Posts
The political response to school shootings is always the same.
1) Republicans say, "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families."
2) Democrats call for "stricter measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands."
3) Republicans say, "This is not the time to talk about gun control. This is the time to remember the victims."
4) Democrats continue to call for "common sense gun control."
5) Republicans say, "The only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
End of debate until the next time, and the next time, and the next time...
I used to have a concealed carry permit, not because I felt the need to carry a gun, but because I knew someone who did and thought it would be fun. I had been around guns all my life, and had kept one in my car as a teenager, but it never occurred to me to regularly carry one on my person until I talked with that friend. After completing a minimal permit training course, I started out by carrying a .357 magnum that I kept in a special belly pack that was designed for quick access. When the gun's size and weight became burdensome, I switched to a .38 special. When it too became unpleasant to carry, I gave up carrying a gun. The fun part about carrying a concealed weapon was that it was my secret, and that it made me feel powerful. The not fun part was the gun's weight, and the fact that carrying it focused my thoughts upon the possibility of violence, which made my world seem more dangerous than it really was.
I'm cautious and orderly to the point that I lack spontaneity, yet during the short time that I carried a gun, I unknowingly let a .22 caliber bullet roll into the burner on my kitchen stove. When I lit the stove, the bullet exploded and hit Peggy in the stomach, but no damage was done (a bullet that explodes in a stove doesn't have the force of a bullet that comes out of a gun because the slug goes one way and the cartridge casing the other), the incident alerted me to the fact that even careful people have accidents. A few weeks later, I took my gun to a dinner party, took off my belly pack, and didn't even know I had left it there until the people called me at home. When they asked why I had taken a gun to their party, I didn't know what to say, so I said that if I had left it at home--or in my car--someone might have stolen it. As I look back upon the incident, I realize that carrying a gun was like having a new toy, and that I was experimenting with whether I wanted to do it full-time. My conclusion was that walking around with a gun is a lethal version of walking around with a fire extinguisher in that while it might come in handy, it's probably not worth the risk and aggravation.
I share these stories to show that guns are inherently dangerous (the nearby Portland, Oregon, police chief accidentally shot a friend as did Vice-President Dick Cheney). President Trump echoed the NRA recently by proposing that "qualified teachers" carry guns to school. I can think of so many obvious objections to his proposal that I regard it as being like much of what Trump says, i.e. blindingly stupid. For instance:
(1) There is NO evidence to suggest that armed teachers could protect children while there IS evidence to suggest that they couldn't.* (2) Trump gave no clue as to whom would pay for the extensive and ongoing training that would be required to make teachers safe and proficient with firearms, and no evidence to indicate that teachers would have the time and inclination to take such training. (3) A school shooter could arm himself by assaulting a teacher and taking his or her gun. (4) If cops are capable of snapping and murdering people due to job stress, teachers probably are too. (5) A gun-toting teacher might find it harder to instill in students the value of peaceable solutions than would other teachers. (6) Teaching is enough work without the added responsibility of being perpetually prepared to shoot one's students. (7) Arming teachers would imbue in children the belief that they are always and everywhere in danger. (8) Just as I accidentally left a gun at someone's house, a teacher might accidentally leave a gun in a classroom or bathroom. (9) Guns can go off accidentally. (10) When we take extreme measures to feel safe, we increase our belief that we are unsafe. (11) There is no evidence to suggest that giving more guns to more people would make us safer, while the scarcity of gun deaths in countries with few guns would seem to prove otherwise. (12) A society in which people need to carry guns to protect themselves and others is by definition a society that has failed to insure the safety of its citizens, and this implies that the work we must do is societal rather than individual.
I'll just add one more thing. The NRA insists that being able to own and carry guns is both a human right and a Constitutional right under the Second Amendment. The former is not evident to anyone outside the NRA, but neither is the latter. The Second Amendment reads as follows: "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." How the NRA makes the leap from that to AR15s is a mystery to me, but if AR15s are legally allowable, then why not .50 cal machine guns or even grenade launchers? I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind, yet if the Constitution really does justify something that, instead of promoting the common good, harms the public good, then it's time to change the Constitution because the way the NRA would have us live is insane.
