; one day it’s there, the next day it may not be.

This doesn't mean that we should disregard pleasing experiences, but rather that we shouldn't expect them to be the foundation of our happiness. Instead, finding some form of enlightenment, striving for the Stoic ideal of the wise Sage, cleansing our Karma (our conscience, the Jungian perception of Karma as a subconscious force rather than a religious concept) provides for happiness. This, in-turn, allows for a more substantial appreciation of pleasures, and helps avoid pursuing them in an unhealthy manner.

Back to the claim that a stoic approach is unhealthy: I was never taught that emotional expressions are utterly inappropriate for men. What I learned was that emotions are a critical aspect of our humanity, but that there are times when it is in everyone's best interest that we censor outward expressions. As previously provided, impulse management is a vital skill for adults to engage in. Just because we feel something in the moment doesn't mean we should express it outwardly. Feel it. Recognize that you are feeling it. Allow yourself to feel it. Determine if the situation is appropriate for expressing it. No, expressing emotional clouds (good, bad, indifferent) passing over the moon of your being is NOT always constructive. Despite the juvenile desire to be "spontaneous", to not have to make the effort of self-awareness, avoiding the effort of introspective analysis, letting "the words fall out" can sometimes be destructive, and adults make allowance for that in their personal development. It isn't hiding, it isn't being disingenuous, it is not "two-faced". It is being respectful.

A man will experience the same spectrum of emotions as a woman (or non-binary, if you believe in that). Each individual will experience their emotions with slight variations in comparison to others. However, an adult Man (capital M) will teach himself, through Buddhist mindfulness, Stoicism, or some other approach, to allow the emotions to pass while determining if expression is going to be constructive, neutral, or destructive. Often Men are placed in occupational or social situations which require they wait to express themselves. Perhaps the physical task at-hand is arduous and emotion must be disregarded for the moment in order to achieve a vital goal. That doesn't mean the man isn't feeling the emotions, he is just waiting until an appropriate time to allow them to bubble to the surface. I do not believe this is unhealthy. I do, however, believe that it can easily be taken to unhealthy extremes. As can ANY human behavior.

Intellectualization can be enacted as a defense mechanism by someone who was never taught how to deal with their own emotions. This is common, as the entire concept of self-awareness is antithetical to most people's perceptions of happiness. I've even been told that the approach is selfish, that expecting other people to make you happy is reasonable and to look within yourself is a rejection of our membership in the human collective. No. No. No. Looking within yourself makes you responsible for yourself in ways that allow for a deeper freedom and more substantial relationships. In not expecting someone else to make me happy, I'm able to see them for who they are, not who my insecurities need them to be.

Introspection is difficult, and can be painful. Certainly, it takes practice, and our delusions will get in the way. Many people want to believe that self-awareness is not objectively achievable, that individuals are incapable of truly knowing themselves. I will agree that we have barriers to true, deep self-awareness, but I will disagree that it is impossible. Maintain some skepticism, even with your own self-perception. Recognize how you might lie to yourself about motivations, and be willing to look at your own painful weaknesses. To do otherwise is to live in a delusion that leads to extensive cognitive dissonance, insecurity, and soiling one's karma in ways that deprives us of wonderful opportunities.

Summing this up (to some marginal extent): Stoic qualities taken to an extreme will be unhealthy, but the fundamental approach is exceptionally healthy. Somewhere along the line, over the last couple of generations, Americans (perhaps all Westerners) came to believe the extremes rather than a healthy middle-ground. That is, in itself, a human trait. In recognizing that, and accounting for it, we can move forward in a more productive manner.

Maybe.

Someday.

