Tag Archives: gun laws

GOP Disease: Say It, Then Apologize

23 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in Aging, All Rights Reserved, Assault Weapons, Communication, Discrimination, Donald Trump, Ethics, Generational, Government, Gun control, Gun Extremists, habits, Honor, Information Technology, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Pride, Public Image, racism, Respect, Russian influence, Second Amendment, Social Media Relations, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace, Voting

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republicans have a consistent problem. They first say what they are thinking…and then they apologize for it. It’s the GOP disease. In incident after incident a Republican office holder, or a Republican candidate will say something that is completely inappropriate and then smirk. They are proud of it. Then when it becomes national news, they suddenly grow a conscience and apologize for the remark…some of the time.

Former CIA Turned GOP Candidate Jokes About Killing Opponent 

The most recent incident to make national news is when a Republican candidate for Kentucky’s Secretary of State, Carl B. Nett, office suggested in a tweet that he could use an anti-NRA pin for a target if his opponent would move the pin closer to the center of his body.

The tweet itself is disturbing. What is more disturbing is that Nett is a former CIA and Secret Service agent. He was one of the people that our country entrusted with the use of deadly force because he supposedly was trained to control his impulses. As a former agent, the expectation is that he knows that killing someone is not a joking matter.

Nett has caused the world to question the training and discipline of our country’s CIA and Secret Service agents. He has made all of them look like cowboys out for a party with little or no self-control.

Trump As A Model

Donald Trump has been the model for Republicans in breaching intellectual and civil boundaries of behavior with his practice of saying anything that comes to his mind. Trump reveals his inner thoughts and expresses them in a diarrhea-type flow of violent, subhuman, and racist comments.

Unfortunately, Trumpsters love Trump because he says what they are thinking. That, in itself, is also disturbing.

Qualifications To Be a Public Servant

When someone says what they think, that is honesty. Honesty is good; however, when honesty reveals that the person is of a vile nature, they are not qualified to be a citizen of this country, let alone elected to public office. An apology is not the measure of a person. The person is measured by hu’s* actions.

Nett’s apology was a self-serving statement that he’s just a normal human:

Nett is not a normal human. Hu is representative of the nature and character of the Republican party. Hu’s values are Putin-like values that belong to a society of corruption and terror. We don’t need the excuses of people who can’t respect the ideals our country. We need people of character. Republicans are not those people. Carl B. Nett is a case in point.

[*Hu’s: a gender-neutral pronoun for his/her. Hu: a gender-neutral pronoun for he/she.]

Three Steps For Solving the Assault-Type Weapons Problem

16 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in Aging, All Rights Reserved, Assault Weapons, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Reno, Second Amendment, The Tipping Point, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Some people are saying that assault-type weapons genie is out of the box. Their belief is that the ban on assault-type rifles can never be reinstated. They fear that collection of assault weapons may involve violent confrontations with gun extremists. There is a way out of this mess caused by letting the assault weapons ban expire. It involves three steps.

Designed to Kill Without Aiming – Semi-automatic Mossberg-MMR

STEP ONE:  Reinstate the ban on assault-type rifles

All future sale, trade, and/or gifting an assault-type rifle, including all rifles with an automatic and/or semiautomatic firing function, would be banned in the United States of America. These weapons would not be allowed to be imported, nor purchased outside the United States and brought into the country.

STEP TWO:  Voluntary Surrender of Assault-type Rifles

Any current owner of an assault-type rifle would have the option of surrendering hu’s* weapon to local law enforcement. Those guns would need to be secured or destroyed.

STEP THREE:  Conditions of Ownership of Assault-type Rifles

Condition One:  Registration

Anyone with peaceful intent should be willing to comply with the registration of all assault-type weapons. Those that fail to register their automatic and semi-automatic weapons shall be considered to have a violent intent. They will face stiff fines and possibly prison. Registration will also consist of a background check, regardless of whether one was done when the owner purchased it.

Assault-type weapons cannot be sold to anyone else without approval from the local law enforcement agency. That agency will be required to perform a background check.

CONDITION TWO:  Insurance

Anyone owning a weapon in question must obtain and maintain a one million dollar liability insurance policy. This is similar to the liability policy required to own a car. Failure to do so will require forfeiture of the gun and a significant fine and possibly prison.

CONDITION THREE:  Compliance With the Second Amendment

Per the Second Amendment, an owner of an assault-type rifle must join a State National Guard and submit to regular training and duty as long as they own the weapon. Use of the weapon shall be regulated by that State’s National Guard, including the determination of mental and physical qualifications of use of such weapon.

(*’Hu’s’ is a pronoun meaning ‘his’ and/or ‘hers.’)