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=181&v=8QjZY3WiO9s
28 comments:
I know this World seems to be a very dangerous place.
And I know what it’s like to read, and hear, about all the violence in the world.
But I truely belive that we do not need to carry around guns
I know it’s your right to carry arms. But I really don’t think your founders meant semi automatic assault weapons.
I think people who Believe in their right to have guns, hear take all the guns away, when people talk about gun control.
If they just listened with open ears and minds. They would realise no one wants to take their guns away
They just want to take away those guns that were only made so as to kill.
Also not everyone has the right. If your violent, or have a history of mental health. Then you shouldn’t be able to just get a gun
Like anything. You need to prove you are responsible and have a genuine need for the gun
Just having one because you just want to have one. I don’t think is reason enough myself
But that’s my opinion and really doesn’t count for much
I agree with Angela completely, but you know where I am on guns and you are with me too. x
First of all you voiced every single one of my beliefs on the question of guns in school. I like to target shoot. I don't know that I could kill someone; in fact I am pretty sure I could not. I have told my children that guns are designed to kill. If you point a gun at a living thing you are intending to kill it. I do not want to do away with the 2nd amendment. Most people don't. What people want is common sense regulations of who and how guns are bought, kept, and used.
I know it’s your right to carry arms. But I really don’t think your founders meant semi automatic assault weapons."
Thank you for pointing that out, Angela. I agree, and upon reading your comment, I added a paragraph to the end of the post. It reads:
"The NRA insists that being able to own and walk around with guns is both a human right and a Constitutional right under the Second Amendment. The former is not evident to anyone outside the NRA, but neither is the latter. The Second Amendment reads as follows: "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." How the NRA makes the leap from that to AR15s is a mystery to me, but if AR15s are legally allowable, then why not .50 cal machine guns or even grenade launchers? I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind, yet if the Constitution really does justify something that, instead of promoting the common good, harms the public good, then it's time to change the Constitution because the way the NRA would have us live is criminally insane."
"If they just listened with open ears and minds. They would realise no one wants to take their guns away."
I still own guns, and I admit to feeling a little safer for having them when "things go bump in the night." Yet if there were a law saying that I had to give them up, I would do without complaint because I think it would be in the public good if anyone who wanted a gun had to go through an extensive process to get it, and would have to successfully complete ongoing training about how to use it safely. We have to demonstrate minimum proficiency to drive a car, so why not require the same of those who want to use a gun?
"If your violent, or have a history of mental health. Then you shouldn’t be able to just get a gun..."
Trump has been trying to deflect blame for America's gun problem away from guns and onto crazy people, but few crazy people are dangerous. Most school shootings and other gun crimes are committed by young men who are angry and isolated rather than certifiably insane.
Michelle and Emma, please take a look at my first response in the comments' section in which I pasted a paragraph that I added to the post after reading Angela's comment.
"I don't know that I could kill someone; in fact I am pretty sure I could not."
I have every confidence that I could. If I hesitated, it wouldn't be because the human life of a criminal was at stake but because of my fear of legal consequences. As my firearms' instructor said, "If you are in a lethal situation, the decision to shoot comes down to whether you had rather be carried by six or tried by twelve.
"I like to target shoot."
I found that I hated shooting high caliber guns due to the high cost of the bullets and the comfort of shooting a low caliber gun that didn't kick so hard. I would assume that most people feel the same.
The key to the issue is the word arms, the right to bear arms but there is no further legislation defining the word arms. For centuries humans continue to argue and wage wars or have personal disputes using arms. Aside from blaming sick minds to some of the issyes we really seem to cling to and old idea that weapons protect. It is 2018 and using social media can be just as harmful. Society allow very violent movie and games . Clearly that also factors into how we are failing in the ideology of teaching non violent values and the use of resoution of conflicts by verbal means. Sadly all of it will always be linked the industries that produce any products promotiong the isea of evil is conquered by weapons. The profit is too high to give it all up at this time.
