UPDATE: \u00a0<\/strong>A key “source” in the piece I fisk\u00a0has turned out to be fraud. \u00a0See the Update at the bottom of the story..\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n One of my long-time stalkers – who’s been tweenting about me at least ten times a day for the past six years, which may be as perfect a definition of “a wasted life” as I can imagine – has been spamming the Northern Alliance’s hashtag on Twitter and Facebook with…well, random collections of factoids gathered from Googling, apparently.<\/p>\n And in so doing, he introduced me to yet another article in\u00a0Raw Story<\/em> – aka “liberal-friendly news even dumber than\u00a0The Awl<\/em>.”<\/p>\n This time, it’s entitled (with that usual online news biz subtlety) “\u2018It\u2019s insane\u2019: Combat veterans shoot down NRA \u2018fantasy world\u2019 of \u2018good guys with guns<\/a>\u2019”<\/p>\n Now, we’ve pretty well \u00a0shredded Raw Story<\/em><\/a> – whom I suspect just sold a ton of ads to “Everytown” or “MoveOn”or some other group that’s trying to run a PR war against the NRA, given the enthusiasm with which they’re But even by\u00a0Raw Story’s\u00a0<\/em>dubious standards, this is a dumb piece. \u00a0So dumb, in fact, that I’m not going to fisk the whole thing (as I did earlier this week). \u00a0Because while it’s a deeply stupid piece, it does touch on a key theme you need to know when you try to engage gun-grabbers.<\/p>\n Because like pretty much all aggressive, inflammatory anti-gun “ Har De Har Har<\/strong>: \u00a0Officialdom – cops, soldiers, paramedics, bureaucrats – always, always believe that nobody could do their jobs. \u00a0Sort of like union teachers believe homeschoolers can’t possibly, y’know, teach kids:<\/p>\n The NRA\u2019s chief spokesman, Wayne LaPierre, infamously claimed following the Sandy Hook child massacre that \u201cthe only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun\u201d \u2014 but Rivera and other combat vets say that\u2019s ridiculous.<\/p>\n \u201cI think they would absolutely panic,\u201d [Sgt. Rafael Noboa y Rivera] told The Nation. [Editor\u2019s note: Rivera served as Raw Story\u2019s associate publisher in 2013.]…\u201cI think there\u2019s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn\u2019t really happen that way,\u201d…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, thanks, Sergeant Obvious.<\/p>\n To be fair (something Raw Story will not), it’s entirely possible there are law-abiding shooters out there who do\u00a0<\/em>think it’s like the movies.<\/p>\n But you don’t go through any sort of concealed-carry training with any such illusions – any more than any cop or soldier.<\/p>\n But while we’re on the topic of cops and soldiers…:<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I heard gunfire [in Iraq], I didn\u2019t immediately pick up my rifle and react. I first tried to ascertain where the shooting was coming from, where I was in relation to the gunfire and how far away it was. I think most untrained people are either going to freeze up, or just whip out their gun and start firing in that circumstance.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Right. \u00a0In combat,\u00a0<\/i>where the situation is fluid and confusing and the adrenaline and stress are overwhelming, lots of training is required to survive, much less make sure you don’t kill the wrong person. \u00a0 And for police work, where there generally isn’t an “enemy” and situations can be incredibly ambiguous (ambiguous enough that police departments grant cops a\u00a0lot\u00a0<\/em>of qualified immunity for the inevitable, inadvertent, accidental shootings of the wrong people in the line of duty), lots of training is a legal, moral and tactical imperative.<\/p>\n However…<\/p>\n Complete The Thought, Now…: \u00a0<\/strong>…self-defense is not combat, and it’s not police work.<\/p>\n As we pointed out in Monday’s piece, there are 3-4 criteria that a civilian –\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>a soldier in combat, or a cop on duty –\u00a0must\u00a0<\/em>follow for a shooting to be considered legal self-defense [1]. \u00a0And “hearing a shooting, and running to engage the shooter”, depending on your state and the zeal of the prosecutor, might very well violate two of them (“The Threat Must Be Immediate” and “Duty to Retreat”).<\/p>\n There’s a flip side to that; while hearing gunfire in the distance is chock full of nasty, lethal ambiguities, there are certain situations that are not ambiguous at all:<\/p>\n None of these situations are remotely ambiguous. \u00a0You don’t need military training, or police experience, or even to have an IQ above 75, to know\u00a0exactly\u00a0<\/em>what is going on. \u00a0You need\u00a0nothing\u00a0<\/em>special in terms of knowledge to know that\u00a0each of these situations is an immediate threat to your life<\/em>. \u00a0Right now. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n And you don’t need any special training (although practice and drilling and, yes, training certainly help) to respond.<\/p>\n Which brings us to the next non-sequitur:<\/p>\n Stephen Benson first learned during Navy SEAL training that carrying a gun would be more likely to expose him to gun violence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That lesson directly contradicts the message promoted by the National Rifle Association and increasingly cited by gun owners as their motivation for buying a firearm, reported The Nation [There’s a freaking shock]<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s insane,\u201d Benson said, recalling how his military training exposed the lie behind the most persistent pro-gun argument.