NRA is Not a Gun Safety Organization

14 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in About Reno, Aging, All Rights Reserved, Crime, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Health, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Recreation, Reno, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace, Wildlife, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I obtained a National Rifle Association (NRA) card in 1967 (updated in 1975.) Actually, it was a hunter’s safety card. It was a new requirement for a Colorado Department of Natural Resources hunting license for anyone born after 1949. I earned it by attending a hunter’s safety course sponsored by the NRA. I was nine years old, and as I recall, I was among the first children to go through the course. That was when gun safety was important to gun owners and to the NRA.

Today’s NRA:  Put Guns In the Reach of Children

Now the NRA is a nonprofit group with a focus on increasing the profits of weapons manufacturers. Safety is in conflict with its primary mission. Now its goal is to propagandize weapon ownership and instill fear in the mind of the public. The concept of promoting safe use of firearms has been replaced with promoting unsafe firearm practices. Protecting the sale of assault-type weapons and putting a gun in a room of children, for example.

In 1967 good gun ownership included making sure guns were unloaded when coming back into town. Guns and people are never a good combination. In 2018 the NRA philosophy is driven by one concept…How can gun manufacturers sell more guns? The new philosophy can be seen in every aspect of NRA activity. Guns in schools, guns at home, assault rifle for everyone, no background checks, etc.

… the NRA is a powerful political organization that lobbies for gun rights and opposes the restriction on firearms by gun laws … the National Rifle Association has become one of the most powerful organizations that has great influence at the political level.

The National Rifle Association website

Voice of Common Sense

Today at 10 am, students around the country will remember last month’s mass school shooting that killed 17 people. Gun extremists are quick to focus on the minor transgression of students walking out of class and ignore the murder of children by a man with a gun that no one should own. If this protest was for the NRA, gun extremists would be voicing the right of Free Speech, but only a fool would protest for the NRA.

Voices of common sense about gun ownership are always seen as a threat to gun extremists. I once spent over an hour discussion common sense gun ownership with two gun extremists who were on a campus seeking to recruit more gun extremists. My debate with them became pointless. It was the same NRA indoctrination over and over. They have to defend themselves against an imaginary enemy. When I asked them what allows them to be judge, jury, and executioner, their retort was, “I have a right to defend myself.”

Assault-type Rifles Are To Kill People 

One of the demands of today’s student protests is to reinstate the ban on assault-type rifles. Anyone who has hunted knows that an assault-type rifle is not compatible with shooting game animals. The first step in discharging any firearm is to aim at your target, and be sure there is nothing in front or behind that might be hit by the bullet. Once fired, a gun will jerk and require it to be aimed again. An assault-type rifle is designed to spray bullets in rapid fire, and if configured with a ‘bump’ stock, or illegally retrofit to be an automatic rifle, aiming is not possible.

The comments I have heard from owners of assault-type rifles is that they are ‘fun to fire.’ This leads me to believe that the man who committed the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was on a ‘thrill kill’ that was triggered by having so many weapons of mass murder available. He simply wanted to use them for their intended purpose.

The NRA’s position is that assault-type rifles should be available for anyone who can afford one. Their reason is simple; more weapons instills fear in others, which in turn sells more weapons. There is no downside to mass shootings in regard to the NRA’s goals.

Am I Safe?

After finding my Hunter’s Safety Card I contacted one of the Colorado Wildlife offices and asked if my card from 1967 or 1975 was still valid. They are, but that doesn’t make me a safe gun owner. A card doesn’t make you a safe gun owner. Nor does a gun make you a safe gun owner.

Why Are Conservatives Anti-Society?

13 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Aging, All Rights Reserved, Business, Conservatives, Discrimination, Donald Trump, Economy, Education, Ethics, Gender Issues, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Higher Education, History, Housing, labor, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, racism, Religion, Reno, Respect, Second Amendment, Taxes, United States, US History, Voting, Women

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The conservative agenda is not society friendly. It is designed to benefit few and ignore the rest. The ideology of conservatism is based on an idea of keeping what is perceived to be good and avoiding risk-taking in the future. It assumes that there will be winners and losers so life is about making sure they are the winners.

Fear and Hate are the Entrees for Conservatives

Religions As Safe Harbor For Conservatives

Religions are typically conservative because most religions are built on a paradigm of preserving past traditions. Even the Christian religion is filled with rules and rituals that preserve the thinking of the past and are resistant to change. This is why so many Christians identify themselves with conservative thinking.

The idea that everyone is worthy and equal is usually rhetoric in religions mixed with a condescending effort to help those less fortunate. Often religions and conservatives blame the less fortunate for their own problems. They are the losers and a conservative often consoles hu’s* conscience by making offerings or volunteering to help the less fortunate.

A Liberal Perspective is in Direct Conflict with a Conservative

A conservative, by definition, is focused on preserving what they believe with the assumption that any other belief is irrelevant. It is easy to understand why anyone who has a liberal perspective is worthy of ridicule to a conservative because liberals tend to have a less cynical view of humanity.

