Let the debate commence!
To begin from a factual basis, this is what Wikipedia says about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The Great Seal of the United States of America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
This is what I wrote about the most recent Florida School shooting:
https://yoursituationalawareness101.com/another-school-shooting-valentines-day-in-florida/
Parents at Florida School Shooting on Valentines Day
“To gun or not to gun,” that is a question!
Full disclosure, my position on this is somewhat biased. I have disclosed this fact before, I have national concealed carry authority. That is because I am a retired law enforcement officer. As long as I complete the required qualifications, maintain a good standing in society, as in, don’t do something stupid, I am authorized to carry in every state. In concept. Those in my position know that there are certain states that may challenge this authority, for reasons that elude me, but be that as it may, that is my status. Because of this privilege, I try to view the issue as a citizen of the country, rather than as a retired officer. I ask myself, self, what would my position be if I did not have my privilege?
I don’t think there has ever been a poll on this subject, but if asked I would guess that most cops are split on the issue. Active cops may hold a different position than the retired officers. Many, maybe even most Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs will argue that all guns in the hands of civilians should be restricted. This may be by conscious, but it also may be by political and social pressure. As managers who may have been selected by an elected official, or voted into office by a citizenry that leans one side or the other on the issue, by not speak from their heart as much as from their standing in office.
And then there is this issue; the difference between open carry and concealed carry. Open carry means that the person is allowed to have the weapon on their person, as long as it is visible to all around them. Concealed carry is obvious, the weapon is hidden on the body, under a shirt, jacket or in some carry device.
Now, the following comment by me will be viewed as a bias statement. But if I am a blogger, I have to be open to what comes with the job. To begin, this is just one of the links referring to this point:
A hero teacher, and be clear, they are all heroes, had the opportunity to open her classroom door and allow children to enter the relative safety of the classroom. My question is this, what if that teacher had been one that had chosen to acquire, receive expert and complete training, and become an authorized designated armed protector of their students. Picture this, she opens the door, armed and ready. She first ensures that the children are directed to the safety of the classroom, and she then turns her attention to the presence of the criminal shooter. At that point, she has an option that she did not have without the weapon. She is now in the “shoot/don’t shoot” scenario. Cops in training are put in the various shoot, don’t shoot situations where they must make a decision about the threat facing them. Are they in an advantageous position that gives them the opportunity to take offensive action, in defense of those threatened, and with their weapon, take on the criminal. If that teacher has a clear shot then maybe, just maybe, the criminal is stopped in his effort to kill more, and more children. If not, perhaps the criminal sees the other gun holder, realizes that he is not free to kill at will, and decides to retreat. Again, possibly sparing more lives as he flees. The fact is, at some point, he decided to end the killing spree and hiding among the other fleeing children, he escaped the location.
If it were my child and my child’s school, would I want an armed and qualified person present, with a gun, trained and authorized to take action? Yes, I would. And yes I did.
My own daughter attended a private school. An excellent school in Southern California. This school never had an incident of gun violence in its long history. That fact was a part of my choice when my daughter began there. I sought out the school’s administration and we discussed the matter of their campus security. Though the school had not had an incident of gun violence, there had been conflicts involving at least one school staff that ended badly. To their credit, they listened to and took my recommendations. The school added cameras at strategic locations, changed door and gate policies making it more difficult for unauthorized persons to enter the campus, and trained teachers on how to best maintain classroom and playground security. They also hired a retired police officer (actually a retired Sheriff…but whatever!) to be present each day, on campus, at select and roving locations, during all the hours that children and teachers are on campus. He was the only gun holder, but one, in my opinion, was better than none.
I do not recommend guns to people that do not have an interest or need. I do not recommend guns to people that are not willing to go through expert gun handling training. And that is how I argue the issue to people. If you choose to own a gun, you should, no, you must be well trained and maintain continuing good training with that gun. A novice with a gun is a dangerous thing. Picture a white belt (novice) Martial Artist. That person can be a dangerous thing to themselves, until such point in time when the novice gains sufficient skills to be designated expert in their martial arts talents.
So far this posting has been focused on the school scenario. But what of the question about guns in the greater American public? Here is what Pew Research group says about that:
The question has to be, what have current affairs taught us about safety and security in America today. We have the Florida School shooting, we have the Las Vegas concert/street shooting, we have several nightclub shootings, we have had more than one church shooting, and we had the park shooting in Washington D.C., in which members of Republican congressional members were playing baseball when attacked by a gunman. The numbers are too large to list here. There seemingly is no filter on the choices and locations for shootings. One shooting, one death, one serious injury are each, too many. When the number of victims goes beyond four, which is where the FBI begins to delineate the event to be a mass shooting, it gets ridiculous. We have far too many shootings in America, no debate there.
