"When choosing between two evils, choose neither" An examination of the cliche

Recently this bit of wisdom has been circulating, especially among many thoughtful and considerate people I count as friends: "When faced with two evils, choose neither."

This cliche is used to demonstrate that the speaker/ writer has determined that both candidates represent "evil" choices, and therefore neither can be an option.

Some choose to support a third party candidate.

Others will not vote.

This is a significant problem as it ensures the person will have no influence on the final election tally, resulting in a de facto vote for whoever eventually wins.

Are we really faced with two "evils?"

Origins of a Cliche

The phrase, "When face with two evils, choose neither" has been attributed to Charles Spurgeon, but the concept (and likely the phrase) long preceded the great 19th century preacher.

"I am upon the horns of a dilemma!"

Homer wrote about Odysseus' choice to pass by Scylla and lose a few sailors, or risk the loss of his ship in the whirlpool. He was "caught between a rock and a hard place," or "on the horns of a dilemma."

The meaning is the same -- there is no "best" choice when both seem to result in harm.

Thus the sentiment" "Choose neither" seems reasonable, thoughtful, and even moral.

However -- as is the case with most cliches -- a second thought will reveal that in politics, in war, in business, and every other human endeavor, it's not how life works.

Cold Reality

General George S. Patton

First, we do not know all the consequences of any action, large or small. We can surmise, guess, intuit, reason, and hope, but as the ever-quotable General George Patton said, "No plan survives first contact."

Second, all choices mingle some degree of "evil" and "good." That's the nature of existence in a fallen world. We may choose to do good and great harm results.

Even the law recognizes this and has  provisions for unintended consequences. The typical philosophy 101 scenario places you by a pond in Linz, Austria in 1895. You see a boy wading, then disappear under the water, clearly in distress. Most moral people would rescue the 5 year old. 50 years later you learn the boy you saved is named Adolph Hitler. The professor asks, "Did you do the right thing?" and Freshman tortured logic ensues.

Both are flawed. Aren't you?

Third, neither candidate can be described as "pure evil." Each has different approaches to life, proscriptions for the future, and expectations about people, and government. I do not doubt the sincerity of either. I question the judgement of both Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton on a number of topics. But each represents the population from which he and she are drawn, and we're not exactly blooming with purity.

Finally, the idea that a vote for a third party will "send a message" or "vote my conscience" sounds fine in theory, but is absolutely pointless in reality.

"Those Samaritans..."

A theoretical approach makes me feel bad about poverty, while not taking the time to actually spend money or time. That's fine for Stoics, but not appropriate for Christians. We are commanded to be salt and light and to participate in the muddy day to day.

No one takes a theoretical approach to work (or will admit it). There are always shady practices, people, methods, and assumptions swirling in any workplace. We Christians do the best we can within the system we have and either improve it by our very presence or leave it (We're very utilitarian when it comes to income because money is where reality trumps  baseless hope).

Part of that day-to-day "mud" is politics. Like it or not we have a representative republic that enables citizens to vote and thereby express our agreement or disagreement with a particular person or platform.

Face the Facts

We live in a two party system. If you think your protest vote will spawn some huge sea change, I suggest you consider the campaigns of Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Eugene Debs, Bob Lafollet, or even Teddy Roosevelt of the famously unknown Bull Moose party.

It's a feel good vote that does nothing except marginalize your participation.

Therefore I conclude the most reasonable approach is to choose one of the two candidates, realize we live in a fallen world, and pray for the day when the Lord Himself will assume the throne and show us how polity should work.

Yeah, that didn't work so well...

Why is it always the NRA's fault?

Obama, Hillary, and the rest will soon turn the Dallas BLM shootings as a Trump and NRA issue. Before that predictable sewage flows, consider this:

No member of the NRA has ever committed a mass shooting.
Not one.
Ever.

In fact you are far less likely to be the victim of a crime committed by an NRA member than many highly regarded groups.

Consider just a few recent gems of humanity:

• Omar Mateen (Orlando nightclub) is a registered Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter
• Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood) is a reg­istered Democrat
• Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard) Obama supporter
• Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech) Wrote hate mail to President Bush, registered Democrat.
• James Holmes (Aurora, CO Theater) is a registered Democrat, worked on the Obama campaign, hated Christians
• Jared Lee Loughner (Tuscon, AZ) is a registered Democrat
• Dzhorak Tsarnaev (Boston marathon) is a registered Democrat, supported Obama for President

A whole lot of citizens committed to firearms safety, education, training, and the Second Amendment

During the Democratic Presidential Debate in Oct 2015 -- answering the question "What enemies are you most proud of?" -- Hillary Clinton said:

"Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians. Probably the Republicans."

