Two got it right

The only two people on the scene with the right approach to dealing with the Sandy Hook shooter were principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach, who, if the reports are accurate, rushed toward the shooter to try to stop him. Their efforts were not sufficient, as they died trying, but that is the kind of effort the situation required.

Of course it is also important that those who try to swarm a shooter go about it the right way. The approach needs to be as fast as possible, dodging from side to side like a football lineman to make one more difficult to hit, perhaps throwing things at the shooter along the way to distract him. It may also take more than two doing that.

It has been suggested that teachers should be armed, but that is not practical for such an unlikely threat. It is a mistake to prepare to depend on having a firearm that one will probably never need or not have when the time comes. A firearm can provide a false sense of security, and become a crutch. One must plan on doing without one, and if one has one available, use it as just another tool.

Metal detectors? One costs about $50,000. Armed guard? One would be about $40,000 a year.  For 100,000 public schools, that would be about $5 billion and $4 billion/year, all for a risk that is so small that it is practically zero, despite anecdotal horrors. Even providing a firearm to every school would run $100 million. What are you going to cut out to pay for it? Stop all the sports programs? Cut out civics or history? Larger class sizes? What?

And neither of these things would have stopped Adam Lanza who just shot his way in, or any similar shooters would would do the same. Resistance to that would take rebuilding every school into a fortress, and that would make if difficult for kids to get in and out or do any outside events like sports. You might as well turn all schools into residential military schools operated like prisons.

A suicidal mass shooter is not going to be deterred by risk of being killed by an armed defender, only by risk of being stopped before he can kill enough to make his point. He can shoot his way in and do that in the first two minutes, long before someone with a firearm can get close enough to make the shot. The response has to come from the first few people he encounters.

It has also been suggested that the mother, Nancy Lanza, failed in her duty to prevent access to firearms by a mentally impaired family member, or that mental health institutions failed to provide support for treatment of Adam Lanza, but the reports so far indicate Nancy was doing what she could and that Adam showed no signs of being dangerous to himself or others. Without such signs it would not have been a rational decision to commit scarce resources to institutionalizing Adam when there are so many others who show more signs of being dangerous. Institutional care for the potentially dangerous mentally ill could easily double the entire cost of Medicare.

It is difficult for mentally healthy people to understand those who are unhealthy, but for our own safety it is worth trying. Some commentators have suggested that Adam was making a "cry for help", or was feeling "out of control" and trying to gain control, but those explanations are inadequate.

Contrary to popular misconception, most mentally deranged persons not only know they are, but are intensely dissatisfied and frustrated by not being able to do anything to become normal. That frustration can become violent rage against their situation and all the people in it, who are blamed for not being able or willing to help them. If they could they would strike at God, but they strike at whoever is near instead.

The reports also indicate Adam was intensely averse to frequent random human interaction. He was "anti-social" in the purest sense. How this can develop was brought out by John B. Calhoun's rat experiments, in which rats developed pathological behavior from what Calhoun attributed to excessive "density", but which is more precisely the result of excessively frequent stressful encounters. Since all encounters with others are stressful to at least some degree, a low tolerance for such stress would make being thrust into a crowd of humans, such as at a school, a living hell. The natural tendency for caregivers of such individuals is to cause them to have even more contact with even more others, hoping they will adjust. In most cases that might work, but in others it is the opposite of what is needed. Many people with such a problem retreat to a remote location and live out their lives as hermits. But some can avenge themselves for being the way they are by returning to the scene of where they first became aware of their problem and venting their rage on the sources of their pain.

There is always a risk in trying to assess the psychology of a troubled individual from news reports, but these explanations may be helpful for other cases even if they don't apply to Adam Lanza.

The solution is to train people how to defend without firearms, using only themselves and whatever objects might be at hand. People should not be trained to run or hide, but to attack with whatever they've got, and swarm the assailant. Their advantage is in numbers, and they need to use that advantage to take the shooter down. Yes, a few might get killed trying, but if enough try the loss of life is likely to be minimized.

For more on this see

What to do in a mass shooting situation

 

Twelve election myths

The following are twelve important election myths involved in the 2012 election, with their Twitter hashtags so you can follow up on our account @Lex_Rex . Readers are encouraged to spread them widely, perhaps by retweeting them to your friends and followers:

#Electmyth1 "The next president can end unemployment." No he can't. The most government can do will take 30 years to pay off. No quick fixes

#Electmyth2 "Government deserves credit or blame for the current economy." Wrong. It is a parasite that does produce some but consumes more.

