NEVER CONFESS TO SOMETHING YOU DID NOT DO! EVER! NO MATTER WHAT!

How private citizens interact with police officers and other agents of the state is a very complex topic, and one I want to write about at length in the future. For example, what do you tell police after you used deadly force in self-defense or the defense of another? What do you say if you are suspected of a crime? Do you get a lawyer, or do you speak freely? What if you know with complete certainty that you did nothing wrong – does this mean you can simply speak freely and answer any and all questions endlessly?

I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), so I cannot offer “legal advice”. I can however offer an informed opinion, and I saw something recently that made me want to point out one extremely important concept -

NEVER CONFESS TO SOMETHING YOU DID NOT DO! EVER! NO MATTER WHAT!

It's important to understand that there are people sitting in prison right now who did nothing wrong except crack under the pressure of intense interrogation, and then feed back to police what they wanted to hear. The Innocence Project has showed that in approximately 25% of cases where DNA evidence conclusively shows that a convicted person was not guilty, the convicted person made incriminating statements, plead guilty, or outright confessed.

Why would someone confess to something they didn't do, especially a brutal crime? Again, this is a complex topic that requires some understanding of human psychology to understand. The first step in understanding it however, is simply acknowledging that it does in fact happen. This fact is not in dispute by any knowledgeable person.

What I saw this morning that prompted me to write this was this story about Barry Beach. Barry was convicted of a 1979 murder and sentenced to 100 years in prison with no possibility of parole. I found a Dateline NBC show that aired in 2008 that gives a good overview of the case, and I've linked this at the bottom of this post (it's split up into 10 parts). I'm not going to rehash all the details here, you can watch the video or type “Barry Beach” into Google and read to your heart's content if you want more. I first heard of Barry Beach several years ago, and since then I've seen several TV programs, interviews, and read a lot of details about the case. Everything I've seen overwhelmingly points to the fact that Barry Beach is an innocent man who was bullied into confessing to a crime he didn't commit. There is no physical evidence linking him to the crime, and the story he was bullied into confessing has been shown to be inconsistent with the crime scene. Yet there are people who have worked tirelessly to keep this innocent man in jail.

Barry's case has had some dramatic twists and turns – and he was finally released in 2011 pending a new trial. The Montana Supreme Court (whose Chief Justice is the original prosecutor in the Beach case), just reversed that decision and ordered Barry back to prison to serve the rest of his sentence (essentially, until he dies in prison).

This case makes me angry. I have the naive notion that the guilty should be punished and the innocent should be left to live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, there are evil people in the world who build their careers on bodies – guilty or innocent. Barry made a very, very bad mistake. He was a scared young man, far from home, who was intimidated into confessing to something he didn't do – and he's paid for this mistake by living his life in a cage. Remember – this is a mistake that many of you, who are reading this right now, might be bullied into making.

Remember this - NEVER CONFESS TO SOMETHING YOU DID NOT DO! EVER! NO MATTER WHAT!

Very few of us will ever be in the position where police and investigators are using every trick they know to get a confession out of us. Remember, these people do this all the time, and many of them know what they're doing and are highly skilled. Some of these people are honorable and will genuinely try to determine the truth. Some of these people are evil and will not lose a second of sleep by knowingly convicting you of something you did not do.

The take-home lesson is that when you are in the interrogation chair, you're not in a position to evaluate the character of the person interrogating you. If you are bullied into confessing something you didn't do, and the interrogators and prosecutors are honorable and determine through evidence that you did not in fact commit the crime, you will likely get cleared. However, if you are unfortunate like Barry Beach and confronted by men who will happily build a career over your rotting corpse, without a care to your actual guilt or innocence, you're very likely to get screwed.

NEVER CONFESS TO SOMETHING YOU DID NOT DO! EVER! NO MATTER WHAT!

Did I mention that this case makes me angry??

The Dateline NBC show is here:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Analysis of a Violent Confrontation

Below is a video of a violent confrontation and my analysis of this video. My source for this video and story is here.