I find it foolish because in our new high tech world we have minds capable of creating ivisible means that could have very deadly outcomes.
We need to change our focus on fostering acceptance and unification of ideals to benefit all humans in our global world now more than ever yet the reverse is happening. When a gun can give a person a false sense of safety we are not using the right tools of education. To kill any human is wrong.
We have opted for global no fly lists to keep air space safe yet on yhe ground we are totally vunerable because no one wants secuity by banning harmful items including small drones.
It is time for an overhaul.
Heidrun, thank you for your thoughtful comment.
"We need to change our focus on fostering acceptance and unification of ideals to benefit all humans in our global world..."
I would agree except that I would add animals. Of course, in America, guns enjoy their primary popularity among Republicans (for those in other countries, I refer to the party of Trump), and Republicans tend to be appalled by the idea of global community much less global values. They are instead of the "America first" mentality that, when their behavior is taken into account, means, "We Americans reserve the right to do whatever the hell we please, and screw you if you don't like it."
"To kill any human is wrong."
If someone were threatening to kill Peggy (my wife), myself, or some other person, and the only way I could stop that person was to kill him (or her), then I would regard killing that person as my only moral option, and I would feel the same if he were threatening one of my cats. Unfortunately, while the law recognizes my right to kill someone who is threatening a human, it denies that I'm justified in killing someone to save a cat.
"We have opted for global no fly lists to keep air space safe yet on yhe ground we are totally vunerable because no one wants secuity by banning harmful items including small drones."
Good point. I would just again say that the major opponents to keeping us safe are Republicans who tend to consider any such law as suggestive as "the nanny state" which is exactly what big corporations want them to think.
I was in the Fort Lauderdale airport close to where the mayhem was occurring at the same time. Trump said he would have gone in to confront the shooter. Yeah right. They can have their hunting rifles but I see no earthly reason to have an assault gun. How divided we are now!
I'm afraid I am hard line against civilians having guns. I absolutely would take every gun from every person who didn't have a very good reason for owning one and I don't believe personal protection to be a good reason. I don't care if they are powerful and fast or if they only shoot a single round before re-loading.
I understand that the average American might not be a gun toting manic but in general I can't even begin to understand the gun tolerance and gun fetishisation that seems to be so prevalent and neither can I respect anyone who gives me excuses about how they need one or feel safer with one or lock them up securely.
Having said all of that you can imagine where i stand on Trump, guns in schools, the NRA, the Republicans and the habitual shifting of focus onto mental illness.
You said it with the comment that even the most careful person can make a mistake. And with a gun, mistakes can be horrific
One of the night time comics said that Trump must have planned to attack the shooter with the bone spur that he used for his five deferments from Vietnam.
"I don't believe personal protection to be a good reason."
Does this include people whose lives are in danger--from an ex-spouse for example?
"I can't even begin to understand the gun tolerance and gun fetishisation that seems to be so prevalent"
A large majority of Americans favor some degree of gun control, but there are two things against it. One is that many gun lovers are one issue voters, so if a politician favors ANY form of gun control, those people won't vote for him or her for that reason alone. The second reason is that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is a well-funded lobby that will actively work against the election of anyone who opposes anything it wants regardless of anything else that he or she stands for. These two factors allow the gun community to subvert the will of the majority in passing even the most basic gun control laws--the ones against "cop killer" bullets, for example, meaning bullets that can penetrate police body armor.
"And with a gun, mistakes can be horrific"
If teachers start carrying guns, I can't imagine that the lives saved (if any) would be greater than the lives lost due to accidents.