We know that today (Tuesday 20 February 2018), as I am writing this, high school children, and presumably their supporting adult parents and possibly teachers, are traveling to Washington D.C. and to the various state government offices around the country and perhaps in your own towns. Their intent is to lobby on the subject of guns. The conversation, the argument, the messages, will likely all be about gun laws and various arguments about “gun control.”
The term “gun control” is a hot-button term and refers to something that is a matter at the center of the dialogue on this and similar subjects related to guns.
That these students are being activist and lobbying as they currently are is not a bad thing. It is an adult thing. It is healthy when done in the organized and mature manner that we have seen so far. The question here is the key. What is their message? What is the best message? Further, a question yet to show up is will their movement be taken over by political and special interests. Will we see partisan political figures and leaders of certain special interest groups, with their own agenda and message, taking the stage and potentially taking over the movement that these democratic students are now leading?
Do we need better laws with respect to guns? Well, that is a shallow question. Do we need better management of gun sales? Yes, responsible and trackable movement in the sales of guns, from any venue or mode, is not unreasonable.
And then there is the designation of the various types of weapons, as in, assault weapons, rifles, handguns, et al. Clarity on what those engaged in the argument, I mean debate, are talking about, should be made clearer. To argue indiscriminately about “guns” without clarifying what you are talking about leads to people presuming you are talking about something you may not be focused on. As in, all weapons. And this is what leads to mass hysteria as gun owning people and constitutionalist see you threatening to take away all guns and violating our constitution. We should not cloud the discussion with ill-defined talk about a type of gun that is incorrectly identified. By that I mean, an AR15 is a rifle, but there are other types of rifles. Discussion of this type of rifle should be made clear so that our decisions on how to manage them is clear and correct.
When the parties to the discussion are selected there should also be reasonable and educated experts on both sides of the table. When talking about the capacity of gun magazines, those monstrous things that hold the ammunition, experts should be able to guide us all through a reasonable differentiation between what is reasonable and what is outrageous.
Lastly, at least for this current conversation, there is the States of the United States. Each state holds it’s own powers of regulation. Not so much to restrict gun ownership, but to manage other aspects of the subject. States can mandate how much time a person should be required to wait before taking active possession of their purchased gun. States could regulate training and training requirements for gun possession. Some of these things might be challenges to our laws, but the conversation can be had on these and other points.
Bottom Line…too many children killed by other people, here in America, and for that matter, anywhere on this planet. That opening statement goes around tags that slow down the process, like “mass” shooting, and “assault weapons,” and how our children can be attacked and killed. Any and every way this can happen is bad and needs to be fixed!
Remember, this can be a constructive discussion, don’t hate or insult. It just is not necessary, and gets us nowhere!
hcooperblog, thanks for the article post.Really thank you! Great.
Thank you!
Jerome, you are absolutely correct. I Googled a map of the states with the highest and lowest gun deaths. The states with the most stringent gun laws saw fewer gun deaths. I agree we are not the only nation with people who are mentally ill but we do have a higher number of deaths due to guns. So the issue is not mental illness it is guns. Wayne La Pierre spoke at length this morning on MSNBC and blamed Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and on and on he ranted, however, since his agenda is guns and the gun industry, he never, even once, mentioned that guns were the problem. Well, Mr. La Pierre, guns are the issue, too many guns, and too many military weapons in the hands of civilians, who should never own a military weapon.
Thanks Jerome for your comment. Googled details should be given with attribution. One can find anything on Google these days. Guns are a part of the problem, but not the source. Sick people choose guns as their method of acting out against the world. Others use vehicles, others airplanes, others knives and others bomb vests. All are evil and misused. All are a product of mental illness or indoctrination (brainwashing). If we deal with mental illness, produce healthy families and supporting communities we will see less suffering, hate and all the byproducts of sick minds. Yes, I used the “IF” monster. Not the preferred way of arguing a point. But it is true, we have a systemic and fundamental problem with mental illness. I am guessing that you are healthy, intelligent and live a civil life. You do not dream of killing people in any manner or method. Such thinking is not available to you. That is how it should be. And if you get mad one day, you probably do not go searching for a rifle or gun, right? Work with me on that one! We seem to have a health problem in America today. We have changed and seem to be growing apart from one another and searching for issues to fight over, rather than issues to bring us together.
Would we benefit from having fewer guns? No one can know that for sure. Based on the number of shootings we have had, be they mass shootings or less, we could still have the same numbers of incidents, and similar numbers of victims. Why, because they could still be carried out with other methods, and the core issue would not be eliminated, the sick person behind the gun. As for the ability of an AR15 to shoot a lot of bullets, well, the reality is this, based on my experience in law enforcement and beyond, I can shoot as many bullets, 30, that an AR15 does, in the same amount of time, by reloading. A bit more dexterity needed, but that comes with training.
You mentioned politicians, well I try and stay out of “political” talk. But, our politicians these days are more concerned with winning the argument, than serving the needs of the country. That is why I like the America First slogan. I believe that politicians, who are protected by people with guns, live in mansions and benefit from advantages and privileges that you and I can only imagine, politicians do not speak for what is right, as much as what keeps them in their long-term jobs.
As you have said, guns are a problem, but they are not “the” problem. WE, Americans, are THE problem.
“There’s not much empathy for victims of gun violence in this post. This isn”t a move against gun violence, it”s a move against a PARTICULAR type of gun used in a tiny minority of gun crimes. Dick”s will still be selling semi-automatic guns. They”ll be selling the kind that OVERWHELMINGLY is used in the vast vast majority of gun crimes. Nobody is asking Vista to stop producing the guns used the the vast majority of gun crimes. That”s hand guns. What we are seeing right now isn”t AT ALL an attempt to curb gun vipolence, it”s seeking a scapegoat. Actually reducing gun violence would be hard, it would mean going after ILLEGAL gun dealers, it would mean talking about the incredibly toxic relationship urban blacks and Hispanics have to their own gun culture. Rednecks with AR-15s are an easy and despised target for progressives, people they”d just as soon suffer anyway, no matter WHAT the cause is.
Thank you for your comment. All civil comments are welcomed. Your suggestion that the post does not show empathy can be said to be correct. My intent and process are to stick to facts, and then on rare occasions an element of opinion. And even in the opinion area I favor supported facts, details or supported viewpoints. As a parent and a human, I, of course, have empathy for the victims. I would bet, and I don’t mean this in an insensitive way, I bet I have seen far more death, far more victims, and far more sadness in families than most people. Without knowing your life details, I might have more experience with that than you.
On the subject of guns, I did make the point that I have a bias, being former law enforcement. But that bias does not go towards arming the general public. I am against arming people who are not trained, tested, vetted and committed to the responsibility of possessing a gun. I am open but do not recommend arming people with guns that do not fit a particular profile of responsibility, need and desire. Everyone should not have a gun.
Having said that, the law, our Constitution does, in fact, allow for everyone to have a gun. That is a fact, until such time as when it is changed in a logical, legal and ethical…and I might add, clinical process, free from emotion, politics and social bias.
Not clear on your Vista reference.
Handguns are the most frequently used method of gun violence, not just in the U.S. but globally. The description of the AR15 used in most American violent crime incidents is military “Assault Weapon.” Ok, but be clear. What distinguishes the AR15 in civilian use is the barrel length and the type of bullets it fires. The magazine capacity is not significant here. That is because high capacity magazines can be had for all semi-auto handguns, more follows. Most semi-auto handguns have reasonably short barrels. The effect is to limit the accuracy and range of the gun as compared to a rifle. Where this is most evident is in a situation like the Las Vegas shooting. A person shooting from the window used in that terrible event would have had a different result using a handgun, primarily because of a loss of range and accuracy. Yes, the bullets would still reach victims down on the ground from the shooter, but there would be a loss of effectiveness and accuracy. Now that is a rather clinical response, and I do not mean it to sound insensitive, just factual. I try to deal in facts.
A final point on the rifle/handgun debate is this, the magazine capacity of the AR15. It is typically 30 rounds for an AR rifle. The capacity of a handgun in California is 10 rounds for civilians. Based on my training and experience, and not as a challenge or brag, I would have little difficulty dispensing 30 rounds, at a rate of 10 per magazine, in the process matching the rate of fire on the AR. The same level of lethality, mitigated only by the distance to the target. That last point is not something I offer with comfort. It sounds threatening. But it is intended to simply apply balance to the factual argument.
My final points go to what I wanted as my key message in my original post. I believe the family, mothers, and fathers, are the first and most important key to solving this problem. Yes, having guns available to purchase, or steal, is an issue. But if we in America could begin to focus on healthy families, and within reason, having fathers and mothers in the home and providing ethical and responsible mentoring to our young, we could see a healthy and long-term change in this issue of ALL violence, not just gun.
The social issues you bring up in your comment are open to interpretation. But, I suggest, families and communities working together in bringing up healthy young people, supporting good education, getting poor children fed, eliminating bullying and gang influence, that is where we would see results. Black families, Hispanic families and Redneck families (as you listed), could and should be focused on bringing up good future doctors, lawyers, farmers, mechanics, builders, teachers, etc.
The most important issue of this entire dialogue is the long-term and broader issue of the health of America. Keep our kids safe, our teachers teaching, our streets safe, our society thriving and each of us talking civilly with each other and working for the common good of the country.
Give a person a fish and they will be fed a meal. Teach a person to fish and they can feed themselves indefinitely. (paraphrased from the original, the source of which is a matter of debate)
Thanks Jennie