Reason for Violence in Schools is Separation of Church and State?

Before I get started, I'd like to point out that this is not targeting most religious people... many religious people would never make this assertion.... those that do, well, that takes a special kind of... well, ok, I've made my disclaimer, go ahead and read

message reads:
Dear God, Why do you allow so much violence in our schools? - A concerned student;
Dear Concerned Student, I'm not allowed in schools. - God

Let's explore this a bit shall we?  First, this is a direct response to the mass shootings we've seen at schools... so let's look at other places where mass shootings have been happening.

theaters - well... yeah, heathens go to theaters, they're the devil's playground.  Full of violence and sex and filth.  Makes sense that God would allow violence there.

malls - heathens go to malls to shop.  Look at all those evil places like Victoria's Secret and Apple and TJ Max and...

college campuses - well, duh

military bases - well, since we allowed gays in, right?  (oh, sorry, I seem to have moved to calling the person relaying the message homophobic somehow... I would say I'm sorry but I suspect you're realizing that I'm not particularly happy with anybody expressing this opinion)

churches... oh.. wait... God allows violence in churches because... hm...

White guys with guns on public land versus blacks without guns on public streets

The free-Bundy protest going on in Oregon is very strange to me when I try to look at it from all sides and analyze the statements being made by various groups.

First of all, every time I hear the leader of this armed self-proclaimed "militia" say "we just want this to end peacefully" I think to myself 2 questions:

1. Then why did you bring guns?
2. Then just leave?

It just seems so inaccurate and insincere.  But I have to realize that this group of people actually thinks the big bad government is going to come and shoot them in the dark of night when nobody is looking.  As ridiculous as that sounds to me, as hard to believe, they believe it and therefore they feel they need to arm themselves, even though the simple act of arming one's self for protection raises the stakes, raises tensions, and increases the chance of an armed stand off.  

There's a reason that peaceful protests, historically, tend to be sans-weapons.  It helps bring people to your cause if you're not being aggressive and instead being passively and politely steadfast.  Bringing a weapon intrinsically adds to your aggressive-level, regardless of how many times you insist the weapons are not meant to be aggressive but instead be defensive.

And then there's the left-wing response: an attempt to compare this protest to other peaceful protests that have happened recently.  Most of the protests have been peaceful, some arrests but no major injuries.  But when it's mostly blacks protesting in their own neighborhoods, they have often been called riots by the media and major politicians.  Sure, there have also been riots, but those have been significantly fewer and smaller than the peaceful marches and gatherings in these communities.  The left then pointed out that in Texas, when several biker gangs had a shootout amongst themselves and with law enforcement, the media called it a brawl... not a riot, a brawl.  People on the left raised the point of the disparity in descriptions and pointed to it as part of the implicit bias/racism we have in the media.  And now, while there has been no violence, people on the left have raised their voices with the belief that the media would have called the "militia groups" something else if they weren't white, maybe mobs, anarchists, armed militants.  Maybe the "occupation" would be called a riot by the media.  Maybe the result of a week-long protest would have been armed confrontation by local, state, and federal law enforcement rather than state and federal law enforcement being nowhere to be seen or heard and the local government officials requesting that the groups leave.  

There has been the explanation that law enforcement considers this protest to be more a kin to scenarios like Wako where armed engagement led to outcomes that reflected negatively on law enforcement in the past, with casualties and such.  This, to me, is an explanation that rings very true.  Of course law enforcement wants to be careful due to these memories of armed conflicts.  Of course they feel the stigma.  That is a reasonable explanation for why they are giving these armed white militants a wide berth.  But that doesn't mean this response isn't intrinsically racist, just because it's rational.  Here's the problem with saying it's reasonable to react differently to the scenario given the past:

1. It indicates that the public's reaction when law enforcement locks down a city, or sections of a city, with riot-gear-armed officers and shooting rock/brick-armed civilians, that the public's reaction to this is not sufficient to be nearly the same as the public's reaction to law enforcement having a confrontation with gun-armed civilians.  Yes, the latter tends to involve deaths, but this is the natural reaction of increased weaponry being brought to the table on the civilians' side since it intensifies the conflict.  Not, I mention the increased weaponry brought by civilians, that's because the weaponry being brought by law enforcement in both scenarios is of a similar level at this point.
2. It indicates that being armed and white is appropriate when protesting while it's been proven by law enforcement's responses (and the public's as well) that being armed and black is completely inappropriate, to the point of allowing a defense of immediate and summary execution of the armed civilians.

The dichotomy is disturbing to me, to say the least.  

I feel for the ranchers who are worried that the big bad government is going to restrict their land usage even further, thus they feel their livelihoods are endangered, but the protest is about people being imprisoned for arson... I'd love to hear someone explain why setting a fire that one did not sufficiently contain to avoid a fire on public lands is reasonable and why people who commit a crime under the law should not be held accountable based on the law and existing mandatory minimums.  I haven't heard them call for an end to mandatory minimums, which are the reason that two ranchers have been sent back to prison (the original sentences were less than the mandatory minimum requirements for the crime committed).

So, when my gut tells me that these people are ridiculous and that law enforcement continues to show racial bias, I think I've provided rational explanation of how my gut, at least in this instance is correct... which is a relief to me, as I do not want to shoot from the hip on these matters (always like to throw in a gun metaphor when appropriate).

guns guns guns part 2

As I continue the discussion about guns, there's been a lot of debate lately because of a recent school shooting which has raised the issue nationally.

Because the recent mass shooting was at a school, and school shootings are more alarming to the general public, the national discussion is all about school shootings rather than just about mass shootings.  This has led to the NRA making an absurd suggestion: place security guards in schools.  Here's a little bit of why this proposal is insane:

• The Right is who is proposing this... the Right also feels that we should reduce costs, this would certainly add costs for school systems nation-wide as we hire at least 2 people, and often several more, per school.
• Schools are not the only place where mass shootings occur.  In just the last year, we've seen mass shootings at a mall, a place of worship, a movie theater, and a random street (2 cops were injured in a shooting this past weekend when they tried to stop a guy walking up and down a street shooting people).  Are we going to put guards on every street and in every place of gathering?
• The suggestion was made with the rationale that we have armed guards at banks and in stadiums and in some stores, so why not in schools?  Well, see, people aren't tempted to ROB schools, we don't make investments in our schools in that fashion.  People are not only tempted but STILL DO rob banks and stores for the money and goods in them.
• The suggestion was started off with "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" (NRA President, Wayne LePierre).  O.k., then explain to me how an armed guard at a school would be better at stopping an armed bad guy than everybody at a military base (Fort Hood, 2009) or the armed guards at malls.  The truth is, even a good guy with a gun has trouble stopping a bad guy with a gun.

Here's what I would like to suggest instead:

• In my previous post about guns (http://darkwindrising.blogspot.com/2012/12/guns-guns-guns-part-1.html), I listed a number of reasons to be concerned about hand guns, so I would suggest there be some sort of additional controls to assist with guns in the home:
• Nobody says that registration and annual inspections of cars is infringing on car owner's rights, so let's institute registration requirements and annual inspections for guns, this way we can know who has what guns legally.  It's important to note that by far, most homicides and mass murders are committed with legally purchased guns and bullets.  That being said, there are loopholes in the laws surrounding the purchase of guns having to do with gun shows, we should get rid of these... nobody would ever suggest that we have a car show at which we let people to buy cars without going through all the required processes.
• Every person purchasing a gun should be required to pass a practical test.  These should include proper use of the gun both in being able to fire as well as securing it.
• The path we take to reduce mass shootings must be different from the path we take to reduce the more common homicides committed with guns.  The path to reduce mass shootings involves making it harder to do the shoot en-mass.
• Assault weapons must go.  The purpose of an assault weapon is to kill many people, nothing else, so can we make it illegal for individuals to own them?
• Likewise, large clips of ammo only serve to make it easier to kill more people without changing the clip, so let's shrink ammo clips for individuals so that it's a little slower and harder to commit mass murders.
• While we're discussing ammo, we should make it hard to purchase various types of ammo, such as hollow-point bullets and teflon coated bullets

guns guns guns part 1

To start off, I would like to point out that I am in favor of gun (and ammunition) control.  That being said, gun and ammo control needs to be broken down into a few different discussions. 

1. self-defense against individuals
2. hunting/sport
3. defense against other states
4. self-defense against our state

Let's start with the easiest of these, number 3.  The second amendment was designed with this in mind because at the time there was no standing army, nor a plan for a standing army to be created.  The colonists had militias to defend themselves from other nations, it's right there in the first half of the sentence-long amendment.  So, since we don't have a need for individuals to run out of their house to protect the neighborhood from a foreign state, the second amendment is no longer valid.... that being said, it's still on the books and requires some effort to overturn through constitutional amendment, therefore the rest of the discussion in this post will be about what should be and why, not an interpretation of what is currently legal (so those devoted to the second amendment based on it being the law should shut up and just listen for a bit).

Next up, hunting/sport.  This is actually one I'd appreciate feedback on.  I have no experience in hunting or using guns in sport, but it seems to me that hunting is more of a sport when you don't spray the target with bullets and instead have to aim at the target and use skill.  This suggests that military-grade and just below military-grade guns aren't necessary for hunting/sport enthusiasts.  Am I wrong?  In addition, it doesn't seem like extra-large clips of ammo would be required for hunting and hand guns certainly seem like they're not helpful.

Self-defense against our state is an odd one.  Most people in the US understand this to not be needed but there are those who feel that their guns protect them from the oppression that may come down from the US Government.  To these people, I would like to point out that the US military, and indeed, most major city police forces, would overpower them without too much difficulty, unless they were concerned with the loss of human life on the rebel side. 