So she lists:

1. The NRA, an association of over 5 million law abiding Americans committed to a sport, hobby and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
2. "Health insurance companies" that have kept people from being financially destroyed in the event of illness or accident (and who made Obamacare possible)
3. "Drug companies" that have developed tens of thousands of life saving and extending vaccines, pain relievers, and even cures.
4. "The Republicans," who are the majority in Congress and in state assemblies and governorships.

Ahead of

• "The Iranians" -- who the Obama administration just struck a deal with to ensure the acquisition of nuclear weapons AND resurgence of their economy.
• ISIS, which continues to rampage and enslave, rape, murder, torture, and behead.
• Islamic terrorists (any of them).
• Drug lords
• Drug cartels
• Slaveholders

Wow... you just can't make this stuff up....

"Assault Rifles" and the Truth

So the People Who Care have determined it wasn't an Islamic madman who killed 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando.

It was an "Assault rifle."

Since no one knows exactly what that is, we'll assume an "Assault rifle" is a rifle capable of shooting a continuous stream of projectiles ("automatic") and is used by military forces.

Those Mean Black Guns

Military M-16

The usual bogies are the "AK-47" and the "AR-15."

AK-47s are an ancient Russian design long-since surpassed in accuracy, capacity, longevity, and all the other -ities.

Ak-47

In the last 80 years, legally registered machine guns have accounted for TWO deaths.

Two.

In 80 years.

Not one person has been killed by an AK-47 in the United States.

Automatic weapons are typically collectors items, expensive to shoot, and restricted by highly regulated and expensive fees for transfer.

"But what about the AR...?"

The AR-15 looks like the military M16, but is NOT an "Assault rifle."

The military M16 has a selector switch that enables Single Shot, 3 round burst, and Automatic fire.

The AR-15 is a single shot firearm.

AR-15s have become popular as many of us were issued M16s in the military. We know it, appreciate its ergonomics, and like shooting something that is familiar.

The M16 was the product of millions of dollars of R&D on the initial design. The rifle was refined with variants after feedback from tens of thousands of soldiers who have carried them all over the world.

Like the M-16, the AR-15 platform is very customizable. There's an entire industry devoted to AR platform upgrades and add-ons. Many hobbies thrive on the quest of the hobbyist to revise and improve his or her boat, bike, plane, jet ski, skateboard, car, skis, scooter, train set, interior decor, cooking utensils.....

"They're only meant for killing..."

Most (not all) AR models fire the .223 or 5.56 NATO cartridge. It is no more "powerful" than any other hunting round. Few knowledgeable riflemen would describe a rifle as more or less "powerful," anyway. All rifle rounds are a compromise between weight, trajectory, expansion, speed, ease of manufacture, material availability, etc. "Power" is usually the ad hoc assessment tossed out by amateurs.

AR-15 shoots a .223. A popular hunting round is the .30-06

Some states require a minimum caliber to hunt big game, as the smaller calibers -- such as the .223 -- are insufficient to humanely harvest elk, deer, caribou, moose, bear, and mountain goats.

The Military choose the 5.56/.223 as it was small and light enough to permit soldiers to carry more rounds then the WW2 era .30-06.

Some have argued that the 5.56 is intentionally less "powerful" as a wounded soldier removes two enemy fighters from the battlefield -- the wounded and the one caring for the wounded.

Why do civilians need military rifles anyway?

Notice the .30-06 round in the image above?

It was the primary round used by US military force since World War Two.

Guess what all those soldiers used for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense after the war?

Yep -- the .30-06.

Why?

They were used to it. People like what they're used to.

The round worked, factories could crank out many rounds cheaply (keeping costs low), and the caliber became a standard by which all others were assessed.

So the .30-06 was the most popular rifle round for several decades.

Doesn't AR mean "Army Rifle" or Automatic Rifle?"

No.

The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle: the company that designed the original in 1957: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite

Finally...

...even the New York Times had to admit there's an "Assault weapons myth.

Better Shooting

There really is no "secret" to accurate, rapid shooting.

While there are a few prodigies like Jerry Miculek who can shoot a wheelgun full auto, most of us will never equal this level:

Yet, even non-prodigies can improve and become competent, fast, and accurate shooters through regular, focused, and deliberate practice.