In conclusion, to summarize, getting on with it, finally:

As with ANY behavioral trait, when applied CORRECTLY, with a well-balanced, mindful approach, Stoicism is NOT toxic. Rather, it is a phenomenally healthy means of boys learning to grow-up. It helps teach them respect for others, a consideration of consequences, impulse-management, and provides an exceptional tool for following "happy thoughts" more than the sad ones, leading to greater happiness. How do I know? It's what I did in my mid teens. I deliberately chose to not engage in the angsty behavior I saw in my peers. I CHOSE to be happy and pursue a positive outlook. Am I perfect at it? H#ck no! I'm no Sage or Buddha. My enlightenment is marginal, at best, and even that slight improvement requires constant practice. I recognize many (hopefully most?) of my downfalls, but I also recognize the constructive long-term benefits of an approach similar to Stoicism, or Zen Buddhist Mindfulness.

When applied properly, a stoic approach gives Men (proper, grown-up, mature, adults) a harness for our innate physicality, providing us with a tool that permits the achievement of goals otherwise unreachable. Rather than destructive impulsivity, lashing out when angry or confused, deviating from or quitting a challenging task in frustration or boredom, or undeservedly taking by force what is instinctively desired, that physicality can be aimed, focused, honed to allow a Man (yes, "or woman", but y'all aren't the focus of this) to disregard physical discomfort in a cramped space capsule, to concentrate on the difficult machining of small parts necessary for lifesaving functions rather than becoming frustrated with how long it takes to file a small gear that a machine doesn't yet exist to create, to push-through the lactate burn of an endurance race, or to push-aside the pain of a gunshot wound to keep a criminal threat isolated until backup can arrive, saving innocent lives.

Just as a small puppy has to be trained to submit to a leash, so do our atavistic impulses have to be trained to submit to our recognition of consequence and responsibility, directed towards the challenge of worthwhile goals. Use emotional reactions as the impetus, the kindling, to spark motivation, but temper that fire with stoic, Zen-like mindfulness, or that emotional blaze becomes destructive. This is achieved through self-discipline. Disciplining oneself, being properly in control of one's actions and reactions, allows for immense freedom.

Similarly, ANY behavior, ANY philosophy, can be "toxic" when taken to extremes. A little bit of red wine (yuck) is good for you, a little bit of beer (double-yuck!!) can be beneficial. Are humans prone to moderation? H#ck no! We, as a collective entity, tend to see binary solution sets (It's THIS or THAT, and THAT is BAD, so I'm going with THIS!) rather than spectra of potentialities (Hmmm, some of this is good, too much or too little is bad. And, to complicate things, the amount that's right for ME is different than the amount which is right for someone else. Damn, being human isn't easy!).

Perhaps, one day, when we aren't a culture of spoiled children trying desperately to hold onto a juvenile utopia, we, as a collective, will again recognize the benefits of properly-balanced Stoicism, mindfulness, in our boys. We will recognize that boys aren't girls, and so they need a different mix, different proportions of psychological nutrients in order to transition into manhood. For that matter, we might recognize the benefits of being adults again (don't go there now, Rick, you're supposed to be wrapping this up!). Until then, we will continue to experience criminal violence from those who could have been more constructive members of society. We will continue to see increasing depression and suicides among our male population as a result of confusion regarding their place and value in The Universe. For a few generations now, we have seen increasingly-vocal recognition of the value of women's contributions. Unfortunately that has been at the expense of men. Humanity, at least as currently existing, doesn't seem to be able to rid itself of the false binary of "It's US or THEM, there can be only one!". Maybe we will move beyond that some day, though it doesn't seem likely soon. Until then, all we can do is our individual best.  We can ALL learn to focus on what is within our actual sphere of influence, and revel in our accomplishments instead of trying to create false feelings of empowerment at the expense of others.

Someday. 

I had wanted to go further with this, but I realized that the two parts total over 6500 words. I'm not trying to challenge Atlas Shrugged for length, and most people stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs anyway.  Not many know this blog exists, and few actually read it (and I'm ok with it. It's more a mechanism for me to work on ideas than it is a means of expressing myself publicly), and few of those will make it more than a few paragraphs.

So I realized I needed to stop. Perhaps the rest will come up someday, but this will need to be all for now.

Bon nuit, mes amis.