<\/p>\n \u201cWe put on our issue .45s, and our instructor said, \u2018Gentlemen, the first and most important thing you\u2019ve done by putting on that weapon is you\u2019ve increased your chances of being in a gunfight by 100 percent,\u2019\u201d he said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [By the way – this last couple of paragraphs tripped my BS detector. \u00a0And as Joe Doakes showed in the comments, my BS detector is better than Raw Story’s, or my stalker’s. \u00a0See the UPDATE below<\/span>]<\/p>\n After which the SEALS (who are not, to the best of my knowledge, “issued” .45s, although it’s entirely possible Mr. Benson went through “SEAL training” before 1985) did what? \u00a0Learned de-escalation techniques and put the guns away?<\/p>\n No – they learned how to win gunfights. \u00a0It’s their job<\/em>.<\/p>\n For civilians, it\u00a0is\u00a0<\/em>a non-sequitur; if you carry\u00a0(concealed, usually – not openly, inviting a pre-emptive strike), it\u00a0should\u00a0<\/em>decrease your chance of ever getting into a fight of any kind, since avoiding fights becomes an imperative. \u00a0It also decreases your chance of being defenseless against a lethal threat. \u00a0To zero? \u00a0No – sometimes it just doesn’t work, But the record is good: hundreds of justifiable homicides a year; tens of thousands of defensive gun uses, mostly with no shots fired; crime rates lowered with no gun use needed at all.<\/p>\n Said No Law Abiding Civilian Gun Owner, Ever<\/strong>: \u00a0The rest of the article is more of the same; this sort of thing:<\/p>\n \u201cUnless it\u2019s constantly drilled into you, it\u2019s very hard to maintain discipline in those situations,\u201d [former ATF agent and Vietnam veteran ]\u00a0\u00a0told The Nation. \u201cYou\u2019re immediately hit with a massive thump of adrenaline…conscious thought shuts down because you\u2019ve been taken over by your nervous system, and your nervous system is saying, \u2018Holy sh*t, things just got really bad.\u2019\u201d…\u201cSomeone can always say, \u2018If your mother is being raped by 5 people, wouldn\u2019t you want her to have a gun?\u2019 Well, okay, if you put it that way, I\u2019d say yes \u2014 but that\u2019s not a likely scenario.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, duh. \u00a0It’s not likely to happen to anyone’s given mom on any given day. \u00a0But\u00a0if\u00a0<\/em>it’s any given mom, and that mom doesn’t wanna get raped, is Mr. Benson saying that there’s any ambiguity in the situation requiring any special training ?<\/p>\n Any at all?<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cThe question is: If you see someone running out of a gas station with a gun in their hand, do you want an untrained person jumping out and opening fire?\u201d the former ATF agent said. \u201cFor me, the answer is clearly \u2018no.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Far be it from me to question the qualifications of an ATF agent – an elite, utterly-qualified<\/a> federal agency that gave guns to\u00a0narcotraficantes \u00a0<\/em>but the “answer is clearly no” to any citizen with a carry permit and no badge, too. \u00a0 Jumping out and firing at people who aren’t a direct threat to you can get you in trouble with the wrong prosecutor – and even, sometimes justifiably, the right ones.<\/p>\n Look – we get it. \u00a0If you have a heart attack as you’re walking down the aisle at Target, you’d like the first person to come along to be a cardiologist, not a receptionist with a cell phone and a six-months-old Red Cross first aid card. \u00a0If you’re\u00a0is stranded in a blizzard, you’d like it to happen as you pull up to a Embassy Suites with a trunkful of “Free Evening With Champagne” coupons rather than in the middle of the prairie with a candle, a bag of Snickers bars and a space blanket. \u00a0And if you’re stuck in a room at your church when a pasty-faced forty-something loser in a “Minnesota Progressive Project” t-shirt barges in with a .25 automatic, you’d\u00a0like\u00a0<\/em>there to just happen to be an off-duty cop with a service \u00a0Glock in the room with you rather than some random guy with a carry permit.<\/p>\n But if the only thing standing between you and personal extinction is that secretary, that candle and those snickers, or tha pudgy projectile-sweating middle-aged guy holding a pistol in his shaky hands, are you going to say “No! I choose death on priciple, you mere pretenders!”<\/p>\n I’m gonna guess not.<\/p>\n Especially since – all the derision from\u00a0 UPDATE<\/strong>: \u00a0Mr. Benson, the “SEAL”, who gave the spiel about the “Instructor” in “SEAL Training” that “warned him” about the risk of “gunfights” if he”carried a gun” like “SEALs” do, tripped my BS detector even as I quoted him. \u00a0I thought Mr. Benson sounded more like Heather Martens than Marcus Luttrell.<\/p>\n And as Joe Doakes pointed out in the comments<\/a>– my BS detector is pretty darn good after all . \u00a0Mr. Benson, the “SEAL”, is a fraud<\/a>. \u00a0He duped\u00a0The Nation<\/em>:<\/p>\n
\nreporting gun issues<\/del> generating half-informed anti-gun content.<\/p>\njournalism<\/del>” cribbing fromn other left-leaning news sources today, it’s made up of:<\/p>\n\n
\n
Raw Story<\/del>\u00a0<\/em>The Nation\u00a0<\/em>notwithstanding – the regular schlemiel’s record is pretty good<\/a>, all in all.<\/p>\n