Conservatives are driven by fear and self-preservation, while liberals are driven by hope. Conservatives need to believe that they are under threat. Examples of conservative thought consumed by selfishness and fear are:

Taxes

All efforts in a society should be of direct benefit to the person paying taxes. Any money spent for the welfare of others is a target to conservatives and considered a waste of money. Conservatives often use rare examples of waste to ridicule spending for the benefit of less fortunate.

Gun Ownership

Conservatives use their fear of humanity to base a belief that a system of laws and impartial judgment are not effective. Conservatives believe that they should have the right to judge the actions of another person and execute them without trial. To the conservative, the term ‘defense’ justifies the instant execution of an unarmed person based on hu’s fear of that person.

Immigrants

Conservatives typically interchange hu’s racists beliefs with issues that target a particular race. Even though there is no significant immigration problem in the United States, conservatives manufacture a fear that immigrants are a threat. Immigration enforcement targets non-Caucasian races and typically ignore Caucasians.

Women

Historically women have endured a subservient role in society. Conservatives want to preserve that subservient role and consciously and unconsciously act as if women are a lesser gender. In religion, a fear of women has pushed them into a role of service to men and the church.

Conservatives Anti-Society

The problem with conservative ideology is that the fear and hate of non-conservatives places them as the adversary of society. It divides the population, often along the lines of race and power. In their mind, everything is an ‘us-versus-them’ battle regardless of a lack of evidence.

This attitude impacts the effectiveness of our society as the concept of a few winners is at the expense of the rest of the population. 

(*’Hu’s’ is a pronoun meaning ‘his’ and/or ‘hers.’)

Three Myths That Gun Extremist Believe

09 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in All Rights Reserved, Crime, Donald Trump, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Gun Extremists, Health, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, racism, Reno, Russian influence, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Gun Extremists have been fed a steady diet of misinformation by the NRA. Decades of crafting a lie have resulted in gun owners being one of the most misinformed groups in the history of the United States. When you talk with an NRA gun extremist you hear the following statements:

1.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT: 

The Second Amendment gives me a constitutional right to own an assault rifle and the government can’t take away my guns.

False. The Second Amendment begins with “A well regulated militia…” That is the focus of the amendment. Everything that is stated afterward is subject to the topic of a well regulated militia. Well regulated clearly means that the government is expected to regulate gun ownership. 

Guns are not trophies

2.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT: 

The Supreme Court ruled that the government can’t take our assault rifles away.

False. The Supreme Court ruled in The District of Columbia v. Heller that the government can’t ban handguns in the home, providing the person meets the qualifications required to own a gun. The Supreme Court specifically stated that more dangerous weapons could be banned from public use.

In fact, a ban on assault rifles existed from 1994 until 2004 when Congress failed to renew the ban. The ban was constitutionally legal.

3.  Gun Extremist’s Myth versus FACT:

I have a right to defend myself with a gun.

False. If you use a gun to injure or kill someone it must be proven that it was in defense. It is true, that in many states if someone enters your home it is considered allowable for a homeowner to shoot that person even if they are unarmed. The law does not give a person the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

However, it is rare that a gun death is a legitimate ‘defensive’ act. In 2013, of 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms,” 21,175 (63%) were suicides and 11,208 (33%) were homicides, 505 (1.5%) were deaths due to accidental or negligent use of a gun. We are the most well-armed nation in the world and over 97% of all gun deaths were not because someone killed the bad guy.

Could David Brooks Be Correct About Being Wrong?

05 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by in Aging, All Rights Reserved, Communication, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, History, Journalism, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, parenting, Politicians, Politics, Print Media, racism, Religion, Respect, Second Amendment, Traditional Media, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Damn him! Just when David Brooks seems to be defending a position on gun control that blames liberals for not being warm and fuzzy with gun extremists, he turns around and reconsiders his position. This is unacceptable! How can we establish a clear line in the sand when he says, “Maybe I’m wrong.” THE NERVE of that man!

David Brooks on Gun Control:  Let Red Be Red 

David Brooks has at least twice indicated that gun users should have a significant role in determining the parameters of gun ownership. Most recently he suggested that liberals should let the gun owners lead the discussion.

So if you want to stop school shootings it’s not enough to just vent and march. You have to let Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at every point. 

David Brooks – 19 February

His position was to let gun extremists continue to do what they’ve been doing and maybe…maybe, someday they will let common sense return. For me, that position is a nonstarter. I know these gun extremists. They are from small towns like where I grew up. For at least 40 years they’ve been on a steady diet of “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” (I saw that bumper sticker on a truck in the 1970’s.)