Shooting well (placing bullets exactly where you intend each to go) is a great feeling.

The Basics

The shooting basics are: Grip, Sight Picture, Trigger Manipulation, and Recoil Control.

That's it.

You have to practice each and every component of a successful firing sequence to actually improve the overall outcome.

So -- how do we do that?

First, break the sequence down to the smallest parts:

1. Draw: The entirety of the motion of seizing the firearm and moving it from carried position to fire position as efficiently as possible, with the least possible chance of unintentional discharge, snag, delay, or fumble.
2. Grip: A repeatable, firm  and controlled grasp of the firearm so that the muzzle points towards the target, controls recoil, permits an aggressive yet nimble posture, while enabling manipulation of the trigger, safety, and any other mechanisms (lasers, lights).
3. Position: A body posture that enables a firm grip and sight picture while permitting nimble and rapid movement forward, back, to either side, or down.
4. Sight picture: The clear alignment of the bore axis with the front sight such that a round will strike the intended target.
5. Trigger press: The controlled movement of the trigger such that the sight picture is undisturbed throughout the firing cycle (press -- bang -- recoil -- return).
6. Recovery: The control of the firearm immediately after a shot is fired to enable a second shot on the same target in the shortest time possible.
7. Rest: A body posture that maintains positive control of the firearm and muzzle alignment while enabling recovery from a firing sequence.

Second, practice each one of those steps.

You do not need to practice each in sequence. For example, you can practice draw one day, focusing on placing your hand on the grip, pulling the firearm form the holster, and moving into firing position.

Don't worry about sight picture, trigger press, recoil -- just practice the draw.

Practice doesn't need to be on the range. in fact it's better if you don't.

The "Secret": Dry Fire

Chris Sajnog, a former US Navy SEAL, considers dry-fire the foundation of better shooting. I heartily recommend his book, How to Shoot Like a Navy SEAL.

Dry fire is an excellent way to practice the basics in a safe, inexpensive, yet ultimately productive way.

How?

Set up targets in the basement or garage.

Make that area a NO AMMO zone.

Clear when you enter, clear BEFORE you pull the trigger.

Work on draw -- SLOWLY -- then position -- SLOWLY.

Hold the position. Work on sight picture. Work the trigger (squeeze, pull, press -- whatever the word du jour is...)

Go back to rest position.

Reset if you're using a striker. DA/SA work on DA pull only this first week.

Recover, then repeat.

STOP when you lose interest or cannot concentrate.

Command yourself to do that 15 minutes every day for at LEAST a week before going back to the range.

Range Time

While it defies every shooter's impulse, limit yourself to a box of ammo (50 rounds) for a few range session.

(If you just blast away you will re-institute bad habits. Do you want to get better or just blast ammo? There is a huge difference in approach!)

Leave the range without judgement. You're not there to hit bullseyes -- you're there to associate your perfect dry fire practice with the full experience (sight, press, bang, move, return to sight).

Then another week of dry fire.

I guarantee improvement (IF you do it).

It worked for me.

How Should the Church Handle Threats?

I haven't posted as frequently as I've been working on a few long-form posts. One that has absorbed most of my time is an analysis of threats to the church and what churches can -- and should do in response.

A Church

There has been a significant shift in public perception of Christianity, Christian ministry, and churches. Various scandals have tarnished the reputation of an institution once hailed as the bulwark of American civilization.

To an ever-increasing portion of the North American and European populace, church is a club some less-than-enlightened people belong to, with a questionable or even sordid past (few make any distinctions between the crusades, child abuse, religious wars, ethnic cleansing...)

Is this a "hate crime"?

While they may concede some benefits, they just don't get it, and wonder why some people would constrain the rights of others, or insist on certain behaviors, or expect more than tacit assent to deeply troubling assertions ("There's only one way to God?")

Add to this mix an ever-virulent strain of aggressive anti-theism: the New Atheists, satanists, Flying Spaghetti Monster snarks, and technological superiors advocating The Singularity.

Floating inside this Sargasso Sea of muddled thought are a few real whack jobs looking for a cause:

• Man threatens Richmond Church
• Man Threatens Georgia Church
• Man Disrupts, Threatens to Bomb Church in Daytona Beach
• Man Threatens Fort Collins Churches: "Will be Destroyed"
• Man Kills one at Atlanta Mega-Church

Consider this from Christianity Today:

Amid national debate over gun control reform, new data from church violence researcher Carl Chinn shows that 75 deaths from attacks at faith-based organizations occurred in 2012–a 36 percent increase over the previous year.

