Replies

“So you blame Bush instead of the Islamofacists wielding the guns? Bizarre.”

I most certainly did not. You have confused me with someone else. I clearly stated the criminal is at fault. But our public servants are guilty of contributory negligence. Not wanting to discuss that is itself a form of political correctness.

Your historical/hysterical characterization of the Japanese internment without due process doesn’t hold up. There were no subsequent convictions of any interned Japanese for spying or sabotage. Even J. Edgar Hoover was against the move. Many of the grim realities of that war on the home front (bogus rationing, wage and price controls, women in the work force) sewed the seeds of a destabilized american family and culture and the growth of centrally planned big government intrusions that today conservatives have all but given up on fighting. As to PC reaction, that was supported and approved by none other than Ronald Reagan, hardly a practitioner of hollow PC glutei kissing.

I also indicated that the specific example of the mishandled Japanese internment is not an indictment of the limited and targeted use of such tactics with due process. Militant islamists represent a far more real and demonstrable threat than the Japanese farmers in California were. Mexican gangs represent an even greater threat to public safety and social stability than a few rock worshipping fetishists. In all cases, the bad guys are encouraged by the environment of victim disarmament zones.

If it takes more than a few seconds for someone with matching force to put suppressive fire on the perp, then the OODA loop is stalled at the Act stage long enough for mayhem to be successful.

Put another way, any time there is delay in the feedback loop (and here the feedback is to return fire to the threat) there will be failure to control. This is true of social control situations as much as with a servo mechanism. The dial-911 mentality always creates delay by removing the authority to act from the knowledge that there is a problem to be countered.

Fortunately these attacks are rare, so the policy is seen as pragmatic as well as PC feel-goodism. The policy’s effects on general social morals and character is far more corrosive than its failure as a practical security matter.

Specialization and division of labor works most efficiently and effectively in so many situations that the fallacy is in believing that self-defense can also be delegated to specialists. Centrally planned constraints and solutions will never solve this problem. At some point trust in individuals has to be applied. We trust cops not to get drunk and shoot each other, and the few that do are the exception. If the military can’t do that, perhaps they better dialog to consensus some more about the utility of their diversity programs (speaking of PC reactions). Japanese Americans have the lowest crime and homicide rate of any identifiable ethnic group. Perhaps the US military needs to rethink what cultures would best make up their ranks for attributes such as self control, loyalty, adaptability, social cohesion, and coping skills.

The problem we are facing(internal security) is an economic and moral problem as much as one of tactics. This has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting government or the military. It has to do with understanding that the character of the problem we are facing has more dimensions than 1)ID bad guy and 2)eliminate bad guy. But even if it were that simple, gun control as a blanket policy clearly works against that as an effective strategy.