Gun extremists have not been rational for decades. The constant statements that “they’re coming to git your guns” is oxygen to gun extremists. These are not gun owners, they are gun cultists. They have no business being part of a discussion about guns, let alone lead it.

He Said What??

But last Thursday David Brooks took a different perspective on the issue. He said:

Continued school shootings could be just the thing that persuades the mainstream that conservatism is vulgar and socially illegitimate, somewhere between smoking and segregationism.

David Brooks – 1 March

This is an understatement. Slaughtering seven-year-old children with an assault rifle should never be compared to smoking or segregationism.

However, his realization is something that our country hasn’t heard from conservatives in a long time. It is not likely to be shared by many gun extremists, but if it were, we would have the assault weapon ban reinstated in a matter of days.

The rest of the country is watching the trainwreck of conservatism. The lead engineers of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnel, and Paul Ryan are putting more power to the engine even as it falls off the trestle. The Trumpsters onboard are laughing and whooping with joy.

Conservatives have used a desperate tactic of building a coalition with racists, religious extremists, gun extremists, and corrupt people of wealth. An idea is growing among people of common sense. The question is not just asking how do we stop the madness. The question is how do make sure it never happens again. The answer to that question should have Trumpsters soiling their underwear. There is a cost to arrogance, and arrogance is only temporary.

My Diagnosis of David Brooks

I believe I know why David Brooks is able to consider different points of view on issues as divisive as gun control. First, he was born in Canada. (I’ll take a moment while most of you slap your forehead and say, “Of course!”)

Second, I believe that David Brooks has used,…please, hear me out,…I believe he has used LSD at some point in his life. Recently I read about a study where subjects were tested after they were given LSD and the results indicated that they were more open-minded.

So, my theory is that the combination of being born in Canada and taking LSD at some point can cause a conservative to consider issues from multiple viewpoints. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that our country has many conservative Canadians who have taken LSD.

Nobody said this would be easy.

(NOTE:  David Brooks comments are published in the New York Times. Because this source uses a paywall to prevent sharing I have not linked to his full article per normal.)

David Brooks is Wrong Again on Guns

23 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Aging, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, Honor, Mass Shootings, Politicians, Politics, Respect, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

David Brooks is an intelligent and reasonable man…most of the time. For some reason, he is completely wrong again on gun control. Once again he has insisted that people of common sense should roll over and let gun extremists take the lead on the gun control debate. WE ARE EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE TODAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN NOT ONLY LEADING THE DEBATE, THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING THE DEBATE AWAY FROM INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.

Wayne LaPierre:  This is who has been leading the gun debate…and all the Trumpsters agree with him. We don’t have to respect that.

Can’t Compromise With Stupid

Most things are shades of grey. There are no quick and easy answers and some type of compromise is necessary. Trumpsters have changed that. Trumpsters are so far in the wrong that it is no longer an issue of coming to a compromise with them. The good citizens of this country have been driven back into a corner on major issues that are the foundation of our country and we are tired of being told that the corner is the only place to be.

Gun Control Debate Out of Control

Gun control is an issue that gun extremists have said so many stupid things for decades, that now they expect the rest of the country to just accept their stupidity.

NO! When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns? It was a stupid phrase fifty years ago, and it still is stupid today. Criminals have less opportunity to commit crimes when they don’t have easy access to guns. Gangs can’t commit as many drive-by shootings when they don’t have easy access to guns. Most guns are not used for crime, but rather, they are used to commit suicide. 

To be honest, if someone wants to take a chance that some family member will become upset and kill themselves, they can have a gun in the home. The moment you carry that gun out of the home is when it becomes my business. Weaponizing society gets people killed and that is not acceptable.

What Must Be Done

If you own a gun, fine. You are responsible for anyone that is harmed or killed by that gun. You should be required to carry the same liability insurance on that gun that is required on an automobile if it is involved in an accident and someone is harmed or killed.

And yes, you must license it, pay a yearly tax, and be limited to the number of guns and ammunition you own.

NO! The Second Amendment, nor the Supreme Court says that you can have any kind of gun you want and you don’t have to register them. In fact, they say the opposite. Gun extremists are wrong on the issue and you can’t let someone who is wrong lead the debate. It’s just stupid.

Victims of Major Mass Shootings Since Sandy Hook Elementary

22 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Crime, Ethics, Gun control, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The following are the names of the victims killed in major mass shootings since, and including, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on 14 December 2012.

