Isebrand

The majority of Brits oppose a hard Brexit. They should act

The greater British majority are those opposing a hard Brexit, the Remain voters plus those desiring a soft Brexit. Stated in the inverse, British voters who back a hard Brexit are a minority of all voters and possibly a minority, albeit a large one, of all pro-Brexit voters. Therefore, the Conservative element represented by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, fellow Cabinet minister Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, among others, represent at best a plurality view among the British electorate.

Theresa May's Government should recognize that and act accordingly.

Guns in America will always be around and so should their sensible regulation

 

The history of the United States has always included a right to accessibility to firearms but also regulations of firearms. 

 

This is evident from the start. The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Whether or not one interprets those words as circumscribing firearms to the activities of militias and the purposes of State defense, there's no denying that firearms are there in the founding document of the republic. Only three nations' constitutions include a right to bear firearms: the United States, Mexico, and Guatemala. And of those three, only the U.S.'s constitution defines the right so broadly.

 

The American Revolution was a violent one. It wasn't all political theory and document-signings, but firearms and cannons, too. It was a clash of arms, including between opposing Revolutionary and Loyalist colonists—a civil war of sorts—especially in the South, where genuine atrocities were committed by all sides of the conflict: British, Loyalist, and Revolutionary. The revolution's first engagements, the Battles of Lexington and Concord, erupted when the British Crown attempted to seize firearms, as well as other military supplies, but were contested by armed colonial militiamen. In short, firearms from quite early on in America carried symbolic as well as obvious practical significance related to liberty, defense, and the very foundation of the nation.

 

After the American Revolution (and after the new nation's first constitution, the short-lived Articles of Confederation), in the early years following enactment of the U.S. Constitution that we still have today, many American citizens—many white, male citizens anyway—were actually required to own firearms, as Adam Winkler mentions in his 2011 article in The Atlantic, "The Secret History of Guns."

 

But they were also required to register them.

 

One might see that as emblematic of the mutual importance of accessibility and regulation of firearms in America.

 

This tension is at the heart of Michael Waldman's 2014 book The Second Amendment: A Biography, as summarized in editorial copy promoting the book: 

 

The [Second] Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed.

 

Even in the days of the Wild West, an era that in the popular imagination is almost synonymous with gunplay, there was regulation. It was common then to require that one's firearms be checked into storage—kept under lock and key—upon one's entry into western towns. In fact, it was defiance of that practice that contributed to the most famous gunfight of the American Old West, the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in 1881 in Tombstone, Arizona Territory.

 

The history of guns and gun control in the U.S. continues with other twists and turns. 

 

For instance, in the article mentioned above, Winkler contends that even more so than the National Rifle Association (NRA), the modern group that first advocated fiercely for the right to bear loaded weapons in public was the Black Panthers. They saw white Americans' support for gun control measures to be based in racist fears of armed black Americans.

 

While it is true that members of both the political left and right can be disingenuous about (or not well aware of) parts of American gun control history that they might find inconvenient, I want to take issue specifically with two arguments of the political right against restrictions on the right to bear arms.

 

The first is a slippery-slope argument common with the NRA and similar advocacy organizations.

 

The NRA has opposed most kinds of gun control since the 1930s, but in recent decades they have opposed virtually any form of gun regulation whatsoever. (For the early history of the NRA's slippery-slope argument, see Pamela Haag's 2016 article in The Atlantic.) 

 

Slippery-slope arguments are often—but not inherently—fallacious or weak. Links in such arguments' supposed chain of causality are often ridiculously numerous or the causal connections are not direct or strong at all. It puts me in mind of a novelty t-shirt I saw that read, "Do you remember how giving women the vote led to horses getting the vote?" 

 

I admit that my rebuttal to the NRA's slippery-slope argument is in part based on analogy, and logicians often consider arguments by analogy to be weak. But my argument is this:

 

It's widely accepted that the right to free speech as established in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is sweeping but not absolute. The classic example is that the right to free speech is not unduly curtailed by outlawing the act of needlessly shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. One's broad right to speak freely does not extent to speech that directly endangers the public's safety.

 

So, even freedom of speech, one of America's most cherished rights, is somewhat proscribed. Yet it is unreasonable to think that a prohibition against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater leads to, for instance, the U.S. government shutting down The New York Times and seizing its printers and computer servers or jailing its reporters.

 

Similarly, I believe many types of firearms regulations are born of concerns for public safety and if enacted will not inexorably lead to a true weakening of the Second Amendment, and certainly not something as extreme as the confiscation of firearms.

