It isn't always about the strongest and most mentally stable...

We have all seen the news about the shooting in Aurora Colorado.  A self confessed madman walks into a movie theater and guns down 70 people before calmly walking away.  I wish I could say this is a rare event, but it has become all too common in the US.  What is the answer to this problem?  Is this the way of the future for the United States or can something be done to stem the tide of rampant gun violence?

According to health department and Government statistics, there are approximately 30,000 US deaths due to firearms in the US each year.

In 2007 according to the Centers for Disease Control Faststats and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control WIQARS Leading Causes of Nonfatal Injury Reports:

48,676 people were intentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC)
18,610 people were unintentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC)
17,352 suicides (intentionally shot themselves who died) (CDC)
12,632 criminal firearm deaths (killed in a crime by guns) (CDC) 

This does not include deaths of people intentionally or unintentionally shot for legal reasons (Like the police shooting a suspect). 
 
The above total is 97270 people shot in the US in 2007. About a third (29984) died, and it is likely that the total number of Americans shot is at least 100,000 given that all types of gunshot injuries/deaths are not included.

Using just the numbers above, a little math indicates that in the US, every day during 2007, at least 266 Americans were shot. Every day, approximately a third of them (82) died.

So the fact that James Holmes only killed 12 and only shot 70 should not be a reason to make any changes in the gun laws cause his additions to the daily list does not change the number in any significant statistical way.  And considering the uber-powerful gun lobby (including the NRA) in the US, it is unlikely that any new legislation about guns will even be considered.

I read yesterday that there are near 300,000,000 guns in the US today.  And I am hearing talk that gun ownership should be mandatory from folks who are part of the gun lobby.  Their point is that if others in the theater had guns, James Holmes would not have been able to kill and wound as many folks as he did.  To add to this thought, the actor Will Smith suggested that a gun sitting on a table will not hurt anyone and that it is the human that pulls the trigger that actually does the harm.  After all, a knife will do as much harm if the human wielding it wants to kill.

I am a reasonable man and the argument above sounds reasonable, on the surface.  However there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room that the above argument ignores.  Humans are human and as such are prone to mistakes and errors in judgment.  For the sake of the argument lets look at the instance above suggesting others in the theater having guns for protection being willing and able to stop the shooter from harming others.  I'm not so sure a dark theater full of folks shooting at each other would be safer than a lone shooter dealing out lead.  I can easily imagine that the folks who have the presence of mind in the tear gas filled, dark, smokey environment possibly missing the assailant and hitting the folks behind or around him.  And once the bullets started to fly, how could anyone discern who the original shooter was?  Can you imagine being the third or fourth person to pull out a gun and begin to fire into the dark?  If that had happened, we might be looking at a lot more deaths and wounded than the current number.  And if guns were mandatory, what would have happened when 100 folks in the dark, smokey theater started to fire guns?  I shudder to imagine the chaos that would have caused.

The other common argument for the gun lobby is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".  This is a snappy comeback that seems to be a clear truism.  But again, if you actually reason out the argument, you find that it is full of holes.  Lets take that same argument to a clear extreme; hydrogen bombs don't kill people, people kill people.  I understand that the difference between a hydrogen bomb and a gun is an extreme one, but the similarities are clear.  Left by itself, hydrogen bombs will not kill anyone and neither will a gun.  Hydrogen bombs are meant as a deterrent against aggressive acts and so are guns.  Hydrogen bombs can be used aggressively and so can guns.  Both can kill.  Both are meant to be used by only one species on the planet, mankind.  Yet I cannot imagine that anyone believes that we should all own hydrogen bombs as a form of personal security.  And the reason for such a belief is twofold, a hydrogen bomb can cause much more damage than to just it's intended victim and humans are error prone so such a weapon could cause much more damage than the original need.  For example, a suicidal person could use the hydrogen bomb to kill themselves and others.  A distraught and angry person could use the nuclear weapon to kill lots of folks and themselves.  A crazy person could just go on a rampage and kill everyone in sight.  A kidnapper could use such a weapon to extort someone for huge sums of money.  But haven't I just described common uses for guns?

Now that everyone reading this is sure I am totally against gun ownership, let me be clear.  I believe owning a firearm is a right.  Gun owners have a right to own and keep as many guns as they like.  I own 20+ guitars even though I can only play one at a time.  I have no problem with folks owning as many guns as they want.  And even if you make the argument that the founding fathers did not foresee the way guns are used today, I still think gun ownership is a clear right that should not be messed with.

So why am I even bothering to open my mouth?  Because the way we are dealing with gun ownership in the US today is not working.  The statistics prove it.  And I believe it is time to take a hard look at what we fear that makes people feel like we should all carry guns.  Do we really believe the US would be safer if everyone owned guns?  Are we so naive that we believe everyone is stable enough to own a weapon of mass destruction?  To those who own firearms, have you ever been in a situation or under enough stress where you fleetingly thought that a gun might be the answer to your feelings?  After all, you are human and you have feelings.  And that is the reason that there needs to be strict gun control.  People are human and humans make errors in judgment.  You give that person a way to kill easily and quickly and over the course of a lifetime, they are bound to make errors in judgment.

