In the aftermath of any mass shooting, there is an immediate fallout from the radical leftists in Washington to "do something about gun control." Conveniently, that narrative is strikingly absent during attacks that don't include firearms like the Lower Manhattan Truck Attack and is replaced with the narrative of "the acts of 1 Muslim don't represent all Muslims." I don't think I have to explain the reasoning behind the replacement narrative, so instead- I'll focus on the calls for gun control.
Why do politicians, who collectively know virtually nothing about the way firearms truly function, want to immediately act on gun control? Well, I suppose that each has their own warped motivations behind it, but I believe there is a collective reasoning. Anyone who randomly attacks others, albeit with a firearm or other tool(s), is evil. You can't legislate evil. If you could, we would only need one law: Don't do anything evil. Since that obviously won't work, we can't focus on the evil but rather on the tool that is used even if we only focus on the tool when it fits our corrupt narrative. It's not politically expedient to do nothing after a tragedy. Our sheepish constituents want to believe that someone more powerful than themselves is doing something, anything to help protect them. We look to our elected leaders and beg for them to do something to proctect the collective group in society.
What are the elected leaders going to do? Treat the sheep like adults and explain to them that evil is real and everyone is their own first responder?
That's not politcally expedient at all when your constituents aren't prepared to hear that whether they like it or not, evil chooses when and where the fight starts.
So instead, they treat the sheep like sheep. They tell them that they'll protect them by legislating the tools of the wolf instead of facing the reality that the wolf might have bad intentions for the sheep. They do what's politically expedient, and they tend to the flock instead of teaching the flock to fend for itself.
They take the position that they will handle the tough responsibility so that the sheep don't have to try to be responsible for themselves.
- Responsibility: the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization; the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something
- Response: a reaction to something; also the root word of Responsibility
- Responder: one who creates or issues a response
In the aftermath of the mass murder in Texas, liberals are calling for "just one more law" that they hope would have prevented the tragedy. In their ever-elusive hopes of "out legislating" evil, they are calling for additional legislation. In the midst of these calls are requests for laws that specify that "criminals couldn't possess automatic weapons." (Per usual- "automatic" is a term that liberals don't understand as we have people with virtually no concept of firearm functionality attempting to write legislation.) What they fail to realize is that criminals are already prevented from owning firearms of any kind. It's the equivalent of saying that "Terrorists aren't allowed to kill people with vehicles" isn't specific enough so they want "Terrorists aren't allowed to kill people with trucks" added to the legislative books. Asenine doesn't begin to cover it. Never mind that carrying a firearm into a gun free zone (church) is a misdemeanor or that murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder are all felonies. But please- tell me how just one more law would've been the one that he would've followed.
In this most recent event, the shooter (who will remain nameless, just as history should remember him) was convicted in Court Martial in 2012 for two counts of assault. He beat up his wife and intentionally fractured his 2 year old step-son's skull. He was sentenced to 12 months confinement, reduction in rank to E1, and a Bad Conduct Discharge from the military (specifically the Air Force). He had a history of abuse including citations for animal cruelty and was the named suspect in a rape case (though he wasn't eventually charged in that case). The conviction of assault against his wife and child qualify him as a prohibited person in regards to firearm ownership. Yet in 2016 and again in 2017, he wandered into an Academy Sports in San Antonio and bought a firearm each time. He passed the NICS background check each time. HOW? HE IS A PROHIBITED PERSON!
Simple- the Air Force never submitted his conviction to the NICS database system as required by the FBI. Through sheer government incompetence, he was able to circumvent existing gun laws prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing a firearm. As we have now learned, this self-proclaimed Atheist brought hundreds of rounds of ammunition, a rifle, body armor, and a handgun into a place of worship after a family dispute with his ex-mother-in-law. According to witnesses, he entered the small church she usually attended and announced "EVERYBODY DIES [expletive]!" and began shooting. He shot the camera/lights crew first. Then he systematically went down each row and shot people at will. He reportedly targeted people trying to use their cell phones and children. Among the victims was his ex-grandmother-in-law. At some point, he ended up outside still firing at the church. A neighbor, awoken from a nap by his daughter because of the shooting, grabbed his rifle and ran barefoot towards the church.
Stephen Willeford (pictured above with the glasses) is the name that should be remembered. The certified NRA Instructor risked his life to prevent the continued slaying of others. He saw that the shooter was wearing armor, and took cover behind a vehicle as the two exchanged gun fire. With his own AR-15, he was able to place two rounds on the killer and between the armor plates. This caused the nameless waste of life to get into a vehicle and flee. A passing truck driven by Johnnie Langendorff (pictured with the hat) was waived down by Willeford, and the two pursued the fleeing killer at speeds exceeding 90 miles per hour. Reportedly, the waste of skin fleeing the scene called his father and told him that he didn't believe he would survive because of two gunshot wounds he sustained in the previous fight (which were confirmed in the autopsy). As his car slowed to a stop, he chose to eat a bullet instead of facing off with any armed citizens who chose to act in the presence of evil. A perfect, cowardly ending to a life that should have been aborted while still in the womb.
Today's Random Rant is more about mindset and dedication to the craft of defending yourself and others. Today I want to rant about personal accountability and how we can take an honest assessment of ourselves as shooters.
First and foremost- this is a "big boy" exercise. You can't have weak feelings and give yourself an honest kick in the ass when you need it. Grow up. We need to be clear with ourselves about where we have deficiencies and learn how to train up in those areas. We need to be able to quantify/measure our performance and progress in order to track our improvements, and we need to be clear that we are responsible for our own training progress. Below, I'll give myself a review of this year of training for me.
I'll break down this rant into a few different points of potential failure, and I'll judge myself on each one. I would encourage you to do the same...
Training / Course Work
"If you're not training up, you're training down." "Failing to plan is planning to fail." "If you don't use it, you lose it."
I don't care which of these little sayings you use to get yourself motivated, but hear me on this- I am a big believer in training with other qualified instructors to obtain different views on any given topic. I take advanced courses with qualified instructors to push me in areas that I need to work on. I take basic courses with instructors to learn how they successfully convey topics and explanations to their students. I legitimately try to take the best from everything I can learn and apply it to my courses so that the people who learn from me are getting the best of what I have to offer. As many of you who have trained repeatedly with us know, our courses are constantly evolving... New equipment/resources, new explanations, new theories, new drills, new curriculum... I seek out better training so that I can offer better training.
On June 15, I was interviewed by Frank Mullis who runs the Podcast Grappling With Theology. The description of the interview is below:
On this episode of #GWT, we interview Richard Whirley of ShootingStrategies.com. Richard Discussed his background in Martial Arts and his MMA and Self-Defense theories. We discuss the Dos and Dont’s of with Firearms training. We also discuss what one needs to carry on them and in the car when traveling. We also talk about Force Multipliers and their use in an active shooter situation. We spend time discussing how churches are vulnerable to active shooters. We look at statistics of what happens when there is an active shooter with and without the presence of someone with a weapon present. When then discuss yesterday’s Active Shooter situations in Virginia and California. Questions from the DOJO discusses the upcoming Fight between Mayweather and McGregor and concealed weapons in NYC.