 

In short, the NRA and its allies regularly practice rabid fear-mongering and irrational or disingenuous propaganda—some of it demonizing—to justify their existence. The consequences aren't so much the defense of the Second Amendment, but a quasi-militarization and promotion of paranoia (about the government and the specter of violent criminals) among a sizable minority of its members, and further division among the republic's citizens.

 

For instance, it cannot be reasonably argued that outlawing bump stocks—a technology that greatly increases the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons—or requiring background checks of would-be gun purchasers, will lead to U.S. government officials raiding Americans' homes to seize firearms. Yet the NRA makes exactly that kind of argument, sometimes directly and often indirectly. That is, in my opinion, a corrupt and bad-faith argument.The NRA regularly suggests that the confiscation of weapons is the likely ultimate outcome of virtually any firearms regulation, no matter how minor or even sensible. Such a slippery-slop argument does not rest on reason or in an intellectually honest view of U.S. history.

 

It might also be noted that previous forms of firearms regulations, like the assault weapons ban, never led to anything remotely like the confiscation of firearms. So why would some, most, or even many of gun control measures widely proposed today?

 

Why does the NRA's logically weak argument work so well?

 

It is largely a matter of sustained communication and political organization, in my opinion.

 

For instance, NRA fundraising letters and NRA publications like American Riflemen consistently imply or proclaim over-the-top warnings about the U.S. government's supposed desire to regulate firearms almost out of existence. The NRA even has its own television channel to convey the message. To be fair, these outlets also include product reviews, industry news, hunting tales, and historical articles. But the political message is always there, too, and it is delivered at NRA (and other) special events around the country, too.

 

It might be noted that the NRA must have a surprising lack of faith in legal precedent, too, which has mostly been on their side, especially recently in the Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

 

Could it be that the NRA misrepresents gun control advocates—the vast majority of whom do not advocate for confiscation—makes intellectually dishonest arguments, and seems reluctant to admit to the strength of their position and their many victories because they financially and politically benefit from agitating their base? I think so. Which, by the way, means that the NRA is no longer principally a organization concerned with firearms safety and education. They're a political activist group.

 

Generally speaking, 1. guns in American aren't going away and 2. their possession by American citizens aren't under dire threat—whatever the NRA and their most fervent supporters say. Therefore, it is not inherently a threat to gun ownership in general to impose new regulations on firearms. This is especially the case given how technology keeps increasing firearms' lethality, further threateningly public health and increasing risks to law enforcement personnel.

 

As it relates to firearms, I believe in the private citizen's right to self-defense. But I support stricter regulations—especially in urban environments for reasons that I think are obvious.

 

The regulatory proposals for firearms that I find most sensible and believe that intellectually-honest gun owners realize are not a threat to gun ownership—despite the wolf-crying, hyperventilating warnings of the NRA and surrogates enamored of conspiracy theories about the U.S. government—are those that

• prohibit technology intended to escalate semi-automatic weapons' rates of fire to de facto automatic weapon levels,
• limit the capacity of magazines,
• intend to reduce firearm accidents, or
• intend to keep firearms out of the hands of young children and the minority of Americans with mental health issues inclining them towards violence, especially mental health issues related to paranoia or impulsive rage.

This brings us to another weak argument opposing firearms regulations such as a ban on high-capacity magazines or the imposition of background checks on buyers: Because the regulation will not altogether prevent criminal use of firearms, including in mass shootings, the regulation should be rejected.

This fallacy is anchored to a kind of "all or nothing" or "black and white" thinking. It's sometimes termed the Nirvana or "perfect solution" fallacy. It rejects a proposed solution to a problem because some part of the problem would persist after the solution is in place. It's a bit like objecting to laws requiring people to wear seat belts in cars because seat belts don't prevent whiplash—i.e., since seat belts can't prevent all injuries that might occur in a traffic accident, wearing them should not be mandatory.

The Nirvana argument against outlawing high-capacity magazines is generally that the shooter will still kill many people by using multiple lower-capacity magazines. The rebuttal is common sense itself: if it means even one less death than higher-capacity magazines would result in, it's worth it. Without higher-capacity magazines, the shooter will be fire fewer bullets per minute because they will have to change magazines more frequently! Each change takes time; each change is a moment when they aren't able to fire. This gives people more time to run away, to act, to live. What is more, the shooter is likely to be more encumbered if they're carrying multiple smaller magazines in numerous pockets or pouches.

Does outlawing high-capacity magazines make a hugely significant difference to, say, the lethality of a mass shooting? It depends on how you define significant. But it's likely to make at least a minor, slight difference in terms of reducing lethality. What is more, it's highly unlikely that the proposal—in this case outlawing high-capacity magazines—will have highly problematic consequences to those who own and use firearms legally and responsibly. A 30-round magazine is not an imperative for hunting or home defense.

And yet....

The NRA will say otherwise. They will treat proposals for virtually any regulation as dire threats to the Second Amendment and the very existence of the notion of personal liberty.

(Image: Partial screen grab from the American Riflemen's website.)

UPDATE: Nearly five months after I wrote the above post, there was a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. A February 18, 2018, article in Politico.com by Bill Scher, "Why the NRA Always Wins," examines more closely the effectiveness of the NRA's political communications and organizing. Also following the Parkland tragedy, there has been some renewed focus on the role that pent-up anger plays in many shootings. See the February 14, 2018, article "Suspect in fatal Florida school attack is former student with 'anger' issues." See the 2015 article "Harvard Study Finds Anger Issues, Not Major Mental Illness, Tied To Gun Violence."

Battle of Brandywine Creek, September 11, 1777

September 11 as a general date will likely—and appropriately—for generations of Americans to come be synonymous with the jihadist terrorist attacks of 2001, the most grievous assault by foreign aggressors ever perpetrated against the American mainland.

Yet history as a whole looks out over a very wide and deep landscape dotted with myriad events.

September 11, 2017, also marks the two-hundred-fortieth anniversary of the Battle of Brandywine Creek, often referred to simply as the Battle of Brandywine.

Fought in 1777 during the American Revolutionary War, it was an American defeat. General Sir William Howe was leading the British Army on a campaign to seize Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As the seat of the Second Continental Congress, Philadelphia was the de facto capital of the United States and a politically and strategically rich prize.

General George Washington commanded the less trained and comparatively ill-equipped army of the nascent United States, the Continental Army. Washington ordered his forces into defensive positions to contest Howe's crossing of the Brandywine, a critical crossing between Baltimore and Philadelphia.

The British outflanked the northern (right) end of the American defensive line, which sealed the fate of Washington's army, forcing the right-flank Continental units to fall back hastily from their positions along the Brandywine and gather with Washington's other units on more open ground to face the British advance. A particularly large concentration of continentals was arrayed behind the stone walls on the Old Kennett Meetinghouse grounds, which besides the creek itself was the battlefield's most significant feature.

The battle was fought at mid-morning around the meeting house while the pacifist Quakers continued to hold their midweek service.[1]
.....
More troops fought at Brandywine than any other battle of the American Revolution. It was also the longest single-day battle of the war, with continuous fighting for 11 hours.[2]

Washington withdrew his forces along the road to Philadelphia. Arguably, nightfall was the only thing that saved his army from being routed, possibly annihilated. Either outcome might well have ended the American Revolution.

The continental forces likely suffered about twice as many causalities as the British, possibly more—approximately 1,200 killed, wounded, or deserted. But no official record of American causalities survives. British casualties were reported as 587:

93 killed (eight officers, seven sergeants and 78 rank and file); 488 wounded (49 officers, 40 sergeants, four drummers and 395 rank and file); and six rank and file missing [and] unaccounted for.[2]

After the battle, the Continental Congress fled Philadelphia, which the British captured without opposition on September 26, 1777. Washington's army would eventually retreat to isolated Valley Forge for the winter of 1777–1778, where by winter's end approximately 2,500 soldiers would die, most from typhoid, typhus, smallpox, dysentery, or pneumonia.

I have an extremely attenuated familial connection to the battlefield. A battalion of the 2nd Canadian Regiment, also known as Congress' Own or Hazen's Regiment, commanded by Moses Hazen and raised in the Canadian province of Quebec, was positioned at Buffington's Ford, the right-most position of the Continental Army's line on the morning of the battle.

The ford is named for the family of my maternal ancestors, the descendants of Richard Buffington of Buckinghamshire, England. In 1677, Buffington settled west of the Delaware River on lands that became part of the Province of Pennsylvania in 1681 when it was founded by William Penn.

Image, above, click to enlarge: A drawing by Lord Cantelupe, who was at the battle as an officer of the Coldstream Guards. It depicts American batteries firing on British Foot Guards as they begin their attack at the Birmingham Friends Meeting House. (BritishBattles.com)

Image, below, click to enlarge: A battle map by John Fawkes from BritishBattles.com's page on the Battle of Brandywine.

 

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few...."

On the 20th day of August, 1940, in a speech in The House of Commons, Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK), credited the Royal Air Force (RAF) with valiant determination and effort in the air war against the numerically superior Luftwaffe, the German air force, in the unfolding Battle of Britain. 

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few...."

At the time of the speech, Britain was enhancing and expanding defenses in preparation of invasion by the military of the German Third Reich. The first phase of the German effort consisted of bombing targets of the UK, primarily in England, both military and civilian, in an attempt to weaken British defenses and morale.

Churchill's The speech is widely considered to have been a great inspiration to Great Britain's general population and her military personnel. 

Churchill:

[W]e have not only fortified our hearts but our Island. We have rearmed and rebuilt our armies in a degree which would have been deemed impossible a few months ago.… The whole Island bristles against invaders, from the sea or from the air. …the stronger our Army at home, the larger must the invading expedition be, and the larger the invading expedition, the less difficult will be the task of the Navy in detecting its assembly and in intercepting and destroying it in passage....

The Battle of Britain, which lasted from the July 10 until October 31, 1940, was fought almost entirely in the skies over England and The English Channel but including bombing raids against Germany by RAF Bomber Command. Pilots of the Royal Canadian Air Force and from other countries and territories of the British Empire, including Australians in Bomber Command, as well as Polish, American, and other nationals, were among those active in the British effort against the German aerial onslaught.

For the most part, Britain's military posture throughout the battle was defensive as it sought to diminish German air power and delay the German invasion. In the end, Britain won the Battle of Britain and emerged as a victor of the Second World War.

First use of Mustard Gas, July 1917

100 years ago, 12–13 July, 1917, mustard gas was first used. Chemical warfare is prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. It was designed to render ground uninhabitable.

Read more at the Simon Jones Historian blog, "Yellow Cross: the advent of mustard Gas in 1917."

Image (click to enlarge), words of "Nurse S. Millard". Van Bergen, Leo. Before My Helpless Sight: Suffering, Dying and Military Medicine on the Western Front, 1914–1918. 2009. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 184. ISBN 978-0-7546-5853-5; citing Winter, Denis. Death's Men: Soldiers Of The Great War. 1985. Penguin Books. ISBN-13: 978-0140168228.

Image (click to enlarge), "The first mustard gas bombardment reported in the War Diary of the 45th Infantry Brigade, 12 July 1917. (The National Archives, WO95/1943)"; Simon Jones.

Doolittle Raid

Seventy-five years ago today, 16 B-25s made the first-ever US bombing run against the Japanese mainland—a one-way-flight mission, as all those involved understood. It came to be known as the Doolittle Raid, named after Lt. Col. "Jimmy" Doolittle (AAF) who planned and led the raid.

The raid did little physical damage but as intended it considerably shook Japanese morale while raising US morale.

Fifteen of the 16 B-25s crashed or were ditched after the bombing run. One made it to the USSR. Of the 80 personnel, two died off the coast of China, one in China; eight become POWs: three were executed, one died in captivity, and four were repatriated at the war's end.

Image: Wikipedia, "A B-25 taking off from USS Hornet (CV-8) for the raid"; via the National Archives and Records Administration; see here.

April 15, 1942: Malta—the entire island—was awarded the George Cross for gallantry

From The London Gazette online:

King George VI awarded the people of Malta the George Cross [on 15 April 1942] in recognition of their continuing and heroic struggle against repeated and continuous attacks during World War 2.
.....
Malta holds the record for suffering the heaviest, sustained bombing attack of WW2—154 days and nights and 6,700 tons of bombs. During the entire time, the island’s population of 270,000 were unerring in their refusal to capitulate.

On April 7, 1942, Malta had sounded its 2,000th air-raid alert of the war.

At the time, Malta was a Crown Colony of Britain. Today, it is a republic and member of the Commonwealth.

Malta's lag bears in its canton a representation of the George Cross.

The online version of The London Gazette, an official "journal of record" of the British government, provides further context:

The George Cross was instituted by King George VI in September 1940 as a replacement for the Empire Gallantry Medal, and as a civilian equivalent of the Victoria Cross (Royal Warrant, Gazette issue 35060). It was awarded for ‘acts of the greatest heroism or of the most conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme danger’ and ‘which we desired should be highly prized and eagerly sought after’.

King George VI conferred the award by way of a letter in his own hand:

The Governor

Malta

To honour her brave people I award the George Cross to the Island Fortress of Malta to bear witness to a heroism and devotion that will long be famous in history.

George R.I.

April 15th 1942^[3][10]

The Governor, Lieutenant-General Sir William Dobbie answered:

By God's help Malta will not weaken but will endure until victory is won.^[11]

It was once Mesopotamia Day—100 years ago when Britannia ruled the waves...and Baghdad

I recently saw a framed original of this poster in a private residence.

It advertises a fundraiser, held 100 years ago today at the no doubt tony address of 26 Regent Street, London, for The Mesopotamia Comforts Fund for British troops. The money raised went toward the support of British troops in Mesopotamia.

Many people's reaction today to the names of some of the event's headliners might understandably be, "Sounds like something from Downton Abbey!".... The Countess Dowager of Carnarvon, The Countess of Minto, and Lady Mildred Allsopp.*

During World War One (a.k.a. the Great War, the First World War, often abbreviated WWI), British General Sir Frederick Maude led a series of successful operations in the Mideast that culminated with the capture of Baghdad on March 11, 1917. General Maude died in November 1917 in Mesopotamia from cholera while leading the next phases of successful British operations in the region.

More details about the poster are on the website of the Imperial War Museum (IWM).

*The Carnarvon's estate, Highclere Castle in Hampshire, England, was used as Downton Abbey. The Dowager Countness mentioned in the poster would have been Elizabeth Catherine Howard (1856-1929), Fourth Countess of Carnarvon, who would have become the Dowager Countess upon the death of her husband Henry, Colonel Secretary and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in 1890. (See the current Lady Carnarvon's website at LadyCarnarvon.com. As my mother might say, "It's a hoot.")

 

15 April 1915: The Titanic Sinks — the SS Birma's record of received distress message

One-hundred-five years ago, RMS Titantic, a British passenger liner on its maiden voyage and the largest ship afloat at the time it entered service, struck an iceberg and sank. As noted on Wikipedia:

Distress signals were sent by wireless, rockets, and lamp, but none of the ships that responded was near enough to reach Titanic before she sank.

One vessel receiving the wireless distress message was the S.S. Birma, part of the Russian American Line of the Danish commercial motorship company East Asiatic Company (EAC).

Below: (Click image to enlarge); telegram received from RMS Titanic by the Danish liner Birma.*

Wikipedia summarizes:

RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner that sank in the North Atlantic Ocean in the early morning of 15 April 1912, after colliding with an iceberg during her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York City. Of the 2,224 passengers and crew aboard, more than 1,500 died, making it one of the deadliest commercial peacetime maritime disasters in modern history. [It] was...built by the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast. Thomas Andrews, her architect, died in the disaster.
.....
Titanic carried some of the wealthiest people in the world, as well as hundreds of emigrants from Great Britain and Ireland, Scandinavia and elsewhere throughout Europe seeking a new life in North America.... [D]ue to outdated maritime safety regulations, [it] only carried enough lifeboats for 1,178 people—slightly more than half of the number on board, and one third of her total capacity.
.....
The wreck of Titanic, first discovered over 70 years after the sinking, remains on the seabed, split in two and gradually disintegrating at a depth of 12,415 feet (3,784 m). Since her discovery in 1985, thousands of artifacts have been recovered and put on display at museums around the world.

Transcript:

The Russian East Asiatic S.S. Co. Radio-Telegram S.S. "Birma" ______________________________________________________________________ ____________ No Words Origin Station. Time handed in. Via. Remarks bg to 6. Titanic 11 H.45M.April 14/15 1912. Distress Call Ligs Loud Cgd - SOS. from M. G. Y. We have struck iceberg sinking fast come to our assistance. Position Lat. 41.46 n. Lon. 50.14. W. M. G. Y. (MGY was the codename for the TITANIC) 

RMS Titanic:

SS Birma:

*RMS stands for Royal Mail Ship.

Happy Saint David's Day, heraldically

Blessed Saint David's Day (Welsh: Dydd Gŵyl Dewi). Today's the feast day of Saint David, Wales' patron saint, who's said to have died on 1 March 601.

As part of the historic kingdom of England, Wales hasn't a coat of arms but a badge, and is unrepresented in the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom. It's badge is the Royal Badge of the National Assembly of Wales. It was designed in 2008.

At its heart is an escutcheon (in heraldry, a shield or emblem bearing a coat of arms) with the arms of Welsh prince Llywelyn the Great (c. 1172 – 1240), Wales' de facto ruler for a time.

The description of a heraldic display is called a blazon and follows a traditional style, the Anglo-Norman terminology of which reflects the Norman-French origins of English heraldry; e.g., Or for gold, gules for red, passant, which in modern French means busy but in heraldry means charging, which is indicated by showing a heraldic beast's right forepaw raised, guardant meaning face turned toward the viewer (from the Old French guarder, to protect or to look at), et cetera.

The blazon of Wales' royal arms is:

Within a circular riband vert fimbriated Or bearing the motto Pleidiol Wyf i'm Gwlad (Welsh for "I am true to my country") in letters the same and ensigned with a representation of the Crown proper, an escutcheon quarterly Or and gules four lions passant guardant counterchanged armed and langued azure, encircled by a wreath alternating of leek, thistle, clover, leek and rose.