I once had a .44 magnum pistol. I took it to Alaska and was promptly forced up a tree by a startled bear. I never once thought of that pistol in a pack on my hip. Even a .44 seemed like a pea shooter in the face of that monstrous bear. I would simply have made him mad. I never carried it on hikes again and soon after, sold it. It gave me a false sense of security, but was also heavy and made me think about it all the time. It takes constant training to handle a firearm when adrenal is very high and I think untrained folks with guns would more than likely shoot innocent people or their gun might get used instead against innocent people as often happens when cars are broken into and unsecured guns stolen. Guns are often stolen in house break ins too. Guns that are not secured by their owners end up in the hands of criminals and owners need held accountable I think for that. Its too bad most of our politicians seem bought and paid for by special interests including the NRA and that money blinds them to their real job.
i could be wrong but in my understanding a gun is unlikely to be of a lot of help unless it's user is well trained and circumstances favourable. If this is the case I would still prefer people not have guns but I understand that it is not reasonable to put anyone in mortal danger with no substantial means of defence so if there was someone Like Marion) who was in danger and well trained and assessed then yes, let them have guns
First, today, March 1, if my birthday! I'm a wee little tike of 69.
"I once had a .44 magnum pistol."
A la Dirty Harry. Wasn't a cop going around shooting bullets that could go right through the criminal and kill someone two blocks away an asinine concept? And how about the fact that his gun kicked so hard that he had to re-lower and re-aim after every shot. The cops here in Eugene carry .45 cal automatics, which have a lot of stopping power, but nowhere near the range of a magnum. I got a kick out of learning that my .357 magnum could fire Peggy's .38 special bullets, but that the reverse was not true. For one thing, the barrel of a .38 special is a lot thinner than that of a magnum and therefore might blow up, but more importantly (considering how stupid some people are), magnum bullets are so long that they stick out the end of the cylinder of a .38 special making it impossible to close the cylinder in order to fire the gun.
"forced up a tree by a startled bear. I never once thought of that pistol in a pack on my hip. Even a .44 seemed like a pea shooter in the face of that monstrous bear..."
I've learned from watching nature shows that a mother black bear will abandon her young when threatened, but that a mother brown bear will kill whatever is causing the threat? It's also true that black bears only kill people in order to eat them, but that brown bears don't ordinarily eat people. Peggy I were biking on a dead-end logging road in the coast range when we saw some black bear cubs on the side of the road. I said to Peggy, "Hey, Peggy, look at the bear cubs," but Peggy was already long gone, leaving me to be killed and eaten. Thanks a lot Peggy.
"Guns that are not secured by their owners end up in the hands of criminals and owners need held accountable"
I was told during my concealed carry course that if a burglar stole my loaded gun from my house and shot someone with it, I would be liable. I don't know if this is true, but it seems unfair to me. On the other hand, if I have a loaded gun in my house, and a child who is visiting gets it and accidentally shoots himself or someone else, then I think I should be held liable. Another odd thing about carrying a gun is that a person with a concealed carry permit has to leave his or her gun in the car before entering businesses that have signs to the effect that guns aren't allowed. Since car break-ins are fairly common, it seems to me that the only thing these businesses accomplish is to make it easier for someone to steal a gun.
"If teachers start carrying guns, I can't imagine that the lives saved (if any) would be greater than the lives lost due to accidents."
Just yesterday, a teacher in Dalton, Georgia, went out of his gourd, barricaded himself in his classroom, and put a bullet through the window (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-teacher-shooting-20180228-story.html). If more guns would make us safer, then places like south Chicago and east Oakland (California) should be among the safest places on earth.
"Its too bad most of our politicians seem bought and paid for by special interests including the NRA and that money blinds them to their real job."
Marco Rubio (Little Marco as Trump called him when they were both running for president) received 3.3 million dollars from the NRA. Imagine a lobby that is so well-financed that it can afford to give all that money to just one senator! Our system is deeply immoral in that it can be so screamingly obvious that our legislators are being bought and sold, yet if someone runs against people like Rubio, they won't have a chance of winning because of all the money the NRA is giving him.
cont.
"Oh, and in Louisiana, (#2 in the USA in domestic murders) domestic violence is NOT considered a violent crime."
I'm wondering where you got your information because based upon the five to ten sites I visited, it appears that domestic violence IS a felony in Louisiana. Here are just a few links: http://lcadv.org/wp-content/uploads/6-Selected-Louisiana-Domestic-Violence-Laws.pdf, https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2006/146/206153.html, http://thomasvalonzo.com/criminal-defense/assault-battery/louisiana-domestic-abuse/
"I'd challenge any of you who say you'd never own a gun to experience what I did and not do everything in your power to protect yourself."
When one's life is in grave danger from a vindictive ex-spouse, I would assume that many if not most people would at least consider getting a gun, and it always seemed odd to me that men are A LOT more interested in carrying guns than are women considering that women tend to be the victims of rape and domestic violence. Even so, this does not mean that the solution to gun violence is more guns, our nation already being among the most dangerous in the world BECAUSE we have so many guns. It's also true that the exception does not prove the rule, by which I mean that while it's always possible to find instances in which an innocent person owes his or her life to a gun, the fact is that countries that have few guns have few murders. As Kylie suggested, unless one undergoes continuous training in which he or she not only shoots at targets but takes the same courses that cops take in which the gunowner is faced with various scenarios and must make split-second decisions about whether to shoot, having a gun can make a person less safe if only because guns are sometime taken away and turned on their owners.
"i could be wrong but in my understanding a gun is unlikely to be of a lot of help unless it's user is well trained and circumstances favourable."
This was the conclusion that was reached in the link I provided.
Marion, thank you for the well wishes.
"I should have known you were an Aries..."
Nope, I'm just before Aries--I'm a Pisces. My mother used to buy me the little Dell horoscope books, and she told me that the difficulties that she and I had with getting along with one another was due the fact that our astrological signs were incompatible--she was a Virgo. Even so, I enjoyed the books because they seemed to describe me as I was. Last week, I heard on a radio show called "To the Best of Our Knowledge" that although millennials are our least religious group, it's the group that is most likely to believe in astrology. Go figure. Here's recent Atlantic article about millenials and astrolgy: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/the-new-age-of-astrology/550034/. When I grew up, I became interested in astronomy, and it taught me a few things that were at variance with astrology. For example, where the constellations are now is not where they were when the astrology information was formulated. Another problem is one that the writer of the Atlantic article was ignorant of when he or she wrote, "Astrology ascribes meaning to the placement of the sun, the moon, and the planets within 12 sections of the sky—the signs of the zodiac." The problem with this statement is that there are thirteen constellations divide the zodiac, the un-recognized one being Bootes the Herdsmen, which is among the largest in the sky. Astrologers somehow ignore this fact. Finally, different parts of the world have different astrological systems and they tend to give contradictory information.
And a very happy 69th birthday to you, good sir! And many more besides.
Happy Birthday! My 69th is in May! -Kris
"And a very happy 69th birthday to you, good sir!"
Thank you, good sir.
"My 69th is in May!"
You poor old scudder you! Upon saying this, I realized that I have no idea what a scudder actually is, only that I always hear it with the world old. So, I looked it up. One definition is "a crazy annoying old person." Another is "a beamer who scrapes skins by hand or machine." A third is "a fast runner." Another link states that the Festus character on Gunsmoke often called the Doc character "you old scudder," but that the person who posted the link was unable to find out what the word means (I guess he hadn't heard of dictionaries or web searches). Scudder is also a surname, albeit one that I haven't encountered. I can but conclude that to call someone a scudder isn't to say much about what that person is or isn't, which is how I use the word, by which I mean as a term of endearment, which is how I heard Festus use it.
Happy Birthday Sweetie! I thought it was at the end of March for some reason. I did remember this year it was March, so that's something! Sending belated love your way and more <3 Xxx
Good post. Not going to be much change except for more and more mass shootings.
a well thought out and documented post, snow, and one with complete agreement from me. I can't imagine any teacher facing an AR-15 in a chaotic situation and doing anything helpful, unless trump and the NRA are thinking teachers should be armed with semi-automatic weapons.