Victims of Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

Stoneman Douglas High School Parkland, FL – 14 February 2018

  • Alyssa Alhadeff, 14
  • Scott Beigel, 35
  • Martin Duque, 14
  • Nicholas Dworet, 17
  • Aaron Feis, 37
  • Jaime Guttenberg, 14
  • Chris Hixon, 49
  • Luke Hoyer, 15
  • Cara Loughran, 14
  • Gina Montalto, 14
  • Joaquin Oliver, 17
  • Alaina Petty, 14
  • Meadow Pollack, 18
  • Helena Ramsay, 17
  • Alex Schachter, 14
  • Carmen Schentrup, 16

First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas – 5 NOV 2017

  • Robert Scott Marshall 56
    Karen Sue Marshall 56
    Keith Allen Braden 62
    Tara E. McNulty 33
    Annabelle Renae Pomeroy 14
    Peggy Lynn Warden 56
    Dennis Neil Johnson, Sr. 77
    Sara Johns Johnson 68
    Lula Woicinski White 71
    Joann Lookingbill Ward 30
    Brooke Bryanne Ward 5
    Robert Michael Corrigan 51
    Shani Louise Corrigan 51
    Therese Sagan Rodriguez 66
    Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez 64
    Haley Krueger 16
    Emily Garcia (died at the hospital) 7
    Emily Rose Hill 11
    Gregory Lynn Hill 13
    Megan Gail Hill 9
    Marc Daniel Holcombe 36
    Noah Holcombe 1
    Karla Plain Holcombe 58
    John Bryan Holcombe 60
    Crystal Marie Holcombe (pregnant*) 36
    *Carlin Brite “Billy Bob” Holcombe (unborn) 0 Unknown

Las Vegas Concert – 1 October 2017

  • Ahlers, Hannah Lassette
    Alvarado, Heather Lorraine
    Anderson, Dorene
    Barnette, Carrie Rae
    Beaton, Jack Reginald
    Berger, Stephen Richard
    Bowers, Candice Ryan
    Burditus, Denise Brenna
    Casey, Sandra Lee Multiple
    Castilla, Andrea Lee Anna
    Cohen, Denise Marie
    Davis, Austin William
    Day, Jr., Thomas Allen
    Duarte, Christiana Mae
    Etcheber, Stacee Ann
    Fraser, Brian Scott
    Galvan, Keri Lynn
    Gardner, Dana Leann
    Gomez, Angela Christine
    Guillen, Rocio
    Hartfield, Charleston V.
    Hazencomb, Christopher James
    Irvine, Jennifer Topaz
    Kimura, Teresa Nicol
    Klymchuk, Jessica Lynn
    Kreibaum, Carly Anne
    LeRocque, Rhonda M.
    Link, Victor Loyd
    McIldoon, Jordan Alan
    Meadows, Kelsey Breanne
    Medig, Calla-Marie
    Melton, James Sonny
    Mestas, Patricia Louis
    Meyer, Austin Cooper
    Murfitt, Adrian Allan
    Parker, Rachael Kathleen
    Parks, Jennifer Marie
    Parsons, Carolyn Lee
    Patterson, Lisa Marie
    Phippen, John Joseph
    Ramirez, Melissa Viridiana
    Rivera, Jordyn Nicole
    Robbins, Quinton Joe
    Robinson, Cameron Lee
    Roe, Tara Ann
    Romero-Muniz, Lisa M.
    Roybal, Christopher Louis
    Schwanbeck, Brett Erin
    Schweitzer, Bailey Dee
    Shipp, Laura Anne
    Silva, Erick Steven
    Smith, Susan Marie
    Stewart, Brennan Lee
    Taylor, Derrick Dean
    Tonks, Neysa Christine
    Vo, Michelle Ngoc
    Von Tillow, Kurt Allen
    Wolfe, Jr., William Winfield

Orlando, FL Nightclub – 11 June 2016

  • Stanley Almodovar III, 23
  • Amanda L. Alvear, 25
  • Oscar A. Aracena Montero, 26
  • Rodolfo Ayala Ayala, 33
  • Antonio Davon Brown, 29
  • Darryl Roman Burt II, 29
  • Angel Candelario-Padro, 28
  • Juan Chavez Martinez, 25
  • Luis Daniel Conde, 39
  • Cory James Connell, 21
  • Tevin Eugene Crosby, 25
  • Deonka Deidra Drayton, 32
  • Simón Adrian Carrillo Fernández, 31
  • Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25
  • Mercedez Marisol Flores, 26
  • Peter Ommy Gonzalez Cruz, 22
  • Juan Ramon Guerrero, 22
  • Paul Terrell Henry, 41
  • Frank Hernandez, 27
  • Miguel Angel Honorato, 30
  • Javier Jorge Reyes, 40
  • Jason Benjamin Josaphat, 19
  • Eddie Jamoldroy Justice, 30
  • Anthony Luis Laureano Disla, 25
  • Christopher Andrew Leinonen, 32
  • Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21
  • Brenda Marquez McCool, 49
  • Gilberto R. Silva Menendez, 25
  • Kimberly Jean Morris, 37
  • Akyra Monet Murray, 18
  • Luis Omar Ocasio Capo, 20
  • Geraldo A. Ortiz Jimenez, 25
  • Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera, 36
  • Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32
  • Jean Carlos Mendez Perez, 35
  • Enrique L. Rios, Jr., 25
  • Jean Carlos Nieves Rodríguez, 27
  • Xavier Emmanuel Serrano-Rosado, 35
  • Christopher Joseph Sanfeliz, 24
  • Yilmary Rodríguez Solivan, 24
  • Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34
  • Shane Evan Tomlinson, 33
  • Martin Benitez Torres, 33
  • Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24
  • Juan Pablo Rivera Velázquez, 37
  • Luis Sergio Vielma, 22
  • Franky Jimmy DeJesus Velázquez, 50
  • Luis Daniel Wilson-Leon, 37
  • Jerald Arthur Wright, 31