I don't pretend to know the answer, I just know that the question is staring us all in the face.  How much longer will we ignore that something needs to be done to stem the tide of gun violence and deaths in the US?  I have friends who have died looking down the barrel of a gun.  Do we all need to have that happen before we decide that gun regulation needs to be real?

 

Partisan politics or spite at the cost of the USA economy?

I'm an Independent.  More accurately, I'm a fiscal conservative and a social progressive.  I am definitely more fiscally conservative than the previous 3 Republican Presidents and more socially progressive than the previous 3 Democratic Presidents.  So that puts me squarely in the Independent realm.  But to be completely clear, I chose to register as a Democrat some years ago as it became clear that the Republican party started to stick their nose into the personal business of the common American.  In other words, the Republicans moved so far right that the center now is squarely Democrat.

Don't believe it?  If you look carefully at his record of work as President, Clinton was probably the most successful Republican (policy) President of the last 30 years.  And in many ways, Obama has done more for the wealthy than he has for the poor.  These "liberal" Presidents are more right leaning than even Reagan.  In fact, Reagan would not even fit into the current mold as a conservative!

So in this crazy world of partisan politics, it may not come as a shock that the extreme right, that has taken over the Republican party, has decided that it is more important to defeat President Obama than it is to help the American people.  And they haven't even tried to keep quiet about it.  I guess that they figure that with all the rhetoric and spouting of doom and gloom, their agenda to kill the US economy and a chance of an Obama reelection might go unnoticed.

 

Yep, that was Mitch McConnell saying that the Republican Party "top priority" for the next two years would be  denying President Obama a second term.  As their "top priority", this would include a priority over working to put the American public back to work, ending the wars in the middle east, working to come up with a fair and balanced budget or any of the other bills they have blocked that would help move the American economy forward.  

But maybe Mitch, the Republican leader of the United States Senate,  didn't really mean what he said.  Maybe he just didn't like President Obama and thought saying something so nasty only a year or so into the Presidents term in office was just a light hearted quip.

So, he really did mean it; his actions and the actions of his Republican brethren prove it out.  What is truly sad, is that in spite of the fact that this congress has blocked more bills and positive economic work than any 3 previous Presidencies and still the economy is beginning to turn the corner to the better.  Imagine what might have happened if the congressional Republicans had not set beating President Obama nearly 3 years ago as their "top priority" and  instead set the needs of the American people as their top priority.

Now, we are in the midst of a Presidential election.  Should I vote for Mitt Romney with the idea that the Democrats in congress will not be as petty and self destructive as the current Republicans and will allow the American economy to grow as their top priority?  Or should I vote for President Obama and hope that the self loathing congress folk who seem to care nothing for the American people will be voted out of office?

It is a difficult decision.  On the one hand, I prefer the budget cut and rescind the Bush tax reduction on the wealthiest Americans that Obama favors over the cut all social programs except the military that Romney favors.  On the other hand, I fear that the extreme right will continue to block any good that the government can do to help the American people because they have publicly decided to make their "top priority" making President Obama look bad; which includes ruining any chances for Obama administration policies to pass through congress.

And don't come back at me with the response, "Both parties are just the same and both do the same things".  That is absolutely bullshit!  In my 54 years of life, I have never seen Independent, Democrats, Libertarians or any other political party work so hard at ruining the American economy as the congressional Republicans have over the last 4 years.  Many of the things Obama has been blamed for were Bush administration leftovers (e.g. three wars, stock market crash, housing crash, huge tax break for the uber-wealthy, bank payoffs, the biggest depression since the "Great Depression"...etc.).  Digging the US out of that hole was not going to be fast or easy.  And with a extreme Right wing congress determined to take down the President by blocking any and all positive economic policies, it has been a very slow recovery.  

Sure, the Democrats do not walk lock-stepped like the Republican party and as a result, they tend to vote what they believe is best for their local constituents.  So the Democratic majority did not push through all Obama policy during the beginning of his term.  However, that proves my point that both parties are not the same.  And during G.W. Bush terms as President, the Democrats allowed all sorts of non-Democratic Bush policy including war, spying on Americans, tax breaks for the uber-wealthy...etc.  

But now I have hit the point of ranting and I will stop here.  I am angry at the conservatives in this country.  They have allowed them selves to be co-opted by folks who are not particularly conservative, but instead are moral police, and tattle tails.  These folks are sure that the real reason for the poor economy is because of their perceived degradation of moral fiber in the US.  Yet they forget Matthew 7:1, "Judge not that ye be not judged."  

And to those folks I would say, only God can judge, and you are not God.  So get off your high horse and do like Jesus, mingle with the poor, the down trodden and the sinners.  And stop trying to govern morality.  Instead, allow the government, with all it's resources, to help rebuild the American economy, and make that your "top priority".