The Fallacy of Progressive Thought

The recent shooting in Tucson provides yet another opportunity to examine the dank, moldy recesses of the Progressive mind. In order to embark upon this counter-intuitive, frustrating journey, one must understand that Progressive belief, theory and policy is non-falsifiable. In other words, it cannot, by any means, human or Divine, be proved false. It is, in essence, as I pointed out in my recent PJM essay (available here), an article of faith, and any reality that does not comport with it is not reality at all and can and must be ignored. At the same time, Progressive belief, theory and policy can, upon the pronouncements of a contemporary maximum Progressive leader, change in an instant. Despite the fact that said change may be the exact opposite of the past absolute Progressive truth, a truth abandoned just seconds earlier, the Progressive mind sees no contradiction or hypocrisy, such qualities being reserved solely for Conservatives, particularly Sarah Palin.

Relieved of the necessity to analyze their beliefs, theories and policies through the application of experience, logic and reality, Progressives believe that any problem that exists has one of two--or both--causes:

(1) Conservative opposition, which hinders or prevents the full wonders that will be realized when Progressive policy inevitably establishes perfect social justice, equality, diversity and absolute peace.

(2) Insufficient Progressive policy has been applied, or it has not yet had sufficient time to work its miracles.

Before continuing, here are several links readers may wish to explore:

(1) For video illustrating the reality of the speed of magazine changes, go here.
(2) To quickly research the specifications of Glock handguns, go here.
(3) The website of economist/criminologist Dr. John R. Lott may be found here.
(4) For a more complete report on Rep. Peter King’s (R-NY) bill to establish a 1000 foot no gun zone surrounding certain officials, go here.

This understanding of Progressive thinking may be now applied to the renewed calls for gun control arising out of the Tucson massacre. One week on, we know considerably more about the motivations of the shooter, who would like to have his name prominently mentioned here. Not only is there no evidence that he was a conservative, the only political leanings ascribed to him by those who knew him were liberal. That said, it seems clear that his motivation was exclusively derangement--not mental illness that would prevent his punishment--and an impulse to do evil, yet his derangement was not so debilitating that it prevented him from, over a period of time, planning his attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) for the imagined slight of failing to properly answer his nonsensical question at a townhall meeting. The other deaths and injuries seem to be a matter of evil convenience. They were there, he had the time and the ammunition, so why not?

Many people, conservative and progressive, have suggested many causes and related factors in an attempt to understand what, when logic and common sense are employed, is not at all hard to understand: The shooter was deranged, violent and evil. He did what he wanted to do and he liked it.

Let’s consider some of those issues and the reality related to them. As we do, remember that wherever reality does not completely agree with Progressive belief, theory and policy, it will be disregarded by Progressives. Also keep in mind that I use “Progressive,” “Leftist,” and “Liberal” interchangeably because Leftists and Liberals, reading the results of polls that invariably indicate that most of the American public have little regard for those terms and all relating to them, have adopted “Progressive” in a failed attempt at re-branding.

NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL PREVENT SIMILAR FUTURE ATTACKS. Consider that every policy now being proposed (they’re all retreads of past failed policies) must, by the most basic understanding of human nature, fail. All such policies are rendered useless before they are ever sent to paper, because all gun control laws are obeyed only by the law abiding who are no threat to anyone. Are we to believe that a criminal planning mass murder will be deterred by the potential violation of any lesser law? Will the killer, armed and prepared, ready to attack a school, see a “gun-free school zone” sign, and chastened by the thought of violating such an awesome recitation of the law, simply go home? To purchase a gun, the buyer must complete federal form 4473 which asks a number of questions. One wrong answer and the dealer may not sell a gun to that buyer. Among the questions is whether the buyer is a drug addict or unlawful user of drugs. The shooter was clearly a chronic drug abuser, yet obviously lied--broke a federal law--in order to buy the gun. Yet, Progressives ignore this most basic understanding of human nature.

THE SHOOTER WAS MENTALLY ILL, YET WAS ABLE TO LEGALLY BUY A GUN. We now know that the shooter had been displaying odd, anti-social behavior for many years and had recent contacts with various law enforcement agencies, yet was completely capable of behaving in a rational manner when he had those contacts. He was, for example, stopped by a wildlife officer three hours before the shooting for running a stop sign. There is no doubt that the involuntary commitment laws of some states can be made more effective, but unless we wish to give the police the power to involuntarily commit people who are merely odd, eccentric, or who utter inappropriate, even anti-social comments at the wrong places and times, this issue must be approached with the utmost caution.

THE SHOOTER HAD BEEN DENIED MILITARY SERVICE, YET WAS ABLE TO LEGALLY BUY A GUN. People are denied military service every day for a variety of reasons including flat feet, less than perfect vision, a wide variety of minor physical issues, low military aptitude test scores, or, as is reportedly the case with the killer, failing a drug test. Unless we are truly willing to deny fundamental rights to such people, including those who have, upon occasion in their youth, used drugs, this is a non-issue.