Social Services Center San Bernadino, CA – 2 December 2015

  • Robert Adams, 40
  • Isaac Amanios, 60
  • Bennetta Betbadal, 46
  • Harry Bowman, 46
  • Sierra Clayborn, 27
  • Juan Espinoza, 50
  • Aurora Godoy, 26
  • Shannon Johnson, 45
  • Larry Daniel Kaufman, 42
  • Damian Meins58Tin Nguyen, 31
  • Nicholas Thalasinos, 52
  • Yvette Velasco, 27
  • Michael Wetze, l37

Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, OR – 1 October 2015

  • Lucero Alcaraz, 19
  • Treven Taylor Anspach, 20
  • Rebecka Ann Carnes, 18[33]
  • Quinn Glen Cooper, 18
  • Kim Saltmarsh Dietz, 59
  • Lucas Eibel, 18
  • Jason Dale Johnson, 33
  • Lawrence Levine, 67
  • Sarena Dawn Moore, 44

Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina – 17 June 2015

  • Cynthia Marie Graham Hurd, 54
  • Susie Jackson, 87
  • Ethel Lee Lance, 70
  • Depayne Middleton-Doctor, 49
  • Clementa C. Pinckney, 41
  • Tywanza Sanders, 26
  • Daniel Simmons, 74
  • Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, 45
  • Myra Thompson, 59

Washington Navy Yard Washington, D.C. – 16 September 2013

  • Michael Arnold, 59
  • Martin Bodrog, 53
  • Arthur Daniels, 51
  • Sylvia Frasier, 53
  • Kathy Gaarde, 62
  • John Roger Johnson, 73
  • Mary Francis Knight, 51
  • Frank Kohler, 50
  • Vishnu Pandit, 61
  • Kenneth Bernard Proctor,  46
  • Gerald Read, 58
  • Richard Michael Ridgell, 52

Victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Sandy Hook Elementary School Newtown, CT – 14 December 2012

    • Nancy Lanza, 52
    • Rachel D’Avino, 29
    • Dawn Hochsprung, 47
    • Anne Marie Murphy, 52
    • Lauren Rousseau, 30
    • Mary Sherlach, 56
    • Victoria Leigh Soto, 27
    • Charlotte Bacon, 6
    • Daniel Barden, 7
    • Olivia Engel, 6
    • Josephine Gay, 7
    • Dylan Hockley, 6
    • Madeleine Hsu, 6
    • Catherine Hubbard, 6
    • Chase Kowalski, 7
    • Jesse Lewis, 6
    • Ana Márquez-Greene, 6
    • James Mattioli, 6
    • Grace McDonnell, 7
    • Emilie Parker, 6
    • Jack Pinto, 6
    • Noah Pozner, 6
    • Caroline Previdi, 6
    • Jessica Rekos, 6
    • Avielle Richman, 6
    • Benjamin Wheeler, 6
    • Allison Wyatt, 6

Second Amendment: A Well Regulated Militia

21 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Aging, Crime, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Gun control, History, Mass Shootings, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, Second Amendment, United States, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A well regulated militia. Gun extremists pretend that the first four words of the Second Amendment don’t exist. They beat people over the head with the Second Amendment using the last 13 words but never mention the part that frames the topic. I’ve even had one gun extremist tell me that the comma after the first four words invalidates them. 

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.

The Second Amendment

What “Well Regulated” Means in Second Amendment

Ironically, the first four words invalidates the gun extremists position against gun control laws. “Well regulated” is not an accidental phrase. It means that what is being discussed is not only to be regulated, but it is to be closely regulated.

Because it is stated first, it means that everything said after is to be considered within the framework of regulation. The Second Amendment is not about unlimited, unrestricted gun ownership. It is not a mandate to allow anyone to own any weapon they want. It clearly outlines that gun ownership is intended to be under the rule of the government.