Beware giving credit to the rooster crowing for the rising of the sun. Government does not "run" the economy, but can break it. This is a kind of logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc, also called the Rooster Syndrome.

#Electmyth3 "We can grow fast enough to avoid the debt crash." Wrong. Debt is growing too fast for any plausible growth to overtake it.

#Electmyth4 "Printing money will reduce unemployment." Wrong for everyone but bankers. Will encourage investing in bonds more than in jobs.

#Electmyth5 "Government can always pay its debts by printing money." Not when people stop lending to it because the return can only be loss.

#Electmyth6 "Investors need lower taxes to create jobs." Wrong. They already have enough for that. But government borrowing sucks it all up.

#Electmyth7 "More government spending can create jobs." Except for R&D, not jobs that add to national wealth, but only cause overconsumption

#Electmyth8 "We can provide enough medical care for everyone." No. Medical care is a scarce resource that will be rationed in some way.

#Electmyth9 "Fiat currency is safe and better." No. It is debt backed by nothing. One great Ponzi scheme that must crash eventually.

#Electmyth10 "We can avoid a global crash." 30 years too late for that. Now we must prepare for coming out on the other side intact.

#Electmyth11 "It is always better to compromise to get something done than to insist on a position." Wrong. Sometimes a compromise is worse.

#Electmyth12 "There is a solution that is politically acceptable." Sometimes not. Debt problem has no politically acceptable solution.

Leaf Bucket

"Want to buy a leaf bucket?"

I turned to see who was speaking to me. It was a girl of perhaps seven visiting the little girls who are my neighbors.

"Leaf bucket?" I asked, not being sure that was what she had said. She showed me a leaf folded into a square container in her hand.

The girls explained they were selling "leaf buckets" that could be used for carrying things. One dollar for a small one, three dollars for a large one.

"And what is that one?" Pointing to the one in her hand.

"That's a medium one."

"So would that one be two dollars?"

"Yes", she said with a smile that no man could resist.

"I'll take that one," I said, and handed her the two dollars. They all smiled at their success, I suspect their first sale of the day.

I went inside and marveled at my new acquisition. What a concept! Simple, low cost, useful for carrying any kind of small treasure, from a diamond to a secret message. And only two dollars!

I placed the leaf bucket on my shelf for precious things. In time of course it will decay and disappear, but while it lasts it serves as a reminder of these beautiful and brilliant children who are the hope for the future, the entrepreneurs and industrial designers of the next generation.

All my efforts for the Constitution will not be lost with such children as these to succeed us.

Testifying to the Texas Legislature

The following are some practical pointers on testifying before committees of the Texas Legislature:

You don't need a suit, although I wear one. Business casual is common. Here are the key points:

1. Make sure you have the right hearing room and time. Arrive early. Troopers will direct you, there are maps available, and there are room guides posted at strategic places.
2. Make sure you have the right bill number.
3. When you get there fill in the one-page form stacked at the end of the room, then hand it to one of the clerks.
4. Outline a 3-minute speech, and answers to questions they might ask.
5. Try to show how it will cost nothing or even save money. They are averse to any new or additional spending.
6. Everyone gets to speak, even if the hearing goes on into the wee hours.
7. Try to file early. Witnesses are mostly taken in order of filing, unless they are a member or state official.
8. Make sure you know where the bathrooms are.
9. Best place to park is the Capitol Visitors Garage on the NE corner of 12th and San Jacinto. First two hours are free, and it is free if you stay past 6:00 PM because they stop collecting fees then.
10. Leave your gun and any suspicious items at home. There is a security screen, which you can bypass if you show a Concealed Handgun License (CHL).
11. Good place for lunch is Hickory Street Bar & Grill on the NW corner of 8th and Congress. There is also a cafeteria in the Capitol where witnesses and others can hang out.
12. Make sure you know the names of your reps and of the committee members, so you can address them by name.
13. Open your testimony with the ritual "Mr./Madame chairman, members of the committee, thank you for hearing me today. My name is [...]. I am [any credentials, title or affiliation]. I am here to speak for/against [or comment on] [the bill]."
14. Open with a summary of your position, make your arguments in a logical order, then close with a summary.
15. Have lesser arguments ready in case they let you speak more than 3 minutes, which they usually do.
16. This is a very civil environment. Everyone is very polite and friendly. Be humble but authoritative, and try to provide information they might not have learned from others. The members are willing to be educated, even if some are a little obtuse at times.
17. If you have a written statement, and especially if you are proposing amendments, have one copy for each member of the committee and one for the clerk. Hand them to the clerk as you step up to speak. You might also bring extra copies for other potential allies you may meet there, or for adversaries you might be able to turn to your position, or at least plant doubts about their own positions.
18. Might sit near the front, where the members can get used to seeing you. However, part of the front row is sometimes reserved for officials there to testify. Don't fidget in a distracting way.
19. When you get there you may find there are other related bills on which you may want to comment. That is okay but don't overdo it.
20. Try to make points that have not been made by others. This is mainly to inform, not to overwhelm. Repetition is best left to constituent letters.