Chinn's tally of 135 "deadly force incidents" (DFIs) in 2012 brings the total number of DFIs to 638 since Chinn first began recording them in 1999. Guns were used in 389 (58%) of incidents. According to Chinn's website, the data "includes abductions, attacks, suspicious deaths, suicides and deadly force intervention/protection." Attacks prompted by domestic violence spillover, personal conflict, and robbery account for over half of all reported DFIs.

Oh really?
Did you hear the one about Mohammed, a donkey, and a goat?

Stir in the worldwide call to violent militant Islam, and it doesn't take an intelligence analyst to recognize the problem.


We may think we live in quiet places where bad stuff happens "somewhere else" but there is no such place.

Just ask the residents of King Salmon, AK, Harrisburg, PA, Little Rock, AR, Garland, TX, San Bernadino, CA, Boston, MA, Wichita, KS,  and Toledo, OH.

Uh, Okay. So....?

Such Thoughtful People...

Church members expect churches to be safe places -- an oasis of peace in an otherwise unpredictable and often violent world.

That's a bit of a false hope, as every church has internal tensions and issues due to interpersonal conflicts, resentments, or even doctrinal clashes.

Christian leaders need to acknowledge there are threats to the church that are not merely doctrinal or practical.

Wise leadership cares for the flock by continually assessing potential threats and adequately responding.

Since adequate response must be prepared beforehand, it is essential we talk about this stuff before it happens. Defensive postures are always reactive, and the initiative is held by the attacker.

We need to reduce the time between Assess and Act, and that can only be done through practiced motions that have been been prepared beforehand.

An Army of Benighted Souls... God help us!

The essay is long -- but will be worth it. Please check back!

___________________________________________________

Note on Jim Jones: By the early 1970s, Jones began deriding traditional Christianity as "fly away religion", rejecting the Bible as being a tool to oppress women and non-whites, and denouncing a "Sky God" who was no God at all. In one sermon, Jones said that, "You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!"

Why New Shooters Give Up

Shooting is similar to other skill-based hobbies -- such as golf, bowling, flying, and archery -- in that it is much harder to master than anyone admits.

Many guns sit unused after the initial enthusiasm wears off and there's no evidence of improvement.

The cycle is predictable:

1. Buy a new gun
2. Learn all about it
3. Finally get to the range
4. Set up target at 25 yards (like everyone else)
5. Scatter a few hits, send most bullets somewhere into the backstop
6. Leave, happy to have finally shot, a bit disappointed that the accuracy was so poor

"I'm bored with this...."

Repeat steps 4-6 until the novelty wears off and other interests take over.

"Good riddance to bad rubbish, I says..."

When asked "You ever going back to the range?" the response is usually, "Yeah, I need to get out there..."

The old-timers keep shooting, the new person drops off, and the shooting sports lose another enthusiast.

Why?

There are many reasons people drop a hobby, but I'll propose the a common reason is no sense of improvement.

After all, it's pretty easy to assess improvement target shooting -- you either get more holes inside the ring or you don't.

If you spend several hundred dollars on equipment, targets, range fees, and ammunition you expect to improve.

Sadly, the new shooter "practices" a few times yet sees very little improvement.

Wow...

Since the assumption is every American is a Natural Born Marksman the new shooter is embarrassed to shoot with others. He/she does not join a group or league, avoids busy range times, and refuses to ask for help as it is an admission of failure, or at least weakness ("Who would I ask? How should I ask?").

Isolation makes the sport even less attractive.

So the gun gets put away, the gear gathers dust, and we lose one more potential trained and armed civilian defender.

How to Fix the Problem

First, we have to stop claiming that "shooting is easy!"

While the fundamentals are certainly simple and readily learned, it takes a lifetime to master consistency, speed, and accuracy.

Shooting is a complex sequence of actions that all have to be accomplished well to get a good result.

If you've been shooting long enough you forget how hard it is to do all the required actions -- it's become instinctual.

But even the best shooters fight mood, stress, lack of focus, tiredness, distractions, that conspire to widen groups or cause a flyer.

So let's admit shooting well -- defined as "Shooting accurately at the maximum effective range of the firearm within a set time frame" -- is a skill to be mastered over time, and that the mastery of the skill is its own reward.