Regarding assault rifles, our country had a legal restriction on assault-type rifles from 1994 to 2004. It wasn’t struck down because it was unconstitutional. It ended because a Republican Congress let the law die due to a Sunset provision in the ban.

Gun Extremists

Not what “well regulated” means

Supreme Court Ruling Confirms Guns To Be Well Regulated

Even the Supreme Court ruling that gun extremists like to use to claim unrestricted gun ownership confirms the right of the government to control the ownership of guns. In District of Columbia versus Heller, the Justice Anthony Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Majority Opinion “District of Columbia v. Heller”

Justice Scalia builds a creative argument why guns have to be allowed in the home, but he clarifies that home ownership does not mean unregistered gun ownership:

[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Majority Opinion “District of Columbia v. Heller”

The concept that guns cannot be regulated, nor registered is contrary to the ruling by the Supreme Court. “Well regulated” is the important aspect of the Second Amendment regardless of what gun extremists want to pretend.

Are These People the Next Mass Shooter?

19 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by in Crime, Government, Gun control, Health, History, Internet, Mass Shootings, Medicine, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, Social Interactive Media (SIM), United States, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Are one of these people in the picture below, the next mass shooter? According to gun extremists, law enforcement should already know who will be the next mass shooter by his or her behavior. The idea that we can stop the person before they pick up a gun based on behavior is absurd.

Are one of these people the next mass shooter?

Lots of Potential Killers, But Are They Real Killers?

A 2008 study determined that 1.2% of a random sample of people tested high enough to be considered potential psychopaths. In the United States, that means that there are about 3.876 million psychopaths. Do we lock all of them up to stop the mass shootings?

What about those who post hateful things on social media? Do review everyone’s post and lock up anyone who posts something that could be construed as an indication of violent behavior? How many trillions of dollars would it take to monitor all of social media and act on anyone who is suspicious?

What about tips to law enforcement? Florida Governor Rick Scott demanded that the FBI director resign because one call was made to an FBI tip line about Nikolas Cruz, who killed 17 people at a South Florida High School last week. Of course, his accusation had nothing to do with his support of Donald Trump. Governor Scott conveniently ignored that the Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said in a news conference that in regard to Cruz, they had received:

…20 calls for service over the last few years …

Florida Broward Sheriff Scott Israel

Do we lock up people if someone calls law enforcement? Can anyone make an accusation about someone and have him or her locked up on just a tip? What about the worst shooting? The shooter in Las Vegas gave no warning signs. It seems he was killing for pleasure just because he had a lot of guns.

The Solution

Assault-type rifles were banned in 1994 and the Republican Congress allowed that ban to lapse in 2004. The five worst mass shootings have occurred since the ban ended. There is only one solution. Eliminate easy access to weapons of war.

Mass Shooters Not Criminals Before They Picked Up A Gun

18 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by in Crime, Government, Health, History, Mass Shootings, Medicine, Mental Health, Politicians, Politics, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gun extremists like to portray the perpetrators of mass shooters as known criminals that should have been identified and stopped. That is a damn lie. Like millions of people in the United States, mass shooters often have anti-social behavior and/or involve themselves in hate-filled social media posts. Almost all of those people will not become a mass murderer. None of the mass shooters are identified as criminals until after they have picked up a gun and killed people.

Here is a list of the 20 worst mass shootings and indicators of instability prior to their crime:

TABLE 1.0 Worst 22 Mass Shooter Events in the USA

Millions of People Are Mentally Ill, Only a Few Kill

In some of the instances listed above the mental illness was known but was not an accurate predictor of the actions taken by the perpetrator. Almost all of the perpetrators were U.S. citizens, male, had easy access to guns, and/or was obsessed with gun ownership.

The five worst events have occurred after the ban on assault rifles was allowed to expire in 2004. Half of the top 22 mass shootings have happened in the last 18 years and the other half occurred in the 50 years prior.

More Guns, More Deaths

The simple fact is the explosion of gun ownership in the past three decades has resulted in an explosion of gun deaths. We are not safer now than we were 50 years ago, and while the funding for mental illness treatment is a factor, if guns weren’t easily accessible, the mentally ill would not have the opportunity to use them.

There are only three mass shooting events among the top 22 where the guns were not legally obtained. In two cases the guns were obtained because the criminal records of the perpetrator were not on record as they should have been. In the Columbine High School shooting, the two teenagers used friends to buy them guns. The other 19 events were people who had easy, legal access to the guns and if they hadn’t had that access, I wouldn’t need to write this article.

Armed Teacher Games

13 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Crime, Crisis Management, Education, Ethics, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, Lessons of Life, Opinion, parenting, Politics, Universities, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?

ARMED TEACHER SCENARIOS

STUDENT DISCOVERY
First grader finds hiding place of gun when teacher isn’t looking and pretends to shoot friend not realizing he’s released the safety. Kills the student. WINNER:  NONE

STUDENT WITH INTENT
Student learns where teacher keeps gun. One day student is despondent and decides to commit suicide and take others with him. Kills teacher, kills two students, kills self. WINNER:  NONE

DESPONDENT TEACHER
Teacher despondent after a series of life-changing events. Takes out gun and shoots self in front of classroom. Teacher dead. WINNER:  NONE

LOUD NOISE
Teacher responds to loud noise in hallway. See a person with a gun and shoots them. Other person is another teacher with a gun also investigating the loud noise. Teacher dead. WINNER:  NONE

STUDENT WITH GUN
Teacher sees a student with a gun. Accesses gun and yells at student to drop weapon, student turns, teacher shoots the student. Student was taking prop fake gun for school play back to office to be secured. Student dead. WINNER:  NONE

ACTIVE SHOOTER CONFRONTATION
Teacher hears popping in hallway. Accesses gun and opens door. Active shooter with assault weapon shoots teacher, enters open classroom door, shoots students who have no time to hide or escape. Teacher dead, 25 students dead. WINNER:  NONE.

OK CORRAL SHOOTOUT
Teacher hears popping noise in hallway. Accesses gun as shooter enters classroom. Gun battle ensues resulting in Teacher, shooter, and several students killed. WINNER:  NONE.

ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE
Teacher hears popping noise in hallway. Accesses gun. Begins to quietly evacuate students to safety, but accidentally discharges gun and shoots one of the students. WINNER:  NONE

ACCIDENTAL POLICE SHOOTING
Teacher hears popping noise in hallway. Evacuates students to safe area and returns classroom. Accesses gun. Identifies shooter. Kills shooter. Police enter, see a person with gun and orders the person to drop their gun. Person turns, police shoot and kill teacher. WINNER:  NONE.

STRANGE GAME. IT SEEMS THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY.

Why David Brooks Isn’t Qualified to Decide Who Can Be A Gun-Control Spokesperson

30 Sunday Dec 2012

Posted by in Crime, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Opinion, Politics, Recreation, Respect, Traditional Media, US History, Violence in the Workplace

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

David Brook, New York Times columnist

David Brook, New York Times columnist

New York Times columnist, political analyst, and all-around smart guy David Brooks rarely says anything that lacks intelligent thought, so when he makes a verbal blunder, as he did on December 16th on NBC’s Meet The Press group think session, it should be considered a national holiday for backwater bloggers like myself who make verbal blunders on a daily basis.

Two days after the murder of 26 people in Newtown, CT, David Brooks was making a point about the need for rural people to be included on the debate regarding the use of guns in our society. He said:

Brooks, defender of the innocent rural gun owner

“…it’s perceived as an attack on the lifestyle of rural people by urban people…”

Mr. Brooks then suggested that it was inappropriate for the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, to be leading the debate. Brooks stated:

“…it’s counterproductive to have him as the spokesperson for the gun law movement.”

As someone who was raised in northwestern Colorado, where blaze orange is always the Fall color, and a gun is put in your hand before a driver’s license, I would strongly disagree with Mr. Brooks and I would dispute that he is the person to choose who can be the spokesperson for laws to restrict gun ownership.

While guns are nearly idols to be worshiped in rural communities, this is not a debate about freedom of religion. Guns tend to have life ending consequences and that consequence is often borne by the person who doesn’t own the gun. Rural people don’t understand the pressures and conflicts (e.g.; road rage, etc.) that occur in more urban environments and therefore they don’t have a place in the debate of an issue that crosses the rural/urban boundaries.

Rural people usually can’t understand why anyone would live in a city and often have built their perception of city living based on news stories of mass killings, drive-by shooting, and murder-suicides. Many rural people see city life as a daily battle ground where the unarmed are targets for the armed bands of criminals who roam the city streets. The fact that millions of people live untouched by violent crime in cities everyday is beyond the belief of people who think Fox News is ‘Fair and Balanced.’

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is exactly the right person to be the spokesperson for the appropriate use and limitations of gun ownership in America. As Mayor of one of the U.S.’s biggest urban areas, Bloomberg’s view of the dynamics of cities and those who live in them is unmatched by few in America.

Brooks remark is akin to saying that only cigarette smokers should have a voice in the control and use of cigarettes, even though they can kill non-smokers. We don’t need to prove guns kill non-gun owners. Guns kill everyone, regardless of his or her gun-ownership status.

Brooks might be correct that this is a rural versus urban issue, but it is the rural citizen that already has the gun in hand and that is the wrong solution in an urban environment. It’s time urban communities were allowed to address the threat that rural values have on our cities.

Who can or cannot be part of this debate should be decided by those who face the threat, not by those who have the gun and David Brooks is not the person to make that decision for us…

….even if he is the smartest person in the room.