What to do in a mass shooting situation

There are no simple rules for every mass shooting situation, but in most of the worst of the incidents we have seen in recent years, there is one response that almost anyone can make that is most likely to hold down the deaths and injuries:

Swarm the assailants!

That is of course contrary to the panicked instincts of most people in such situations. It is also the opposite of what the assailants expect and for which they are prepared. Yes, it could get one killed or injured, but people need to make the protection of others their priority. Better to die or suffer major injury than to spend the rest of your life agonizing over the possibility that you could have taken action that could have saved someone.

The wise try to anticipate how things can go wrong and prepare for how to deal with that. There are many such things, and no one can anticipate them all, but this is one for which people can prepare themselves mentally, by conceiving response plans, rehearsing them, and if the occasion arises, carrying out the plan. There isn't time in such situations to develop plans. One has to have one's plans ready.

Now some ways of swarming are better than others, and it helps if others join in doing so. Perhaps the best thing we as a society can do is to decide among ourselves that the first person aware of the danger yell out "Swarm him" or "Take him down" or something similar. Then do it immediately without waiting for others to join in. Assume you are going to have to take the lead.

If possible, try to secure the direction of the main weapon, such as by knocking his gun arm upward, to keep the firearm pointed in the safest direction, which is usually upward. Try to pin the arm or the weapon and take it out of his hand.

Needless to say, it also helps to have gotten some combat training in taking down assailants. Many martial arts training programs cover such techniques.

There is a two-step rule in combat: Distract, then attack. You want to divert the attention of the assailant from you before you reach him. There are many ways to do that. It could be a loud shout. It could be throwing something at him. In a restaurant that could be a plate thrown like a discus, and it doesn't matter if it still has some food on it.

Be aware of the possibility of there being other assailants you haven't seen yet. You may need to disarm the first assailant and use his weapon against his associates.

Many people call for more people to carry weapons to deal with such situations, and that can be important in some cases, but one has to train oneself for situations assuming one does not have a weapon, or that it cannot be drawn or safely used. A truly well-trained person does not rely on having or using a weapon, but prepares to act without one, because that is the situation in which one is most likely to find oneself. Habitually carrying can encourage a mindset of dependency on the use of a firearm. Too many police officers develop that mindset, and the result is more use of firearms than is appropriate, especially since most of them are not very skilled in the combat use of firearms. Even persons who regularly carry are likely not to have it when it is really needed. So plan for not having it.

It also helps to have the right mental attitude. I have long said, "No one can be truly free who has not said goodbye to life." Once one has done that one can face anything without fear, and focus on doing what has to be done, on doing the right thing, regardless of personal consequences.

See also:

• Defense
• Militia
• List of constitutional rights

The Decision in 2012

The critical problems that threaten our global economy and perhaps most of our lives are so complex that they are beyond the grasp of intuition, or even our best modeling efforts. We have been smart enough to create problems for ourselves we aren't smart enough to solve.

The good news is that the leaders of the major parties seem to be agreed that we are on a path that takes us off a cliff. The bad news is they differ greatly on on long we have and what we can do about it.

The Democrats, from the policies they support, seem to think we have more than 20 years, with enough time to use spending stimulus to grow us out of danger, even though what they propose would make the debt even more unsustainable.

The Republicans think we have at least 10 years, and can cut spending enough to make a soft landing.

