Guns--Yet Again

I really don't want to blog about guns anymore and had thought (or hoped) that I was done doing so. But, alas, we've had another awful mass shooting of innocent school children.

President Donald Trump held a highly publicized meeting with survivors and parents of victims of three school shootings: Columbine, Sandy Hook/Newtown, and the latest, Parkland, Florida.

As part of what he proposes to do about the problem, which was dramatized to him by some very emotional speeches by the student survivors and parents, he cited the coach who was shot in Parkland, saying that if that man had been armed, things might have been different.

In other words, the answer to the shooting problem so often given by gun-rights advocates and the NRA (National Rifle Association): MORE GUNS! The answer to the problem of prevalent, too-often-used guns in America is MORE GUNS! The idea being that, if I am in a situation where someone is shooting and killing, and I have a gun myself, I can shoot (and presumably kill) the shooter--thus saving myself and others.

I can see one problem with this idea. There is one element in the equation that is being omitted: If I am face-to-face with someone with a gun, and who is using that gun, the outcome--isn't this obvious?--depends on who is the better shot; that is, who can shoot faster (i.e., be quick on the draw) and more accurately--that is, who is the better shot.

I, for one, would not have faith in myself to be the one who comes out better (or alive) from this hypothetical situation. I guess everybody in America must not only get a gun but "learn how to use it," that is, spend time on one of those things I think are called firing ranges.

And, again for myself, I think that, even in a situation where it might be viewed as a case of protecting myself, I would not want to have to make the decision to shoot someone else. Maybe if it was a case of "him or me," a survival or self-preservation instinct would kick in and provide the answer. But just finding myself in that situation seems to me to be the stuff of nightmares.

No, the answer is not more guns, but fewer guns. Australia (and three other countries) began programs to remove guns from their countries--and homicides by gun  dropped dramatically.

Unfortunately, the United States not only has a very strong lobby in the NRA (which is said to have given $31 million to Trump's campaign) but also something called the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which (as it is usually interpreted) guarantees US citizens the "right to bear arms." What is often forgotten is that centuries of jurisprudence have established that limits may be set on this "right to bear arms." We need to be thinking in terms of what limits can be set, short of seriously considering whether we can, or should, get rid of the Second Amendment (which is probably pretty much unthinkable, even after so many mass shootings).

Copyright © 2018

Update, March 1, 2018: Trump has actually proposed some restrictions on guns, and if he is serious about this, and can get this done, I might consider taking back all (well,some, anyway) of the nasty things I've said about him.
However, Trump is proverbially persuaded by the last person he talked to. So someone from the NRA or some Republican politician might get him to reverse himself (which of course he is quite prone to do). So it's premature to do any celebrations or even thanking him.
Plus, he still wants to arm teachers. This is just a paraphrase of the oft-repeated NRA mantra, "The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
And, let us not forget, the president does not make the law. This would require Congress passing some laws, and the pundits don't seem to feel this is likely.

Update, March 2, 2018.

It looks as though I was right. Today the media are reporting that the White House is "walking back" some of President Trump's comments made yesterday on the need for stricter gun laws, and the need, and ability, of our congressional lawmakers to defy the NRA. This reversal comes after he met with some representatives of the NRA late last night.

As I said, whatever opinions Trump is espousing depends on whom he was last talking to. The man is so intellectually weak, shallow, and worthless that he has no opinions of his own.

Oh, No, Not Another Post about Guns!

I've blogged about guns a number of times, and I've resolved to not write anything further on the subject. I've said it and I don't want to keep saying it. I don't want to get repetitious and tedious, for anyone who is a regular reader of this blog.

However, the shootings keep up, and my thoughts and perspective might keep evolving. So—here I go again.

The problem of the school and mall shootings (and so forth) that we have in the US, very tragically and all too frequently, have two ingredients: the easy availability of guns in this country, plus mentally ill people who are out on the street rather than being confined or institutionalized. This is simple logic and I don't think it can be refuted or denied.