It is so sad and shocking that the NRA continues to hold the power it has over congress. it sickens me.
and your point:
(4) If cops are capable of snapping and murdering people due to job stress, teachers probably are too.
yup, who the hell can truly justify the Wild West in our schools?
ps hope all is well with you. I'm off to surgery on 4/2, feeling as good about it all as I can be....
love
kj
ps. pisces is thought to be the most difficult sign of the zodiac because it carries the weight of all the signs before it. it is a deep sign and when motivated, a universal force.
xoxo
My husband is a pisces..March 11th
Taurus(me) and Pisces seems to b a good match :)
Kris
It blows my mind how ANYONE would think that the answer lies in bringing MORE guns into the schools...???
It's virtually impossible to buy a firearm in the UK other than from a criminal. Those that apply to buy a pistol, revolver or rifle have to go through many hoops and have to be members of a recognized rifle club and subject to regular checks and inspections. I doubt there is any chance of legally obtaining an assault type gun.
I once owned a Webley revolver and a dozen rounds which I 'bought' from a customer of our betting shop chain, and this was simply because I had been threatened by scum brandishing sawn-off shotguns trying to rob the betting shop. Luckily I was never again challenged after I'd obtained this revolver. I eventually sold it to my then bookie boss. He was a real hard nut who would not hesitate to take out any would-be robbing bastard! I left the bookie game in 1972, and good riddance to it too.
Shotguns ARE legally obtainable over her but one still has to get a police licence and have a good reason to own such a gun. Clay pigeon shooting is one reason; most farmers own a 12-bore shotgun for obviou8s reasons, (vermin for example).
The law in America is crazy, in my opinion. With nutters like Donald Duck at the helm it will never change, not for a very long time. I do sympathise with Marion and hope her messed-up Ex soon exits this planet and she can relax properly. Another example of the crazy US laws in her case.
I didn't know it was your birthday, Snowy. Belated good wishes on your 69th! Oddly enough, I recently sent you a letter, don't know if it's arrived yet but hope I got the right address.
"Not going to be much change except for more and more mass shootings."
I think there are going to be sweeping changes, it's just a question of how many more people must die before the public will overrides the will of the gun lobby.
"It blows my mind how ANYONE would think that the answer lies in bringing MORE guns into the schools...???"
Already over the past two or three weeks, one teacher went bonkers and shot at his principal; another teacher (who was also in law enforcement) accidentally fired his gun during a "safety demonstration," and an armed security guard accidentally discharged his gun. The priority of the NRA is guns over lives, so all they're left with are such asinine proposals as arming teachers, and the Trump administration supports them.
"I do sympathise with Marion..."
No one denies that there are occasions when guns save lives, but a rational national policy must be based upon where the MOST good lies rather than upon the individual exceptions. My objection to the NRA is that, based upon its policies, it simply doesn't care how many people are killed as long as its members can own any damn weapon they want. Cop killer bullets (that is, bullets that can pierce police body armor)? The NRA favors them. Automatic weapons? But of course. High capacity magazines? Hell yes. Guns in the hands of felons, the criminally insane, and school age children? Yes, yes, and yes. On the one hand, the NRA is fond of saying that, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," but on the other, it objects to any law that would keep guns out of the hands of people who want to kill people. What does it propose instead? Arming ever more people. Why? Because, "The only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." But if this is so, why is it that our already gun overloaded nation has such a high murder rate? Why the NRA imagines that putting more guns in the hands of more people is a workable solution, I have no idea. Given that they offer no statistics to suggest that it is, I seriously doubt that they do. I instead think that they just have such a love affair with guns that they value the individual ownership with guns as being of greater importance than any number of innocent lives. I also believe that a large percentage of NRA members are anti-government hotheads who want all of those assault weapons in order to wage war against their own nation if it should what? Why try to take their guns away of course!
I don't begrudge Marion her ability to defend herself. If someone wanted to kill me, I've no doubt but what I would dust off my guns and make it my business to be really good with them, but I can't rationally argue that Marion's life, my life, or even my dear Peggy's life should outweigh the overall public good when it comes to creating public policy. While I would sacrifice any number of other lives to save Peggy's life, I can hardly argue that my willingness to do so should be taken into account when it comes to creating public policy.
KJ, so you don't believe in God (or God is irrelevant in your life), but you do believe in astrology? I'm lost here.
Post a Comment