Self-defense against individuals, now here's a meaty one.  I have several friends who fall back on "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  While this is true, there's more to it than that.  First of all, we could limit guns to police forces and the like, in which case, not only outlaws would have guns.  The usual response is "but what if a little old lady needs to defend herself against an intruder."  I will reply to this with several thoughts:

1. The little old lady needs to be able to fire the gun with proficiency, aka training.
2. The little old lady needs to be able to manage the gun.  I've never fired a gun but from what I hear, they have some recoil that requires strength to manage.
3. It only helps the little old lady if she can get to the gun, get to the bullets, unlock the gun and load the bullets all before the aggressor catches up.  Gun safety (see below for why it's important) requires one to put the precautions in place to make sure you don't become the victim of the gun you have to protect yourself.  But those same precautions make it less likely for the gun to be useful to you in a bad situation.

There's also some statistics I'd like to point out:

• There are on average, in the US, about 26 murders each day using guns (2/3 of the murders that take place)
• There are on average, in the US, about 2 unintentional deaths caused by gunfire each day.
• A gun in the home...
• increases the chance of being killed by firearms 72%
• is responsible for a vast majority of children killed by firearms
• is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or accident than to be used in self defense
• triples the risk of homicide
• increases the liklihood of suicide fivefold
• an abused woman is 6 times more likely to be murdered if there is a gun in the home

So, given these statistics and facts above, I have to say that guns aren't the answer to making our communities safer.

Responses to school shootings noted

So much to talk about....

Alright, let's start of with recent events.  Last week, there was another school shooting.  A young man went into an elementary school, killed 20 kids and their teacher, who happened to be his mother.  They found a dead family member at his house too.  In the aftermath of this event, people had different responses.

• Gun control advocates posted a lot of comments saying that we should do something to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.
• People like the NRA: 
• Lashed back saying that gun control advocates were trying to take advantage of a bad situation and that it was playing politics.
• Proclaimed that if there were more guns, we'd be safer (e.g. if the principal had a rifle in his office)
• Touted the second amendment as they always do, saying that the gun control advocates were trying to curb their rights provided in the Bill of Rights.
• Others responded that we should not play politics with situations like this and we should simply show our support for the families who had lost children.

I will respond to each in turn, as each has a flaw:

• To the gun control advocates (full disclosure, I am one): There are several battles to be waged, and each one has a time and place.  I've seen a lot of discussion of generic gun control discussion going on, but whenever there's a shooting like this one, the person persecuting the crime wouldn't have been prevented from having a gun even if we had most of what we wanted.  Instead.  I would suggest focussing on the really troubling issue:  shooters often carry multiple guns, but they do most of their damage using semi-automatics with large clips of ammo.  It doesn't take long to reload, but it takes time, and that's time they're not a threatening to those who would stop them. 
• Ah... "gun rights advocates"... there's only so much of your b.s. that I'm willing to take.  First of all, yes, fine, lash back saying that gun control advocates are trying to take advantage.  That's reasonable.  Proclaiming that we're safer with more guns is ridiculous though, and the second amendment has to be twisted around in order to "protect" your rights.
• Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, any of these sound familiar?  That may be because they are the states with the highest violent crime rates of the US.  Or it may be because they also have extremely loose gun control laws.  That's right, the states with THE HIGHEST violent crimes laws have the loosest gun control laws.  Where's the benefit of having guns?  Shouldn't these states have lower crime rates if they have looser gun control laws?
• Second amendment.... oh second amendment.... all right, let's go.  "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."  Just over half of the statement agrees with your interpretation.  THE FIRST HALF DISAGREES.  A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the U.S. because we have a well trained military.  The amendment was put forth during a time when the citizens had to protect themselves because we had no standing military.  "But Peter, what about the right of citizens to protect themselves against the Government."  Are you kidding me?  Name one militia that could go up against the US Military, or really any major city's police force?  Do you think we should have militias that have rocket launchers, armor piercing bullets, and automatic military-grade machine guns? Then shut up!  The second amendment was required once upon a time but is no longer relevant.
• O.k., I understand that we should be respectful, and if I had any friends in Newtown, I'd limit what I say, because they deserve some peace.  That being said, nobody I'm friends with on Facebook is from Newtown.  Also, if responding to tragedy with pushing for improvements to regulations or suggestions that would help avoid those tragedies in the future is poor form, did you complain when people responded to various markets crashing by asking how it happened and looking to improve/rework regulations?  Did you complain when, in response to a nuclear meltdown, people eyed nuclear power plants and asked if there were better security provisions that could be made (such as not putting the waste nuclear rods in a storage tank ABOVE the main reactor)?  Yes, there's a point when we go overboard and should be reigned in, but that doesn't mean we can't have meaningful discussions in reaction to events.  If you have a problem with that, go stick your head further in the sand and stop paying attention to anybody any time anything happens that causes us to pause and reflect to see if there are better ways of doing things.

I'm sure you won't be surprised when I post more about gun control soon, but I've written my fill for the time being.  I'll probably write more before the end of the month.