The video shows the same event from two different camera angles. I've gone back and forth between these two angles to describe what's happening, and have provided the approximate timing of the events from both angles. Now, it's not my intention to just play “Monday morning quarterback”.  The way to understand these situations is to analyze them carefully and see what worked, what didn't, and where mistakes may have been made. That way situations in the future can be handled better.

I'm not a fan of how even the most mild videos today are labeled “graphic”, but I can see how the video below might bother some people. This video quite clearly shows a man getting shot multiple times, including once in the head, and then him writhing around in pain as he bleeds to death. If such things bother you, then don't watch the video. There is educational value in analyzing such videos however, and it is in this spirit that it's posted here.

You have been warned.

Now stepping through it – here are my thoughts:

• (0:45-0:57) and (8:26-8:38) - The subject gets in the car and closes the door. Less than two seconds later a cop comes around the corner without seeing the subject. A second cop who backed the white car into the street approaches just a second or two later, and a third cop approaches within another couple of seconds.

The very fist time I watched this video, the thought that ran through my mind was, “Holy Shit! He has no idea there's someone in that car!” Sometimes you're just unlucky. If the cops would have been three seconds faster or the subject three seconds slower, they would have known he was in the car and could have taken countermeasures. As it was, they were ambushed by someone they didn't know was there.

What could have been done differently here? Someone could have had “eyes-on” the house for some appropriate time before approaching, especially given that there were multiple parked cars in front. The article linked above indicates that the property was under surveillance, but apparently they felt their “knock and talk” attempt to get permission to search the property was low risk. If this was considered a medium or high risk approach, then the lack of having eyes-on prior to an approach is a very serious error.

• (0:58-1:08) and (8:39-8:49) – A second subject comes out of the house and moves forward and to the right. All three cops follow him, turning their back on the subject in the car.

Again, the main point appears to be that this was considered a low-risk approach. The cops were spaced out somewhat, but the concept of “force protection” wasn't implemented here. (Think of force protection as a smaller scale version of military overwatch.) Imagine if there was a fourth cop whose only job was to stand back 20 feet and watch the backs of the others while they approached and subdued the subjects. This would be force protection. Maybe if this had been considered a high risk approach, a SWAT team utilizing force protection might have been used. A fourth cop pulls up in a red truck just as the shooting starts, but he's not in a position to do any good during the initial ambush.

• (1:08-1:20) and (8:49-9:01) – A lot happens here, and it all happens very quickly... Again, it's not my intention to “Monday morning quarterback” here, but I will simply point out what I see:

Cop #3 is the first to see the subject – and at first it seems he's a little slow on getting his gun out. However, remember that even police officers can't simply turn around and point a gun at everything that surprises them. Plus, most rigs I see cops wear include retention holsters that are slower to deploy than regular CCW holsters.

Once the shooting starts, this officer seems to move in such a way as to keep the tree between himself and the subject. This is a good tactic at first, but once the subject gets right up on the tree it needs to be understood that the tree then serves as cover for the subject and not for the officer. This officer does a good job of moving, and then backing up to cover.

Cop #2 (white t-shirt) pretty much just runs behind cover and starts to return fire. Not much to say. (A car, except for the engine block, isn't really cover, it's concealment – but I'll talk about that later.)

Cop #1 was in the most difficult situation, and it didn't work out well for him. His movement was restricted by the people on his right and the car behind him, so he ended up pretty much standing in place and trading shots with the subject. Given the restricted environment, it looks like the best tactic would have been for him to move to his 10-o'clock. This would have given him a better angle on the subject and gotten him off the “X”. Being able to reflexively do this when someone unexpectedly starts shooting at you is not something most people can do though (including most police officers). Also, watching the video closely at 8:49-8:58 shows that this officer does not have strong gun handling skills. (I point this out primarily because so many people think cops are all highly-skilled experts with firearms, when the truth is very different.)

Again, cop #1 was in a very difficult spot. My understanding is that he took three bullets in the belly during this exchange, but that he survived.

The subject clearly gets the worst of the exchange. Sometime around 1:09-1:22 (8:50-9:03) he gets shot at least twice. At least one of these shots appears to have been through his upper chest as a small blood spot can be seen to grow on the back of his shirt. He also starts bleeding very heavily from his left side. Then at 1:44 (9:22) he's shot in the head and falls to the ground. He then writhes around for the next six minutes of the video (he apparently bled to death). The subject was 56 years old, very thin, a smoker, and based on allegations of his lifestyle, probably not a terribly healthy person. Yet he was shot at least three times, including once in the upper chest and once in the head, and he was still moving around on the ground six minutes later.  The reason he was unable to retrieve his gun and continue to fight was most likely the effects of the head shot.  The take-home lesson here is that just because someone is shot, that doesn't mean they are out of the fight.

There are lots and lots (and lots) of lessons to be learned here. I'm sure a couple whole courses could be created around the lessons this video can teach us. One of these I'd like to point out is the importance of magazine capacity. If an unhealthy 56 year old skinny man can absorb that kind of punishment and still not be immobilized, what happens if you are attacked by three young, athletic men in their prime? What about if you are in New York and limited to seven rounds?

(As an aside – does it seem reasonable that there are gunfights in this society surrounding the growing of a plant whose effects are very similar to alcohol? When was the last time there was a shootout at a Miller or Coors brewing facility?)

Watching a Grand-Master Instructor

As a shooter I enjoy watching people shooting skillfully, whether in competition or in serious training. Not only is it entertaining, but I can sometimes pick up some tricks or pointers.

As an instructor I also enjoy watching very good instructors give lessons, not only because I can sometimes pick up some pointers about shooting, but mostly because I get to see how a master instructor teaches.

I recently came across the video below that is a great example of this. I recommend watching the whole video, but the lesson starts at the 1:58 mark. The person receiving the lesson is Cory Jackson, an advanced shooter and capable instructor in his own right. The person giving the lesson is Ron Avery. I have to admit that I am not completely familiar with Ron, but everything I have seen or heard about him is very impressive. The video below is a great example of an expert receiving a lesson from a Grand-Master.

(The person behind the camera during the lesson, and with Ron at the beginning of the video, is Travis Haley – someone I definitely consider a Grand-Master instructor.)

Enjoy:

Historical Context of the Gun-Control “Debate”

I've pointed out several times how all of the facts and logic in the gun-control “debate” are on the pro-freedom side that opposes gun-control.

1. Guns are used far more often to thwart a crime than to commit a crime.
2. Banning or restricting guns always leads to an increase in overall violent crime.
3. The guns most often talked about for banning are the most effective defensive firearms available to most Americans today.
4. The prime reason certain locations are picked by mass-shooters is that they are “gun-free zones” guaranteeing them easy victims.
5. All of the assertions of the gun-control side are either provably false or severe mischaracterizations. Their entire argument distills down to emotional appeals and appeals to authority.

Add to this one other very important concept – historical context. The gun-control side seems to completely lack any understanding of history as it relates to how governments relate to citizens (or subjects).

Recently Larken Rose, a notable anarchist, uploaded a feature-length (90+ min) video that hits several of the high points to this side of the argument. While the scope of the film goes quite a bit beyond just the gun-control issue, he does detail quite accurately this part of the argument. If you are interested in the historical (and political) context of the current gun-control “debate”, please take the time to watch this video (I've embedded it below).

Some people might consider this video controversial... but I have a hard time understanding that perspective. Just about everything Larken says should be self-evidently obvious to any educated person.  Unfortunately, most Americans are very uneducated about these facts, especially given how they are usually mischaracterized in the media.  This is how "most Americans" can be said to support "universal background checks", when virtually all knowledgeable people oppose them (at least all the current proposals).

One last point – I mentioned that Larken is an anarchist. Not so long ago this word held very negative connotations for me. As it turns out, I was simply uneducated as to the principles of anarchism. While I can't claim to be an anarchist (I'm more of a consequentialist-minarchist), the moral and political foundation of anarchism is very solid. Don't let that label fool you.

Enjoy:

Appeal to Authority

In my last post I described several ways that people come to hold various opinions. A related concept is the techniques that people often use to win people over to “their side” of an argument. For example, people who are strongly swayed by emotional arguments often try to influence people by making emotional appeals. People who are mostly influenced by facts and reason often try to influence people by appealing to data and logic.

It seems that most people don't like the idea that they adopt positions based on authority. The idea that someone in power can simply tell you what to think or believe is highly distasteful to most – but the evidence is that this accounts for a large proportion of “public opinion” on many issues. (Those of you who aren't familiar with the Milgram experiment should read this. While the point I'm making is somewhat different, this is a highly related concept.)

What about on the issues of violence, guns, and gun-control? Who are your “authorities” on these subjects? Do you consider politicians to be authorities on these subjects? Do you consider crying mothers and fathers who are grieving the loss of their children to be authorities? Do you consider those who have trained for many years and have demonstrated great knowledge and skill in these areas to be authorities? Do you consider police officers to be authorities?

Personally, I only consider those who can demonstrate skill and knowledge to be authorities on guns and violence. I therefore do not automatically consider police officers in general to be authorities. Yes, there are some highly skilled and knowledgeable cops, but there are a frighteningly high number of “donut-eaters” as well. Having a badge tells me nothing about whether someone is skilled or knows anything.

However, it seems that a significant number of people do take police officers as authorities on this matter, so it might be informative to see what most cops think.

The website policeone.com is a site dedicated to providing news and resources of interest to police officers. They claim to be one of the largest online resources dedicated to “law enforcement professionals”. This site recently conducted a poll that it claims is “...the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on... gun control.”

Let me state that this does NOT appear to be a scientific poll, but rather a solicitation of opinion. It therefore may contain certain biases. Is the membership of policeone.com representative of police officers as a whole? Are the officers who would take the time to express an opinion representative of the entire population? After perusing the site and reading a few of the articles, my instinct is that “warrior” cops are somewhat overrepresented in this poll, and that the “donut-eaters” are somewhat underrepresented. More on this below.

I've posted a link to the full results below. The most relevant conclusions are:

• 85.2% of officers believe that the recent White House proposals would either do nothing for officer safety, or have a negative effect.
• 91.5% of officers believe that an “assault weapon” ban would have either no effect or result in an increase in violent crime.
• 95.7% of officers believe that a 10-round limit to magazines would not reduce violent crime.
• 79.7% of officers don't believe that prohibiting private sales would reduce violent crime.
• 70% oppose the implementation of a national database tracking all gun sales.
• 81.5% of officers don't believe gun “buy back” programs can be or ever have been effective at reducing violent crime.
• 91.3% of officers support private citizens who are not felons or mentally ill to have the right to carry firearms.
• Twelve times more officers believe that a “more permissive concealed carry policy for civilians” is the best solution to large scale public shootings than believe any gun restrictions are.
• 86.2% believe that a legally armed citizen at an event like the Aurora CO or Newtown CT shootings would reduce or eliminate the total number of casualties.

The full results of the poll are here.

The bottom line conclusions of the poll as posted here:

Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.

The reason that I believe that “warrior” cops are overrepresented and the “donut-eaters” underrepresented is that the poll results suggests that ~90% of cops have a good understanding of how gun-control relates to violent crime. My experience is that the actual proportion is significantly less. In my experience, far more than 90% (probably 95+%) of those who can actually demonstrate knowledge and skill in these areas strongly oppose gun-control. However, the number of cops who are in this category isn't as high as many people believe. I would be willing to agree with the statement that the above poll suggests “most” police officers oppose gun-control. I would want a more rigorous study to be done before I would agree with the percentages.

The reason I went through all this was to show how manipulative and deceptive a lot of politicians are with respect to this issue and their appeals to authority. For example, take a look at this video:

I really don't know if Ed Rendell is so blinded by his ideology that he actually believes what he says, or if he's so incredibly stupid that he's totally unaware of the facts surrounding this issue. Either way, please understand that politicians should NEVER be relied upon as authorities on the subjects of violence, guns, and gun-control, and that they are only trying to push an ideology. If you agree with their ideology then fine, go ahead and “believe” what they tell you. If you want to have an opinion that's consistent with those who understand a subject, seek out actual experts and ignore anything a politician says.

Reason vs. Emotion vs. Intuition vs. Authority

How do you arrive at an opinion on a given subject?

Do you use reason? Do you carefully weigh all the relevant information, consider the pros and cons of the various possible positions, and then adopt the one that is most consistent with empirical reality and your moral core?

Do you use emotion? Do you have a strong emotional reaction to a certain issue and then come to hold an opinion that is most consistent with either amplifying a positive emotion or alleviating a negative emotion?

Do you use intuition? Do you simply jump to a conclusion based on what just “seems right” without much analysis or emotional attachment?

Do you follow those in authority? Do you simply adopt the position given to you by those you consider to be an authority?

These methods aren't mutually exclusive, and they can interact in complex ways. However, the fact remains that usually a person's opinion on a given subject can be traced back to one or a combination of the methods above. (The most interesting thing I've found is that many people use one of these methods for some issues and use a different method for other issues - more on this later).

Why do you think it's so difficult to change people's minds on some subjects? I believe that it's because most people assume that other people come to their conclusions the same way that they themselves do, and this is often incorrect.

Let's apply this to the current gun-control debate.

If you are someone who mostly adopts the positions given to you by those in authority, what is your opinion likely to be on gun-control? It seems to me that it depends on who you see as an “authority”. If you take political leaders, media pundits, and most academics as authorities, then it's obvious that you would support just about all gun-control measures. If you take those who are most experienced and skilled with guns and violence as authorities, then it's obvious that you would oppose just about all gun-control measures. Given that the “voice” of politicians and the media is vastly greater than the voice of those who are skilled with guns and violence, most people who take their opinion on gun-control from authority favor gun-control.

If you are someone who mostly adopts positions based on intuition, what is your opinion likely to be on gun-control? It seems to me that this depends on how the questions are framed. For example:

“Should violently psychotic people be able to buy an assault rifle, 100-round drum magazines, and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition?”

It seems intuitively obvious that the answer to this question is “no”, and therefore gun-control seems reasonable.

However:

“Should all people have to ask permission from the government and prove they are 'fit' enough to own a gun, and should the government limit the type of guns available and maintain a database of all guns and gun owners?”

To people with an understanding of historical context, the intuitively obvious answer to this question is “no”, and therefore gun-control seems like a disastrous idea.

The problem is that, in the current political environment, these are almost the same question.

Those few people who are skilled and experienced with guns and violence often intuitively oppose gun-control. However, given that the media mostly frames the issues surrounding gun-control like, “OMG!!! Psychopaths can just walk into a store and buy a machine gun and a bazillion rounds of armor-piercing, cop-killing bullets, OMG!!!”, and few people seem to have a decent understanding of history, I believe that most people who hold an intuitive position on gun-control support it.

While I believe that there are people who use intuition or authority to derive their positions on gun-control, I think a greater number of people use either emotion or reason.

Violence is an emotional topic. Imagine your brother or sister was murdered. Imagine your spouse was shot in the face. Imagine your child's body was so riddled with bullets as to be unrecognizable. Imagine you were shot and are now confined to a wheelchair. Take a minute and actually imagine these things. Do you find these images painful? I do. Now realize that these things have actually happened to a significant number of people. My heart goes out to those who have been forced to endure these things, and I wish they didn't have to. If I could go back in time and stop those terrible events or if I could prevent similar events in the future, I would.

In the minds of many people, these terrible events can be summed up as “bad person + gun = tragedy”, and if you simply remove the gun from this equation the tragedy would be averted. Given this model, and the fact that most people would do anything to prevent such tragedies, it makes perfect sense to “remove the guns” (or severely limit them). So when a mother whose son was just murdered goes on national TV and begs you to prevent such tragedies from happening again by “removing the guns”, what do you do? If you are a person who comes to conclusions based on emotion, you will inevitably agree to “remove the guns” from the equation. And what's more, you are likely to see those who disagree with “removing the guns” as being heartless and uncaring.

What about people who use reason, logic, and data to arrive at conclusions about gun-control?*

*Note – An almost universal tactic among people who hold positions based on emotion is to rationalize these opinions with carefully selected information that seems to support their position. However, these ex post facto rationalizations are quite different from deriving an opinion based on reason and evidence.

The only way I know of to detail this is to present a long list of facts and then show what conclusions are logically inevitable from them. Several whole books have been written about this, so I'll just hit a couple high-points:

• According to surveys of violent criminals, their greatest fear is encountering an armed victim. They commonly express that they aren't afraid of the police or prison, but their greatest fear is getting shot by their intended victim. They will therefore go to great lengths to avoid people they think may be armed.
• Related to the above - the violent crime rate dropped very significantly in every US state that implemented “concealed carry” laws. Even after controlling for any other conceivable confounding variable, the implementation of concealed carry resulted in dramatically lower violent crime.
• The murder rate was lower in the “wild west” during the 19^th century than it was in the cities where firearms were less common.
• During the 20^th century a person was far more likely to be killed by a government (usually their own) than by an individual act of violence.
• Overall violent crime almost always increases in countries that implement gun-bans.
• Bans on certain types of guns or magazines have not been shown to reduce violent crime.
• The great majority of the time a gun is used defensively, it isn't even fired (possibly as much as 98% - 99% of the time).

I could go on and on... If you are interested in the facts surrounding this topic, do some research. (And by research, I don't mean simply looking up talking points that you already agree with.)

It is my opinion that essentially all the data, and all logical analysis based on this data strongly argues against gun-control. I therefore assert that just about everyone who uses reason, logic, and data to derive their opinion on gun-control opposes it strongly. Please understand what I am saying – I am saying that people who use data to derive their opinion oppose gun-control. I am NOT saying that people who oppose gun-control have a lot of “facts” to support their position (they do, but that's not the argument). It's important to understand this distinction – the horse comes before the cart.

I mentioned before that those with an emotional position on gun-control usually try to rationalize their position with certain carefully selected “facts” that seems to support their opinion. For example, be very careful of anyone who tries to limit the conversation to only “gun violence” or “gun deaths”, because that indicates they are being very biased.

To explain why this is, follow this hypothetical. Let's imagine that 600 people a year are murdered with hammers (close the what occurs in the US). Let's further imagine that 300 people are killed each year with wooden-handled hammers, and 300 people are killed with plastic-handled hammers. Now assume that a movement started to ban plastic-handled “assault hammers”, and after a great deal of debate, plastic-handled “assault hammers” were banned.

Now imagine if a few years later there are 500 people killed with wooden-handled hammers and 150 people killed with the now-illegal plastic-handled “assault hammers”. Can the argument be made that the “assault hammer” death rate dropped by 50%? Actually it can, because it's true – the “assault hammer” death rate in my hypothetical example did drop by 50%. The problem is that this is a meaningless statistic (the overall hammer death rate in my example rose 8.3%).

Did “gun violence” or the “gun death rate” decline in some countries after a gun ban? Sure. Was the overall effect of the gun bans a very significant increase in overall violent crime? Absolutely.

Even in the case where the overall murder rate decreased after some gun-ban, how many more armed robberies, aggravated assaults, home invasions, and rapes are you willing to tolerate “if it saves just one life”?

In the 30+ years I've been involved with martial arts, guns, and shooting, I have heard a tremendous number of arguments in favor of gun-control, but I've never heard even one that was supported with evidence that could withstand scrutiny.

So back to my earlier question - Why do you think it's so difficult to change people's minds on the subject of gun-control?

Basically we have two main camps in the US – the pro gun-control side that has emotionally powerful arguments, and the anti gun-control side (or should I say pro-freedom side?) that has facts, logic, and history on their side.

Since the gun-control side mostly consists of people who are swayed by emotional arguments, they naturally use emotional arguments to try to win people over to their position. They get angry, hurt, and confused when confronted with people who are simply not swayed by emotional arguments.

Likewise, the pro-freedom side that opposes gun-control has a lot of people who use facts and logic to derive opinion, and they therefore use facts and logic to try to win people over to their position. These people also get angry and confused when confronted with people who are simply not swayed by logical or empirical arguments.

My advice to gun-control advocates – if you want to sway more people to your side, stop using emotional arguments. They don't work and make you look stupid. If you think that the facts support your position, then lay out your case in a logical and coherent way. Understand that many of “us” who disagree with you are familiar with the various tricks that can be used with biased samples or cherry-picked studies. However, one thing you may not appreciate is – if you are indeed correct, and can show a preponderance of evidence to that effect, you will get a lot of converts over to your side.

My advice to the pro-freedom side – if you want to sway more people to your (our) side, find a way to connect emotionally with those you want to convert. All the data and logic is out there and freely available, so just about anyone who can be swayed by these is already on our side. It's the crying mother whose child was just murdered, and those who are swayed by her tears that you need to reach – and beating these people over the head with facts and statistics just isn't going to work.

To have your own freedom, are you willing to allow freedom to others?

Are you a “conservative”? Are you a “libertarian”? Do you know the difference?

In a post last Autumn I speculated that ~80% of “gun guys” would describe themselves as conservative and about 20% would describe themselves as libertarian. I went on to suggest that most of those who would call themselves libertarians are in fact conservatives, and that maybe one or two percent of gun guys are actually libertarian (including yours truly).

(It should be obvious that essentially 0% of gun guys are “progressive” modern liberals.)

Thinking about this a little more, I'd say that it might be more like 60/40 for conservative/libertarian claims, and maybe 95%/5% for reality (a lot of conservatives seem to think they are libertarian, but it turns out they only want liberty for themselves while maintaining the ability to dictate to other people how they live their lives).

Recently, one very-high-profile firearms trainer posted a couple interesting videos on YouTube that touch very significantly on the whole conservative/libertarian issue. If you are interested in this topic, I encourage you to watch these:

Now as for drugs – there really isn't any rational debate. The “war on drugs” has been a spectacular failure, and the reasons for this failure are simple and obvious. Prohibition of an economically important commodity creates a large black market, which raises prices, funnels enormous amounts of money to criminal enterprises, and creates a great deal of violence surrounding the trade. The effects of prohibition can be summed up as: very little change in availability or consumption, a stripping of fundamental rights across the board for everyone, and greatly increased violence. There is simply no rational or moral argument that is consistent with known reality for the “war on drugs” to be maintained. In fact, it seems self-evident that the single most direct thing that could be done to drop the murder rate in the US dramatically would be to end this stupid ideologically driven “war”. The US has direct and recent experience with this during the alcohol prohibition days and the subsequent end of alcohol prohibition.

Everyone in the US is arguing about whether to limit firearm magazines to ten rounds – a spectacularly stupid idea that will obviously have no effect on violent crime... but if the war on drugs was simply ended, I'd bet that the number of homicides in the US would drop by 50% over five or ten years.

As for gay marriage, this issue can get a little trickier but usually only by people who are desperately trying to rationalize their position. I'm very much opposed to there being any such thing as the “government approved relationship” of marriage. So in that sense, I oppose ALL government-sanctioned marriage, including gay marriage. However, we don't live in that world. In this world, I don't see how you, or I, or anyone else has the right to forcibly dictate to other people what the nature of their relationships can or cannot be (as long as everyone involved gives informed consent).

These two issues are key in separating out the conservatives from the libertarians. For a libertarian such as myself, these issues are completely clear-cut. In fact, it's pretty appalling that there is even a conversation about them in what pretends to be a “free society”. The drug war is 100% evil, and I really couldn't care less if two people of the same sex want to enter into the contractual arrangement called marriage.

If you feel differently, and you feel you have the right to enforce your morals onto other people who disagree – how do you defend your position when other people want to enforce their morals on you by taking away your guns?