Writing on <firstname.lastname@example.org> , Phil Lee posted the following item under the title;
Subject: Philip Gold: ... there's a curious crew, which derives its stature from its cowardice.
Date sent: Mon, 31 May 2004[edited]
During the recent Maryland Legislative session, one thing RKBA activists did very well is deny the grabbers claims that assault weapons were a problem here. We took on their "facts" and refuted them.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) claimed one in five officers were killed with assault weapons from 1998 through 2001 and cited one Maryland officer. They claimed that result came from investigating FBI data. CeaseFire Maryland wrote a letter to the legislature and issued a press release repeating the one-in-five claim and the claim that a Maryland officer had been killed in this period.
We investigated and found the officer, John Stem, had been shot in 1977 and had worked until he retired in 1990 with 20 years on the job. We also found that gun used was not on Maryland's list of assault weapons. We investigated and found no officer had been shot in Maryland from 1988 through 2003 using a rifle of any kind! That's right, no AR-15s, M-1As, MAC-90s, AK-47s, ..., none; not only no assault rifles, but no rifles of
any kind! And we told the legislature and friends on the Governor's staff of these findings.
John Josselyn of AGC investigated the VPC's claim to use FBI data and obtained a letter from the FBI that they did not track assault weapons, thereby showing the VPC was doing little more than using news reports
for evidence of assault weapons. Josselyn showed the claims of the VPC and CeaseFire were using a reliable source (the FBI) were false and that they were using an unreliable and ignorant source (the media).
Josselyn also obtained from each police agency in Maryland a report on the number of assault weapons used in crimes and was able to show that the usage was small, like that which has been reported over the years on a national level.
In the end, the grabbers were left with no claims of substance. They could only cite their fears -- "weapons of war on streets", "the only purpose of assault rifles to kill as many people as possible really quickly", "assault
rifles have no legitimate use in civilian hands", "assault rifles can shoot through police body armor", ... and so on. By denying them the ability to cite real harm (their case for actual harm was phony), they were reduced to saying they were "scared!"
While these people have no reluctance to use their fears as argument ("it's for the children", "if it only saves one life" -- but you can never save a life with a gun, "let the police handle it", ...), they also are quite willing to lie too. Research can deny them the use of lies and leave them only with their cowardice as argument. Unfortunately, history teaches us that cowardice can work as an argument.
We admire Winston Churchill for his example of moral courage, but forget the lessons of the pre-WWII period where he was ignored or derided by the fearful leaders of that day. The fearful have always been with us and
they have a need to justify themselves by imposing their fears upon us all. Philip Gold wrote an article ("Anatomy of the flagellation flock," Washington Times, 12/27/01, A15) about these people where he said:
... there's a curious crew, which derives its stature from its cowardice. For some, flaunting fear constitutes proof of superior intellect and morality. The pattern's been around for a half-century. "Better Red than dead." The nuclear fear of the 1980's. The "ecological fear" of then and now. Today, it comes down to "Let's not do anything about people who are trying to kill us. It might provoke them." To meld the words of Winston Churchill with those of Franklin Roosevelt: Some people have nothing to offer but fear itself.
Actually, Gold has it wrong. The pattern has been around throughout all of recorded history. Certainly, the failure to prepare and address the threat for a rising Nazi state in Germany, can be laid at the doors of those
who felt it was better to be a fascist than dead. What really cause cowardice to fail as an argument was the many actions of you to write letters, to contact legislators, and to turn-out in record numbers for a senate hearing in Annapolis. Your firm actions showed the legislators there would be a political price to pay if fear was to be the sole justification for violating our rights.
To preserve freedom, to preserve RKBA, we do not have to make huge sacrifice of blood and treasure. We are not fighting a Nazi hoard. But, while there is no need for large sacrifice, some sacrifice is needed. We must do some work to promote our cause that takes us away from the pleasures of life. It is not enough that you simply live as a free person in our society. Our future depends on your efforts to preserve freedom.
You don't have to dig into data like I do or send nearly a hundred information requests to Police agencies and analyze their results like John Josselyn did. You can continue to write letters to the media and to legislators and you can continue to show up to testify on key dates. Many of you made these contributions. You did your duty. I hope you all realize, that duty is not finished yet.
The future will belong to us only if we can make gun-control an unacceptable political issue, and to do so, we need to hurt as many of those who raise it at the polls as we can. We also need to hurt political parties that encourage gun-control promoting politicians. It depends on you and not on any leaders of groups or organizations as to how well we hurt our enemies. For that effort, we need you to help the right politicians and
to work and speak against the wrong ones.
As Gold's editorial makes clear, the professional cowards have only fear to offer. Now they proffer it in the form that America is becoming hated in the world for our unilateral actions. It is the same crowd who have
offered fear in the form that if little boys play cowboys and indians, they will grow to be violent and in the form that anyone who wants to own firearms is not to be trusted with them.
Some leaders from our side advise us to wait to see whether the AW ban sunsets. I had planned to wait to mid-September also. But we cannot wait anymore, given the conditions that have developed. The cost of waiting will be too high. We must risk being wronged and begin our efforts now. We can always change course if the AW ban is renewed.
Having read what Phil wrote reminds me of the many times that I have asked myself, "what are they afraid of"? I listen to a presenter or debater with an anti-gun message and suddenly realize, they are afraid. I want to jump up and ask, "why are you afraid?"
I think that Dr. Sarah Thompson, M.D. dealt with this subject quite well in her essay;
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.,email@example.com
You can find the full text at;
Her essay begins;
"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."
"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."
"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."
How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?
How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?
One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.
Dr. Thompson evaluates the common elements of rage, fear and psychological defense mechanisms evident in the anti-gun crowd. This meshes well with what Phil has to say above and is worth the read. It is also worth copying and providing to others because the essay also provides advice on dealing with the anti-gun crowd on this psychological level.
On the other hand, Fred deals with the firearm owner defense against anti-gun forces in a more direct way. Oh, yes. Fred is the writer at Fredís Military M14 Rifle Stocks <http://www.fredsm14stocks.com/>. Just look down the side for the articles and Fredís columns. Fred speaks of the "soft war". That is what we are in right now. It is soft because you can fight from your living room, or at a debate, or at the political rally from a soap box, or at the ballot box, or even from the jury box. As Fred says, the fight has not yet turned hard, we are not yet opening the bullet box.
I can not emphasize strongly enough what Phil and Dr. Thompson and Fred have to say. We can not stop fighting now in the soft war because we can not afford the cost of a hard war.
Keep up the good work.
Bob Culver, MCSM