Tag: Gun Violence

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.