Category: Gun Control

By on

Michael Golden, in Real Clear Politics, wants the media to stop publicizing the names of serial shooters as a way of denying the shooter the infamy they desire. He believes it will discourage other shooters from seeking the same fate.

While I can support Golden’s proposal to quash any media attention these people are seeking, I doubt very much that anything significant will come from implementation of it. Mostly because, the shooter is already dead — either by suicide or by police action. What ever thrill the shooter was seeking was experienced in the shooter’s mind prior to the shooting. So I am unconvinced that such a media ban would have much effect at all on future shooters. It is worth a try but I would be surprised to see any change in the number of shootings

The problem with mass shootings, as Golden acknowledges, is the division in the country on what to do about them. One side wants to restrict access to guns; the other side thinks the problem is mental health. Since there is little areas of agreements, nothing much gets done despite the number of shootings. Golden, probably correctly, thinks that a media ban on naming the people who kill during a mass shooting would be something that both sides can agree on and get implemented.

But does it solve the problem? Not even close.

These people are well-armed and crazy. They are facing almost certain death. They know that they probably will be dead by the time the media begin discussing their actions. How does not mentioning their name going to stop them? The shooter is still crazy and still has a gun.

If people want to give it a try, fine, give it a try. But it changes nothing about crazy people still having access to guns. It is a way of looking like you are doing something while you are doing absolutely nothing to address the problem at hand. In other words, a waste of time.

By on

Another assassination attempt was made on Donald Trump. The Secret Service shot the man down. Early reports about the shooter are depressing. He thought he was God so I am not sure whether he had a coherent world view which prompted him to take this action but I doubt it. People who think they are God are uniquely incapable of coherence so this leaves us with crazy.

Early in the week two teenagers stormed a San Diego mosque — killing three people and then themselves. They hated about everybody, given the way it turned out, even themselves.

I don’t know what to do about the crazy people in this country. As a nation, we have pretty much decided to lump them in with the regular citizens which means they are left to their own devices. They can own guns, sleep on the streets, do whatever the Hell they want until they cross a line and then, in the worst case scenario, they are gunned down.

This is how we want to live and, lets be clear, no decision is a decision. We would rather have the occasional blood letting to addressing why unstable people with guns keep creating such havoc. Limiting gun availability is off the table. Let’s face it the 2nd Amendment makes this impossible. Furthermore there are too many guns out there now and there would be way too much resistance to confiscating guns to make it worthwhile. It is, for now, off the table.

But what about the other part of the equation dealing with all the crazy people. Well, this would require political will and money. Why this is controversial is beyond me? Mental health requires some level of preventative measure. Identify the people who are sick and get them the help they need before they break.

Think physical health. For example, we can control high blood pressure through medication. The first step, though, is identifying people suffering from it before we can help them. The same practice apples for mental health. We need to know who needs help.

But freedom, people shouldn’t be forced into a psychological check. We could require a yearly psychological check as a part of having health insurance. This would, at least, help us address the vast majority of the population.

Who is going to pay for all these checks? The government or the insurance companies? Forget I said anything.

So you see nothing is going to happen. We just have to accept that mad men with guns will be walking the street until they break and then after they are done killing, we will kill them or they will kill themselves. A little messy but the problem is solved without raising taxes.

By on

The Trump Administration is trying to prevent transgender people from buying guns. While this is clearly illegal, it could be good news. It is an admission that some people shouldn’t have guns. This seems to be a significant change in this NRA backed administration. The NRA is supporting the Trannies’ 2nd Amendment Rights while Trump and his gang are pushing for laws that will prevent them from buying guns.

There are presently laws that stop mentally ill people from getting guns but enforcement varies from state to state and the national registry is only as good as the states willing participation. If Trump is truly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of transgender people, what is he willing to do to about it. And, if transexuals are on this list, and it is so important to do so, what other mentally ill diagnosis should be on this list.

Of course, Transgender people shouldn’t be classified as mentally ill but if Trump believes that some mental illnesses make gun ownership dangerous, then the battle should be on defining those terms — who shouldn’t own a gun. Some Republicans are hoping the Democrats fight for Transexuals Rights to be locked and loaded. They are amused that they will be put in the position of defending gun rights. Don’t take the bait.

I much prefer a battle over what is defined as a mental illness that prevents people from purchasing guns. Instead of fighting for Transexual’s Second Amendment rights, let’s focus on what mental health issues should prevent a person from owning a gun and how to ensure that anyone that meets this criteria is on a list that prevents them from purchasing a gun.

Also we should never pass up an opportunity for a NRA/Trump rumble. Get the popcorn ready.

By on

Every time there is a mass shooting I have this momentary reflexive fear that the killer might be someone who I agree with politically because partisans will say that the problem is the politics of the person and not say something more directly responsible like guns. It matters why the person doing the shooting, did it. But, it doesn’t matter. All mass shootings are bad and the killer’s reasons are irrelevant. You can’t ban white men or trans people for the matter.

No one reason can explain every mass shooter’s motives. The shooter’s politics changes from instance to instance. The killings, however, continue. Of course, the recent shooting at the Minnesota Catholic school have charged partisans up and the problem is either white men or trans men depending on the political agenda of the writer.

Unfortunately, these identifications are unhelpful in helping prevent future mass shootings because the vast majority of white men and trans people aren’t going to shoot Catholic school children praying in church. In fact, 99.9999% of these people will never shoot children at any point whatsoever. So what makes this small number of people break, take up a gun and shoot strangers for no good reason?

The availability of guns is part of the problem. There is very little that can be done here as there is constitutional protection to carry arms, it is difficult to change the Constitution and there isn’t enough public support to even bother. So Gun Laws will not change. Any solution that calls for this is doomed to failure — at least right now. By all means, continue to bang your head against this wall but you are only going to get a bloody head.

These leaves us with addressing the mental health element which is another part of the problem. People who want to kill small children, for whatever reason, are mentally ill. There is no question in my mind and I think most people would agree with that. The question then becomes how do we stop crazy people from using their guns?

The most difficult hurdle to clear would be an acceptance that people need to submit to mental health assessments — particularly young people who are more susceptible to this type of behavior. This also involves a more restrictive take on mental health. Right now most people would say that going for a mental health check up is an option and not a requirement. You are free to be a crazy person — no matter that you are living on public sidewalks, no matter that you are a schizophrenic carry an AK47. Until you are actually hurt someone, you are free to be as crazy as you wish.

Personal rights and public safety are difficult issues to balance. I would argue because we have constitutional protection for gun rights than the government has a responsibility to assess a person’s psychological ability to responsibly carry them. It becomes a health issue instead of a gun rights issue. Every year of high school, every student needs to take a psychological evaluation. Not only could this help with mass shootings but also may help address homelessness, drug addiction and array of other social problem before they become serious problems.

If mental illness is the cause of school shootings then what is the mental health solution? So far the political class seems mired in pointless struggles about gun control and finger pointing at the the other side’s toxic politics neither of which is likely to change. What if we determine that good mental health is a personal responsibility and if we, as a country, can get early intervention with this very small number of people willing to shoot down small children we can address this without affecting anyone’s right to bear arms?

But you don’t have a right to be a crazy person — whether that manifests as shooting up a school or sleeping on public sidewalks.

By on

The Sandy Hook parents lost their 6 to 7 year olds in one of the worst school shootings in the nations history. Afterwards, in an act that can be only described as heartless, some pro-gun rights advocates pushed the story that Sandy Hook never happened and that their children never died. Television personality, Alex Jones, unapologetically choose to help these assholes spread their vile story. Imagine losing your child and then someone telling you it never happened and that you are lying about it. Some of the Sandy Hook parents went to court and proved that their children were indeed killed in the shooting, and for his part in spreading the lie, Jones was ordered to pay them close to a billion dollars.

Unsurprisingly Jones hasn’t paid the Sandy Hook Parents the money they are owed. I could see that Jones may have trouble gathering a billion dollars. It is a lot of money however it doesn’t help his claim of poverty when he is galavanting around the country spending close to $100,000 in one month. He also supposedly has and additional $14 million in the bank. Why isn’t any of the money going to the Sandy Hook parents? Even if they never get the full amount they are owed, wouldn’t it be better that they got something as opposed to nothing? And let him wrong the rest of his life trying to make up the difference. Moreover, the less money this perfidious asshole has, the less money he has to spread unsubstantiated and hurtful conspiracy theories. Every penny he has should go to the Sandy Hook parents and hopefully at some point he will see the error of his ways.

By on

Konstadinos Moros helpfully reminds us about the source of gun violence. The real culprit, which, of course, was so obvious I am embarrassed to admit I never saw it, but, any way, the real culprit is, drum roll please, single mothers. He found that there is an eerily high correlation between states with above average percentage of single mothers and above average percentage of gun violence.

Yes, it is those irresponsible gadabouts, single mothers, who mindlessly produce children who then shoot up the streets they live on. Now, I think everyone agrees it would be nice to have active fathers involved with their children, on the other hand, claiming that single mothers and their bastard children running amok in the streets are the single most important cause of gun violence is a bit much. Moros even admits that “correlation is not causation” before launching into his case against single mothers.

Moros fails to mention that there is also high overlaps with states that have high poverty rates, high gun ownership, and limited access to abortion and medical care. That these factors might also impinge on the problem is never explored because Moros has already found the villain — single mothers.

And it get’s worse. Moros believes that the one of the root problems of single motherhood is generous welfare payments. The unspoken message here is that society need do nothing to help out the single mother. Helping single mothers only encourages other women to have babies because those babies provide a generous income, so generous, in fact, that the largest age group living in poverty are children under the age of 5. I guess raising children in poverty is an exciting proposition for some women. Who would have known?

So, let me review the problem here. The offspring of unmarried women are shooting innocent people in the streets. They need a present father who will miraculously stop gun violence. This problem is so serious for Moros that we can’t possibly help these women in any way – no family planning and no government assistance — because some of these women will be encouraged to earn an income by having as many babies as possible. In other words, it is a serious problem that will be solved completely by not sending fathers who have committed drug offenses to prison. Which is all very reassuring. A simple solution to a complex problem and no extra tax money is needed in order to bring it about. A nice big bow on that particular package.

The only problem is that Moros is demonstrably wrong. I looked at the states that are the best place for single parents to raise their children and what I discovered is the states that rank best have very little overlap with states who have high levels of gun violence and single mothers. So, if single mothers are indeed the problem, the best way to solve the problem of bastard children running amok in the streets of America would be to help the single mothers dealing with this situation instead of ignoring them.

But, of course, this would mean an outlay of tax money in order to solve a complicated social problem. No Conservative wants to do that, they want cheap simple solutions. Well, you get what you pay for.

By on 4 Comments

Conservative columnist Heather MacDonald recently bemoaned the mentally ill people roaming the streets of our city. She describes the failure of civil institutions to protect regular people from these people. Texas Republican Governor Abbott thinks that better mental health care is the solution to mass casualty shootings plaguing his state. Mental Health is the solution to these twin social ills the country is facing.

Better Mental Health certainly would help. The problem is what exactly are the solutions these Mental Health critics offering to meet these problems. Where will these mentally ill people be housed? Who will pay for their housing and medical care? How will their legal rights be protected? How do we identify the mentally ill? What will be the standard for involuntary institutionalization? These all call for the expansion of government oversight and infrastructure. They also all cost money.

How does this happen given the Conservative and Republican distaste for government regulation and taxes? Would they support an increase in taxes to insure that the mentally ill had suitable housing and healthcare? Would they support the psychological testing of gun buyers to determine if they have violent psychological problems? If protecting citizens is the goal, how much money are they willing to spend to achieve this goal? How do they propose protecting citizens from the criminally insane without a massive expansion of mental health and judicial systems? Prisons are not mental health clinics, putting the criminally insane into prisons

It is all well and good to point the finger at the mental health crisis but what are the mental health solutions? There are a lot of unanswered questions. Until these critics provide proposals to address these questions, their criticism is just loud noise to distract from the emptiness of their vision. They have absolutely nothing to offer that will solve these problems.

By on

Florida legislators are discussing further limitations on what teachers can and can not talk to children about. Yesterday they debated whether it is OK to talk about menstruation with girls who are already menstruating. These laws are protecting no one because, as far as I can tell, no one has ever proven that talking about sex with children is damaging. No child has become gay. No child has become a drag queen. You can not groom a person’s sexual nature. There is no danger.

But innocence, you have to protect a child’s innocence. What do you do about children’s legitimate interest in sex? After all, playing doctor isn’t just about the child’s future career options. They want to know where babies come from, why boy’s bodies are different from girls bodies. What is a teacher to do? Refer them to their parents who, by the way, just might tell them about the stork delivering babies instead. Which is, I guess, OK because the child’s all important innocence is preserved even though they are getting incorrect information.

It also creates a stigma regarding conversations about sex that might impede the child feeling free to talk about it. How do you warn children about sexual predators without talking about sex? What it is so important about preserving a child’s innocence? Children need to learn how to take care of themselves and this means a free flow of information is imperative. If a child senses that talking about sex is somehow wrong then how will they feel comfortable talking about it when they have questions? At some point, preserving a child’s innocence is counter productive and is no longer in the child’s best interest.

These same Republican legislators, so worried about preserving children’s innocence, also vigorously defend the right to bear arms. This means that children, for their own safety, must go through drills on what to do if gun man enters their school. How is discussing sex any more dangerous to a child’s innocence than explaining that some day some crazy gun man might start shooting up the school some day and you will need to protect yourself. I suspect that after learning that someone might want to murder them for no good reason that a child’s innocence is pretty much shattered so spare me the concern about a child’s innocence.

By on

The Missouri Legislature voted down a bill that would ban 15 year olds and younger from carrying guns in public places. Gun Rights groups apparently see no limits on who should be allowed to carry a gun. I guess an unsupervised kindergartner can walk down the street with a loaded gun. That kindergartner might have a very good reason for having a loaded gun. How do we know? Why should we prevent a law-abiding six year old from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights? Everyone from birth to old age should just carry a gun and the world would be a better place.

Should everyone carry a gun? Should chronically depressed people carry arms? People with quick tempers? Psychotic people? Aren’t these Missouri Legislators the same people who think adolescents aren’t mature enough to make a decision regarding gender changing operations? If a kid isn’t mature enough to make a decision that requires consultations with doctors, lawyers and parents over a period of time, how can he be mature enough to handle a weapon that requires split second decision making in a crisis situation. There is a disconnect here this is startling.

Young people face all kinds of restrictions because there is an assumption that many underage people are immature for some adult responsibilities. A person has to be 21 years old, for example, to buy alcohol. If a 15 year old walked down the street, holding a bottle of gin, the police could arrest that child for breaking the law. Now there may be a perfectly good reason for that 15 year old to have a bottle of gin. He could be bringing it back to Mom and Dad. But because the state legislature of Missouri have decided that some people under the age of 21 aren’t mature enough to handle alcohol, all people under that age are banned. It is arbitrary. It is unfair to the under 21 who can handle alcohol reasonably. But for the safety of those under 21 and for the general public who might be adversely affected by drunk adolescents, an age barrier to alcohol purchases was made.

Everyone accepts these restrictions with nary a complaint. There may be disputes about where the line should be drawn (aged 21 or 18) but there isn’t much debate that no line should be drawn at all. Right now age, as seen by the majority of citizens in Missouri, is seen as a reasonable marker for this maturity. The same can be said for driving a car. Why then are 15 year olds who’s maturity to drink alcohol and to drive are suspect being allowed to walk the streets unsupervised by an adult with a loaded gun?

The Missouri Legislature’s action on this bill is depressing. If any restriction on gun ownership is seen as an attack on gun rights, then it is hopeless to think there is any meaningful middle ground out there. They are saying that people who are deemed insufficiently mature enough to make decisions regarding alcohol consumption and driving automobiles, are mature enough to walk down a street with an AK47. Why are they better able to handle weapons than a car and alcohol?

The thing here is I, by and large, have surrendered on gun laws. I don’t see the point if the 2nd Amendment trumps any restriction on a person’s capabilities to use guns. However, this law, to me, seemed like a no brainer. Why should an unsupervised 15 year old be walking down the street with a loaded gun. He can’t drive a car. He can’t buy alcohol. And, hey, I am to the point if he is accompanied by one of his parents or a guardian, I am perfectly willing to let him brandish his weapon. But, no, if this minor tweak of the law, which would give law enforcement in high crime areas some legal power to monitor underage gun use, is seen as an attack on the 2nd Amendment, there is simply nothing to talk about anymore. It appears that the gun lobby wants everyone armed from cradle to the grave — regardless of their ability to use guns, their maturity to make decisions and their rationality to use high caliber weapons. To the firing range we must all go.

By on

A seven-year old in Arizona brought guns and ammunition to school the other day. The case is still being investigated but it looks like the only person who is going to get punished is the seven year old. Yes, the boy is getting the book thrown at him while the parents, apparently, are going to walk away scot free. As what happened is still under investigation, this may be the correct decision.

No matter how the investigation turns out this is a troubling incident because is yet another incident of a child getting a gun. If it turns out to be the parent’s unsecured gun then I think the parents need to explain how their child was able to get the gun, smuggled it into his backpack and bring it to school. They are both responsible for the gun and for the child. If they were negligent, they should be prosecuted. If the child obtained the gun from another person other than his parents, then that person is responsible. Rights carry with them responsibilities. If adults are not upholding their responsibilities to the community, then the law must intercede.

I find situations where underage children obtain guns and then accidentally kill themselves or someone else the most unforgivable of crimes. Of course, it is also devastatingly sad. Nobody wanted this to happen. Because of loss of a child is so horrible, there is this tendency to forgive the adult involved because they have suffered enough. What good is sending them to jail going to do when they are already beating themselves up worse than any court can ever do. I get that. I just don’t know what to do then. If parents can’t secure their guns to protect their own children, what can we, as a society, do to encourage them. Right now, all I have is a stiff fine and/or a jail sentence.

But let us also be clear, a child getting a gun is not an accident, it is negligence and criminal negligence needs to be addressed, if for no other reason it is an example for other adults with unsecured guns and children.