This Libertarian thinks we may have less than two years, and that there is now no way to avoid catastrophe. About all we can do is prepare to recover from it. That involves such radical cuts that it will trigger collapse sooner, but make it a little less devastating. That is a tough thing to sell to voters who don't understand or know who to trust and are freaked.

The solution is not some middle position or compromise. That paradigm totally fails.

See "Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems" by Jay Forrester for a discussion of the inadequacy of intuition for making policy decisions.

A little hope is effective

A weapon in the armory of competent tyranny is presented in the new movie, Hunger Games, when President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland, explains to "gamemaker" Seneca Crane, played by Wes Bentley, why it is contrived that there be a winner in the contest to the death among 24 teenagers from 12 rebellious districts performed annually as both a spectacle for the population and as a tool of intimidation:

"Hope; it is the only thing stronger than fear. A little hope is effective, a lot of hope is dangerous. Spark is fine, as long as it's contained."

The ancient Romans made their circenses a centerpiece of public policy, along with free bread (panem -- also the name of the nation ruled by the "Capitol" in the movie). But they found that the spectacle of merely feeding people to lions, with no chance to win, became less popular than the gladiatorial contests, and that the gladiators wouldn't put on a good show unless they had a chance. Bullfights would not be as popular if the bull didn't have at least small odds of winning.

The book and the movie were inspired by those precedents, and stands as an allegory of a tool of governance that has been pervasive throughout history. Consider some of the ways the method is used in America today:

• Election contests between establishment pre-selected candidates that placate a potentially rebellious public into thinking their votes, and their campaign efforts, will make more of a difference than they will.
• Judicial cases between government and individuals in which the result is largely rigged, but which offers an occasional win for an individual to delude people into thinking their legal arguments are more effective, and that judicial remedies are more available, than they are, so people will go to court rather than resort to violence.
• Legislative debates that encourage hope that arguments might actually affect the ways statutes get passed.
• Public hearings on public policy decisions whereby people are encouraged to hope that their testimony might actually influence public policy.
• Public demonstrations, rallies, or marches that only demand officials do something without specifying what.
• Letters and petitions to public officials and the media that only demand officials do something without specifying what.
• Use of accredited law schools, state bars, and sanctions against lawyers, to keep them tame and unavailable to effectively pursue reform or competently represent the interests of clients when those conflict with the interests of the establishment, and exclusion of pro se litigants who challenge this farce.
• Demanding to testify before a grand jury when most grand juries are stacked, and won't be allowed to grant an indictment to private prosecutors who aren't controlled by the system.
• Demanding a jury trial when the more intelligent and conscientious candidates have been excluded, leaving only people prejudiced in favor of the prosecution, or misled about the law by the judge.
• Filing an "income tax return" on compensation for labor that every intelligent person knows is unconstitutional but may pretend is not, using rules that no one understands, not even IRS agents, and paying "taxes" that are only needed to hold down inflation so investors won't be hurt, in the hope that one can keep a low enough profile that one won't be capriciously singled out to he thrown into the government arena.
• Providing a "social security number" that no one is constitutionally required to have or present, to open bank accounts, get loans, rent apartments, or get jobs, to be used like the Nazis used a decree that all Jews wear a Star of David to make it easier to single them out for special treatment, in the hope that going along will somehow improve one's odds for escaping oppression.

The list could go on, and the reader may want to add some of his own.

The mantra and benediction in the movie was, "May the odds be ever in your favor." That is, of course, a patronizing pretense of caring when the contestants are being forced to fight to the death. The heroes, Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence, and Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, shatter that pretense when, as the final two survivors, they threaten to both commit suicide by eating poisonous "nightlock" berries, rather than try to kill one another, and the gamemaker decides to allow them both to win rather than let the last of the contestants die, but is punished for that decision by being forced to commit suicide himself using nightlock berries. Left unanswered is what would the "Capitol" do if all the enforcers just refused to enforce, or all the contestants just refused to kill one another, and if threatened with death, committed mass suicide. The contestants had surrendered to control by being willing to go along with the spectacle, and thereby enabled surrender by the people of the districts they represented. They were defeated by their inability to unite.

In the entertainment field, we increasingly have scripted spectacles like "professional wrestling" and "reality shows".  The best that can be said about them is that people aren't actually getting killed, but the movie suggests that step is perhaps not far off.

Peeta says it well: "Only I keep wishing I could think of a way to... to show the Capitol they don't own me. That I'm more than just a piece in their games."

Let us all find a way to do that.