Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part III

So, what would I do?  First, as discussed in "My Take, Part I," I would enhance school security.  The Israelis are a good role model.  Is it going to be expensive?  Yes.  But as I said, we spend trillions of dollars annually.  Let's spend some on securing our schools.  And, I suspect there are current or retired law enforcement officers willing to volunteer their time.  The same for ex-military.  I am talking about men and women already trained in the use of firearms.

Also as discussed in Part I, I agree with the Rebbe's concern about declining religious involvement and the need for a non-denominational school prayer.  But this is a societal and family problem.  As the Wall Street Journal opined in their 5/26/22 editorial:  "The modern welfare state is adept at writing checks, but not much else.  Today's young killers aren't motivated by material deprivation.  They are typically from middle-class families with access to smartphones and X-boxes.  Their deficit is social and spiritual.  The rise of family dysfunction and the decline of mediating institutions such as churches and social clubs have consequences."  To my thinking, the societal, family and religious issues are far more significant than the issue of guns.

In March, 2018, and following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, then Governor Rick Scott signed into law some new legislation regarding guns.  The age at which someone could buy a rifle was raised to 21.  I agree with this, and here's why.  I am well aware that 18 year old's serve in our military.  But they are trained and disciplined in the use of firearms.  I am also aware that in many states people under age 18 grow up with firearms, and are taught the proper and safe use of such weapons at an early age.  But I also know that many 18 year old's are emotionally immature.  And shooters often dwell on perceived slights that they experienced in high school.  My hope is that being away from school and out in the real world for a few years, will lessen whatever emotional impact they experienced in school. 

The Florida law also put in place red flag laws, which the legislation called "risk protection orders."  I am in favor.  I discussed in Part I the difficulty in banning gun ownership based on a diagnosable psychological condition.  The law in Florida has given judges the ability to at least temporarily ban purchasing a gun by people who have been reported to the authorities to have made threats.  Is there a risk of abuse, say by an abusive spouse against the other spouse, making the victim of the abuse defenseless?  Yes.  Is there is a risk of abuse by liberal judges who too readily issue such orders?  Yes.  But I also read quite a few instances online where such risk protection orders were not only appropriate, but likely highly effective in preventing shootings.  I understand that no law is perfect.

The Florida law also allowed school staff trained in the use of firearms to carry a weapon.  I have mixed feelings about this, but I come down in favor.  I would want it to be a concealed carry.  And, I am in favor because of the risk of a shooter getting past the armed guard at the entrance.

I am sure that those on the left will be disappointed by my not advocating for greater gun control, if not outright banning of the private ownership of guns.  And I suspect some on the right will disapprove of my support for red flag laws and raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21.  I welcome all (respectful) comments.

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part II

A look at some facts.  Jason Riley reported in the 6/1/22 Wall Street Journal, that 54% of the gun related deaths in 2020 were suicides, while less than 1% of gun deaths were a result of mass shootings.  That does not mean that all those deaths were not tragic.  Of course they were.  Riley also notes that gun ownership is more common in rural areas than in cities, yet it is the cities that tend to have more gun violence.  And, while whites have a higher degree of gun ownership than blacks and Hispanics, gun violence is a more common problem among those two minority groups.  

Obviously, the disparity in gun violence of whites vs minorities, and rural vs city, suggests that guns are not the problem.  For those who argue that guns are the major problem, you need to address these factual issues.  

I would like to add another issue:  the mainstream media.  How and what the media reports determines viewpoints.  The perceptions disseminated by the media become reality for many people.  An example.  The media never fails to report when a white cop kills a black person.  Therefore, many people can readily name at least some blacks who have been killed by the police.  When I have asked people to name a single white person shot and killed by the police, they are unable to do so.  Yet, far more whites are killed by the police than are blacks.  But, as perception becomes reality, to some, being unable to name a single white person killed by police must mean it does not happen.  Or, at least not very often.  And being able to name several blacks killed by the police must mean it is an epidemic. 

President Biden gave his "do something" speech to the nation about guns on 6/2/22.  There are some suggestions with which I agree, and those I will discuss in the next post.  But here are those items with which I disagree.  I would not ban so-called assault rifles, by which people mean the AR-15 (Armalite 15) rifles.  I have spoken with people far more knowledgeable than I am about this.  I would not repeal the gun manufacturers' liability shield, as I see that as a backdoor approach to put gun manufacturers out of business through countless lawsuits.

Prior to his speech, Biden had suggested a ban on the production of 9mm handguns, the most common gun in America.  I certainly do not agree with that.  People should have a right to protect themselves.  In the recently passed House legislation, the "Protecting Our Kids Act," the law suggested criminal penalties for anyone violating the new requirements for the safe firearm storage on residential premises.  I do not agree with that.  People who are irresponsible can already be held accountable at the state level.  

Not surprisingly, Biden argued in his speech that voters should make the issue of guns "central" to their vote in November.  I doubt that will happen.  Not with the highest rate of inflation in over 40 years.  Not with ongoing supply chain issues.  Not with out of control crime and homelessness across the country.  And not with a wide open border, allowing a large volume of fentanyl to illegally be brought into the country, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.  As more people die from fentanyl than from guns, I suggest that people make Biden's open border policy "central" to their vote in November.

But here is a recommendation I do have for the President.  Tone down the rhetoric!  I heard Jen Psaki, from the White House podium, state that it was an appropriate exercise of free speech to demonstrate in front of the homes of Supreme Court Justices.  No, it's not.  There is even a federal law prohibiting it.  And while that law might run afoul of the First Amendment, it still does not make it right.  I asked in an earlier post if judges should decide cases based upon who makes the loudest noise?  Based on the mob?  Did Biden criticize Schumer for threatening Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?  Because now we just had a man from Simi Valley, California, travel to Washington with the intent of assassinating Justice Kavanaugh.  

Toning down the rhetoric starts from the top.  And you, President Biden, are in a unique position to initiate a more civil political tone.  You ran as a "uniter."  The main theme of your inaugural address was that you were going to unify the country.  Prove it.