WHEN THE WILDLIFE OFFICER STOPPED HIM, HE COULD HAVE SEARCHED HIS CAR, FOUND THE GUN, AND PREVENTED THE SHOOTINGS. Any police officer making a traffic stop can search a driver or his car only if he has probable cause. Probable cause is observations, circumstances, or facts that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that a crime has been committed and a specific person has committed it. Observing only a stop sign violation, a police officer has no reason or legal justification to search the driver or the vehicle, and even then, would usually not have the power to search a trunk if the driver could not easily access it from the driver’s seat. In this case, considering what is known about that stop, there was no probable cause to do more than issue a ticket for the observed traffic violation. Even if a search turned up the gun, it was not illegal for the shooter to possess or transport it.

WE MUST REINSTITUTE KEY FEATURES OF THE CLINTON GUN BAN SUCH AS BANNING “ASSAULT WEAPONS” AND LIMITING MAGAZINE CAPACITY. In effect from 1994-2004, the ban accomplished, in terms of crime prevention or reduction, nothing at all. It succeeded only in inconveniencing honest gun owners. The bill sought to ban or regulate “assault weapons,” something which does not actually exist except in the minds of gun banners who consider any firearm they don’t like--particularly those with a military, utilitarian appearance--to be “assault weapons.” The weapons they claimed were the favorites of criminals such as common semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 family, were involved in so few crimes as to be virtually statistically negligible, a fact that did not change during the decade the law was in force. Likewise, limiting the magazines of semiautomatic handguns to 10 rounds accomplished nothing but annoying and inconveniencing the law abiding. The effects of the law were so obvious that even the BATFE admitted that it could not support the Brady Campaign’s claims that the ban caused a decline in violent crime. Even the always anti-gun Centers for Disease Control admitted that there was not enough evidence to support anti-gun preferences. Many anti-gun groups did, stuck in Progressive thinking, suggest that it was--after a decade--too soon for the law to work its progressive wonders. Democrat politicians, having seen the electoral effect of supporting such idiotic, anti-freedom measures on their ranks, were quick to watch the ban slip beneath the waves for the final time.

THE GLOCK 19 IS A UNIQUELY DEADLY WEAPON, DESIGNED ONLY FOR KILLING LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. The Glock 19 was designed to be a somewhat smaller version of Glock’s full-sized, successful model 17 pistol which is commonly carried by uniformed police officers. With a magazine capacity of 15 rounds of 9mm ammunition, it is in the middle of the capacity range of Glock pistols with the 19 round G17 at the top and the 10 round G26 at the bottom. Ironically, the G26, which is much smaller and more easily concealable than the G19, was designed during the Clinton Gun Ban around 10 round magazines and has been very successful since. The G19 is among the most popular and common self defense handguns available today. The 9mm round the G19 fires, in continuous use for more than a century, is in the middle of the effectiveness range for defensive handgun cartridges and is currently the most common semiautomatic handgun round. The Glock 19, like all Glocks, was designed to be a reliable, accurate handgun useful for self defense and a variety of other legitimate purposes. It has no uniquely dangerous capacities or features that distinguish it from similar handguns marketed by other manufacturers. Anyone who characterizes the G19 otherwise is uninformed or is trying to misinform the public.

SINCE THE KILLER USED A MAGAZINE WITH A CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 30 ROUNDS, ALL MAGAZINES MUST BE RESTRICTED TO 10 ROUNDS. This suggestion reveals a profound lack of knowledge of firearm ability and use. While it is undeniably true that a large capacity magazine can hold, and potentially allow one to fire more rounds in a shorter time than a smaller capacity magazine, even for untrained shooters, the time difference involved is negligible. The Tucson killer reportedly fired 31 rounds, yet the Glock 19 has a normal magazine capacity of 15 rounds (+ one in the chamber for a total of 16), and can fire thirty one--which requires one magazine change--in only one to six (at the absolute most) seconds more. Visit Bob’s post with video that clearly illustrates this issue at the link at the beginning of the article. One must weigh the advantages to the honest and innocent. Larger capacity magazines provide significant advantages to the honest--particularly women--who sometimes find themselves facing multiple attackers. They are also a great training aid on the range. Because shooters don’t have to constantly stop to reload low capacity magazines, their training can be less tiring and more effective. Despite many researcher attempts to support anti-gun theories, there is no evidence whatsoever that limiting magazine capacity has any effect on limiting the number of victims in mass shootings, or in reducing crime.

BANNING CONCEALED CARRY WILL HELP. THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE PERSON ON THE SCENE OF THE TUCSON SHOOTING CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON, AND IT DIDN’T HELP. Joseph Zamudio, 24, who was carrying a concealed handgun, was one of several people who helped to subdue the shooter when his handgun malfunctioned on its second magazine. Zamudio’s gun was not a factor because he was in a nearby store when the shooting began. By the time he arrived to help, the killer’s handgun had malfunctioned and had been taken away from him, and correctly realizing that there was no need to draw or use his own weapon, he helped to restrain the killer. The point is that concealed carry is effective in two primary ways: It actually reduces violent crime in states that allow it, and it is the only truly effective means of immediately stopping--even intercepting--violent attacks.

The research of Dr. John Lott has been often attacked by anti-gun groups, but has never been refuted. Visit his website via the link at the beginning of the article. Those states which have passed concealed carry provisions have uniformly experienced reduced rates of violent crime. This is so because every criminal knows that they can’t know who is carrying a concealed weapon, and must assume that everyone they meet might be. In my long police career, I learned that criminals fear--and avoid--the potentially armed citizen far more than the police because, unlike the police, they are unpredictable. Dr. Lott is not the only researcher who has found this effect. In fact, since the Heller decision, violent crime in the District of Columbia has dropped, despite that fact that the DC government is doing all that it can to continue to obstruct lawful ownership of handguns. Criminals are wisely assuming that more and more of their potential victims may be armed.

Concealed carry is also effective at the scene of violent crimes, but only if the person carrying a handgun is actually present just before or at the initiation of the attack, as Zamudio was not. Had Zamudio--or another person similarly armed and prepared--been present, they might well have stopped the killer before he fired a single round, or at the very least, have significantly limited the volume of his fire. In armed encounters, seconds count and the Police--who have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen--are, at best, minutes away. Concluding that concealed carry is ineffective because someone who was not actually present during the event did not stop it is not, to say the least, a logical or rational conclusion.

GUN FREE ZONES MUST BE ESTABLISHED AROUND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is apparently having a Progressive moment. He is planning to introduce a bill that would establish a 1000 foot gun free zone around members of Congress. Those interested in the full story should visit the related initial link. All available evidence clearly indicates that gun free zones are as much a predictably obvious failure as they are an obvious danger. Almost all of the mass shootings of recent years have taken place in gun free zones such as schools. The reason is obvious: Killers can expect their victims to be unarmed, because honest people obey the law, even laws that could mean their death if attacked. Killers also know that they will almost certainly be able to kill many before the police can hope to intervene. Conversely, dishonest people do not obey gun free zone laws any more than the multitude of other laws they break. This is true because they are criminals, because they commit crimes. I know that I sound as if I am talking to seven year olds, but in terms of accepting logic in this matter, Progressives may not have reached that mental age.

Should Rep. King be successful in his desires, he will be establishing a nightmare for those who enforce the law and for those who obey it. One thousand feet is a distance greater than three football fields. Even on a clear day, with binoculars and no intervening obstructions, the average person would be hard pressed to confirm that a congressperson was within 1000 feet of them, and this assumes that every citizen would be constantly on the lookout for congressmen to avoid breaking this particular law. Merely driving past a venue where a congressman was speaking indoors would render citizens utterly unaware of their presence instant federal felons. A citizen standing 1005 feet from a congressman would become instantly criminally liable if the congressman took two steps in their direction. Perhaps most ironically, the law would ensure that if an armed criminal broke just one more law and approached a congressman with evil intent, no honest citizen would be able to stop them. The net effect of the law Rep. King proposes would be not only to criminalize honest citizens who are making no affirmative act toward lawbreaking, and would actually make congresspersons less safe in the case of an actual attack. Surely Rep. King would declare that it is not the intention of the law to criminalize the law abiding as I have suggested. My response would simply be: “I’m glad to hear it. So don’t pass the law.”

Doubly ironically, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) wants to allow congresspersons to carry concealed handguns in DC and on the House floor. Reportedly, many more than one might imagine already do. Of course, he is not yet suggesting that this privilege be extended to actual, common residents of the District, who, through no fault of their own do not happen to be congresspersons, just to congresspersons who are, apparently far more than common folk--by the virtue of being congresspersons--deserving of the ability and means to protect their lives. To be fair, Gohmert apparently has said that congresspersons should not get "special privileges." Still, that's not quite the same as working to extend the same rights to everyone.

To be completely fair, Rep. Gohmert’s idea is reasonable and based in reality. There is an old saying that a Conservative is a Progressive who has been robbed at gunpoint. It is tragic that the injuries and deaths suffered by countless common citizens have apparently meant so little to so many of our congressmen. It took the near-mortal wounding of one of their own to awaken them to the reality that evil exists and may work its will on anyone--congressman or elementary school teacher on her way home--at any time. This is a worthy realization, if it leads them to avoid hasty, ill-conceived laws that will harass and annoy only the law abiding, while enacting laws that will support and extend freedom and the right of every law abiding person to self-defense.

The examples I’ve provided indicate rather clearly the illogic and ineffectiveness of the various proposals and concerns raised by Progressives (and a few honest if confused congressmen). May I be so bold as to suggest that my contention about the nature of their thinking is supported by their continuing support for measures that have always been a failure and always will be a failure? One may, of course, observe that longing for such restrictions on liberty is not only a result of faulty thinking, but is clearly indicative of an overwhelming desire for power over the lives of others. This too is a fundamental characteristic of Progressive thought, but that’s a topic for another time.