Tight groups at distance reflect the skill mastered, but are not the ultimate end. The value of any hobby is the camaraderie of like minded people, the challenges and new vistas it opens, and the sense of progress and accomplishment it provides.

If it was just about tight groups we could set up a gun in a vise and blast away at a target 5' away.

Second, let's allow people to move up gradually.

We all love new gear. When a new person starts asking about guns we're quick to help sell the latest and greatest.

But perhaps what he or she needs is a .22 auto pistol such as the Browning Buckmark or Ruger SR 22.

Sure, it's heavy, not concealable, doesn't sport a Picatinny rail, and shoots a puny rimfire round.

But the new shooter won't flinch at recoil, won't be subject to painfully loud noise, and won't burn $50 worth of ammo every trip to the range.

We should also reduce the tendency to blather about arcane trivia to prove how much we know. Sure, you just finished conducting ballistic gel test for all .357 SIG factory ammo available for sale in North America, but does the new guy really understand -- or even care?

Squelch the urge, simplify the vocabulary, avoid jargon, and let them feel smart about deciding to shoot a gun.

Here's a short post about "Training Guns" that expands on this point.

For more, check out "Which Gun? Part One" and Part Two

Third, we need to take a long term approach to shooting. It's a lifelong skill with a wide variety of applications. Often new people have very narrow or even warped views of what guns are and what they can do.

What I THINK I will be doing at the range....

Often disappointment sets in when the reality doesn't quite match the movie playing in the mind.

That's fine and normal.

Our job is to help the folks who want to get past that.

Some don't -- and we can't change that either.



Fourth (and finally), we need to be able to move form novelty to training and skills acquisition with the new shooter.

... what it ACTUALLY looks like.

Novelty wears off. Sure, it's fun to expose a new person to firearms and let them see how much "fun" it can be.

But this is a recruiting event, a movie trailer, a free sample at Costco.

IF they express interest in continuing, it's time to lay out a plan that demonstrates that the cotton candy phase is over.

If they decide, "You know what? I really don't want to invest more in this..."  That's fine.

You at least helped reduce the anti-gun phobia of one person.

But most adults (and even mature adolescents) will appreciate a mature, methodical approach and buy-in to the acquisition of a simple yet ever-challenging skill.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a subsequent post we'll explore how flight training can offer some important lessons to those interested or currently teaching new shooters.

The Lifecycle of "The Truth"

Some scientists make claims.

A few celebrities make the claims a cause.

Media reports on The Truth.

The chattering class endorses The Truth.

Documentaries, news broadcasts, talk shows, podcasts, and articles present The Truth.

Popular books, magazines, newspapers publish The Truth.

Studios release movies that capitalize on The Truth.

Politicians use The Truth to expand power and influence.

Government is compelled to embrace The Truth.

Everyone who knows anything accepts the Truth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But there's a small problem.

There's conflicting evidence.

Some evidence contradicts The Truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In our post-modern, media-driven culture, "truth" isn't an objective value independent of the observer. Rather, "truth" is malleable -- a mere convention of language, which can be replaced.

Some claim that "power" controls language to create "truth" convenient to power. Others assert "truth" is mere convention -- whatever most of us say it is.

"Celebrity" wades in the midst of this swirling cauldron of uncertainty, swaying the conversation to define truth for the balance of us not possessing a microphone, captive screens, or ten-million clicks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sound familiar?

"In her painstakingly researched book, The Big Fat Surprise, the journalist Nina Teicholz traces the history of the proposition that saturated fats cause heart disease, and reveals the remarkable extent to which its progress from controversial theory to accepted truth was driven, not by new evidence, but by the influence of a few powerful personalities, one in particular.
Teicholz’s book also describes how an establishment of senior nutrition scientists, at once insecure about its medical authority and vigilant for threats to it, consistently exaggerated the case for low-fat diets, while turning its guns on those who offered evidence or argument to the contrary. John Yudkin was only its first and most eminent victim.
Today, as nutritionists struggle to comprehend a health disaster they did not predict and may have precipitated, the field is undergoing a painful period of re-evaluation. It is edging away from prohibitions on cholesterol and fat, and hardening its warnings on sugar, without going so far as to perform a reverse turn."

The Sugar Conspiracy 

If you decide to speak out against The Truth, be prepared for some legal action:

Attorneys General worked with Green groups to punish political opponents