It's mainly the first of these that I've written about a number of times, and I still maintain that the power and influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association), together with loose or broad interpretations of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, seem to stand in the way of our politicians' doing very much about that component of the problem.

As to the second part of the problem, I recently came across some interesting information. President Ronald Reagan instituted policies—funding cuts--that largely emptied our mental hospitals and sent mentally disturbed people out onto the street rather than ensuring that they were either treated or kept confined where they could not cause serious mischief; and evidently we still have the results of those policies with us such that dangerous people are not being treated, and can get a gun with plenty of ammunition and shoot numerous people.

Copyright © 2013.

And Still Another Gun Massacre

America is currently reeling from yet another massacre by gun.

Readers of my blog know where I stand on gun control. There has been jurisprudence that has affirmed government's right or power to place some limits on so-called "Second Amendment rights" (gun ownership). But, with the current conservative Supreme Court, and enormous lobbying power by the NRA (National Rifle Association), enacting any meaningful gun control--even over assault weapons, which are certainly not needed or used by hunters--is extremely unlikely.

At this moment I don't intend to take on the arguments of the pro-gun segment of the population. I have done so numerous times, in various places. I just want to point out one effect of this most recent event on the collective consciousness of Americans, which is that now people can no longer feel safe even going to the movies.

There are more and more places where we can no longer feel safe. When I was in school, some 55 years ago, there was no such thing as school shootings. Lockdown was not a word in our vocabularies, back then. We may legitimately wonder what has happened, what is going on with our society.

Is this the kind of America that we want?

It should be clear enough what the problem is: guns, and even assault weapons, are too readily available and can get into the hands of mentally unstable people who will use them to create havoc. The American people must cry out, and cry out loudly.

Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein

I Have to Speak Out on Guns Again Because the Problem Is So Dramatic

Yet another of those tragic, shocking shootings. When, when, WHEN will there be a loud outcry from the public saying that this has to stop?

As I have said before, the problem as I perceive it is that there are too many guns around, and guns are too easily obtainable, to the extent that mentally unstable people can (and do, very sadly) get their hands on guns.

It's terribly tragic that a recent US Supreme Court decision has undermined attempts of government jurisdictions to have gun control laws (this reverses years of jurisprudence that had held that some degree of regulation of firearm ownership was permissible).

Aside from this unfortunate Supreme Court ruling, most of the remainder of the problem is the NRA, the National Rifle Association, which, despite its name, seems just as concerned that there be completely unrestricted access to handguns and even assault weapons as it is with rifles.

The NRA is a very powerful, well financed, and vocal special-interest lobby in the U.S. Congress. According to a 2009 article, "The group's political action committee spent $15.6 million on campaign donations during the past two years, according to disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission." (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/nra-lobbyists-hold-strong-influence-policy-agenda#ixzz1AeRrW2FG) Read more of this article for information on just one instance of the influence of the NRA, which ended up killing voting rights in Congress for the District of Columbia because the NRA wanted the abolition of DC's gun control laws to be a part of that measure.

To tie in with another posting of mine on this blog, if the U.S. did not incorporate the South, we would not have as much influence by the NRA. This is because support for the NRA comes largely from rural areas and from the South.

Those who want to see some restraint on gun ownership have not only the NRA in the way—a not insignificant obstacle—but also the Second Amendment to the Constitution. As I said above, a recent Supreme Court decision lends greater influence to that amendment, or at least a certain interpretation of it. The Amendment itself is quite concise, but (despite what some people think), the interpretation of law (or of anything else written) is never simple and self-evident. I won't go into issues of interpreting the Second Amendment here; I'm not a law professor or a Constitutional scholar. However, I'd even go so far as to say that if gun ownership cannot be curbed because of the Second Amendment, the Amendment should be repealed. But I'm pretty sure that can't happen in today's America.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein