Guns - Comments From the Commentators

(Note: On 1/12/13, only one month after the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, I wrote a post entitled "Guns." As with all my posts, that post is still up on the blog, and the points discussed there are just as pertinent today following the latest school shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Reading of that post would be a good intro, if you will, to the current post. In case those who disagree with me on the issue think that I do not care, let me state how horrific and terrible any school shooting is, and any murder is.)

After the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, it appeared that many took up their usual positions on the issue of guns. I read and heard countless opinion pieces, letters to the editor and stories from people about how evil the NRA is. I have heard it said that NRA members should have to suffer the loss of a child. What a terrible thing to wish on someone. Here is what I have not heard from many on the Left - an actual analysis. The first question that I would ask is are there in fact more school shootings today than there were before? Assuming that there are, the next logical question would be: why?

Frankly, I am amazed at the amount of venom directed at the NRA, with virtually none directed at the actual perpetrator. Not only is religious affiliation and attendance at religious services down in the US, but the religious belief that we are responsible for own actions seems to have vanished from our society. The Ten Commandments give us some basic instructions on proper behavior. But the Ten Commandments are no longer allowed in public schools nor anywhere in the public square. Beginning in the 1960's, we started to blame "society" for the misbehavior, and even criminal behavior, of offenders. Also worthy of note is that in the year 1960, only 5% of all births were outside of marriage. However, by the mid-2000's, that number had jumped to 40%. Does any of this matter?

In an interesting Op-Ed in the 3/2/18 Ventura County Star, Jay Ambrose tells us that the shooters in Parkland, Newtown and at the Charleston, South Carolina church were all carried out by young men raised without involvement from their fathers. Ambrose cites a CNN report regarding the "deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history," noting that seven of the killers were under the age of 30 - and only one of them was raised with a father throughout his childhood. Ambrose cites a federal study concluding that suicides by young people mostly occur in fatherless homes - 63% of the time. Many of us recall the TV show Murphy Brown (played by Candace Bergen), with Brown, as a single Mom, giving birth to a baby boy. Then Vice President Dan Quayle said that by giving birth as a single Mom, Brown was "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice.'" Quayle was heavily criticized by the Left. Of course, countless studies since then have demonstrated the importance of fathers being in the home - from lower poverty rates, lower school dropout rates, less drug involvement, and so on.

In a 2/27/18 Op-Ed in the LA Times, Devin Hughes and Mark Bryant opine that: "In reality, the best research shows what common sense tells us: More guns mean more crime and more death." Except, that does not appear to be the case. The number of guns in private hands in the US is at an all time high, yet the murder rate and overall crime rate has been going down. Following the Sandy Hook shooting in December, 2012, the liberal magazine, The Atlantic, reported that 75% of the guns used in the US in mass shootings were obtained illegally. And Fox and the WSJ reported that only 11% of the time were legally obtained guns used in gun crimes. But how surprising should it be that someone intent on doing evil is also willing to break the law in order to obtain their instruments of killing.

Peggy Noonan had a different take from Messrs. Hughes and Bryant in her weekend (2/17-2/18/18) column in the Wall Street Journal. After asking what has changed in society in the last 40 years that would account for all these mass killings, she declares this: "The family blew up - divorce, unwed childbearing. Fatherless sons. Fatherless daughters, too. Poor children with no one to love them. The internet flourished. Porn proliferated. Drugs, legal and illegal. Violent videogames...The abortion regime settled in...An increasingly violent entertainment culture..." Some of us recall the Westerns where, when the bad guys got shot, say in the stomach, they would grab their stomach and fall. We never saw a single drop of blood. Now, we can witness the most horrific gun violence, with blood spurting everywhere, as if it was all real. I fail to see the benefit of that, as it undoubtedly hardens at least some young people to the effects of such violence.

In yet another Op-Ed, in the 2/21/18 NY Times by Amy Barnhorst, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at UC, Davis, we are told that "The mental health system doesn't identify most of these (potentially violent) people because they don't come in to get care. And even if they do, laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person's will." Then, she makes this telling comment: "But there are no reliable cures for insecurity, resentment, entitlement and hatred." Maybe not, but religion can teach that we do not get to do whatever we want against whoever we want. And "entitlement?" We have seen far too much of that attitude in our society. It is now passe to say that one should have to work for what they get. Even more importantly, one should always be grateful for what they have, not stress over what they do not have. But religion teaches that.

Karen Lehrman Bloch has a regular column in the LA Jewish Journal. She writes that: "In New York City, so-called progressive groups are succeeding at removing metal detectors from high schools. Why? Because they consider them 'racist.' That's right. Racist metal detectors." (As an aside, and not to make light of this serious topic, my doctor just put me on a "no whites" diet - no white bread, no white rice, no white flour and the like. Nothing white. Racist?)

I cannot end this post without noting the failure of the "if you see something, say something" maxim. So many people said something- to the school, to the local police, and even to the FBI. Then again, the FBI has failed us so many times before it is hard to keep track. And what about the sheriff who was on the scene and the three who arrived shortly thereafter - yet failed to confront the shooter. My friend who is a retired cop, explained that during the time a shooter has to turn his weapon away from the victims to the person shooting at him, gives precious seconds to the students allowing them to run and escape. That same friend asks this: "Who would you rather have carrying a gun during the Florida incident? The three police officers who cowardly hid while the shooting was taking place and kids were being massacred? Or, the coach who bravely went after the gunman without being armed?"

You see, that friend was involved in 4 shootouts during his career. He has seen cops conveniently arrive late to the scene of an active shooter. Therefore, when many on the Left say only the police should be armed, he gets infuriated. He knows that "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." And, even then, it is quite clear that we cannot always rely on the police.

The Incivility of the Uncivil Left

(Note: As regular readers of this blog know, I recently wrote two posts discussing this issue. See the 1/30/18 post "The Last Acceptable Prejudice," as well as the next one of 2/6/18 entitled "In Case Anyone Needed Further Proof...". As a result of some personal interactions, along with an LA Times Op-Ed, I was prompted to write this further post on the incivility of the Left.)

A Ron Berler wrote an Op-Ed that appeared in the 2/18/18 LA Times. He is 68 years old and was having dinner with a long time friend, a man who had been at his wedding, a man whom Berler said "was important to me." Berler describes their friendship as having "frayed" over a period of 18 months because of Donald Trump. Although they had agreed not to discuss politics, Berler says he "just couldn't help it."

Berler wrote that he just had to have an answer about Trump's character: "...the things he's said and done - the race-baiting, the name calling, the womanizing, the divisive attacks on immigrants and refugees and everyone who opposes him - doesn't that make you question his character?" Of course, what Berler was really asking his friend was this: "What is wrong with you? How can you not detest Trump?" His friend, clearly being more civil, answered as follows: "I don't judge people." While that may be unlikely, I suspect that his friend was trying to politely avoid politics - a topic that they had agreed they would not discuss.

Had Berler asked that question of me, I likely would have given this answer: "How in the world did you support Obama? (He does not say that he did, but it seems to be a fair assumption.) His race-baiting of the Cambridge police, the Ferguson police, and every time a black man was involved with the police. Race relations were set back decades thanks to Obama. What about Obama's name calling and demonization of those who opposed him? From day one he attacked Fox News. He attacked the Tea Party. He attacked all Republicans as wanting dirty air and dirty water, among other accusations. He favored immigrants over American citizens, and mocked Americans who 'cling to their guns and religion.' And lies? Sure, Trump lied about things like the size of the crowd at his inauguration. But Obama lied about important policy decisions. Obama told us: 'If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.' Now, what were you asking me about Trump?"

Berler next revealed his true contempt for those who might disagree with him. He consulted with three psychology professors claiming to seek an explanation for the "chasm" that had developed between him and his friend. But his real motivation was revealed a few paragraphs later as he asked one of the professors this question: "Why will a person go to irrational lengths to defend an act that he or she knows is indefensible?" Once again, Berler's real question is: "What is wrong with my friend?" And: "How can anyone defend Trump?" And then Berler asks the third psychologist this question: "What is the likelihood that my friend will return to rational thought?" What sheer arrogance! Berler agreed not to discuss politics with his friend. Having broken that agreement, his friend refused to take the bait. And his friend is the one lacking in rational thought? This is just another example of a Leftist abandoning a long term friendship because they are unable to accept the notion that someone - anyone - might not share their viewpoints. No surprise to those of us who are conservatives.

On a more personal level, I recently ran into a man I have known for 40 years. He is older than I am, and not having seen him in a while, and out of my respect and fondness for him, I approached him and gave him a hug. He was standoffish. I mentioned something about him and his wife getting together with me and my wife. He has known my wife for probably 38 years. He deflected my invitation. Subsequently, I sent him an email indicating that I wanted to apologize for whatever I may have said or done to upset him. Basically, I did not do or say anything. Having read some of my blog posts, he just could not understand my politics. Disappointing? Yes. Hurtful? Yes again. But, as a conservative it is something that I have come to expect from those on the intolerant and uncivil Left.

One more personal note. Our youngest daughter recently went out on a date. During the course of the conversation, the young man uttered these words: "I hate Republicans." Maybe in California he thought it was a safe bet to assume that everyone is a liberal Democrat (which is a Leftist today). While my daughter is definitely more liberal than her Dad, she also loves her Republican Dad. I would like to suggest that this young man might benefit from taking a look at "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

In what may be a rare instance of agreement with Nicholas Kristof, he ended his 2/18/18 column in the NY Times with this: "Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization."