Christmas

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.

Newtown Remembered

I stand with the millions of people around the world in remembering the horrific shooting in the Newton Connecticut school one year ago today. I am saddened by the tragic loss of life, and by the struggle of those who survived. It was a terrible event, but I am also saddened by this nation's reaction to that event.

 

On this anniversary of the Sandyhook school shooting almost everyone is still making the same mistake, focusing their anger on the tool instead of the problem. When a deranged bomber kills people we blame the bomber, when a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver, but when a disturbed shooter kills people we blame the gun. Some go so far as to insist that a world with exactly zero guns in it would be a safer place, even though that’s never going to happen, and although it seems intuitive I seriously doubt that it’s true.

 

Those that support gun rights may or may not be off base about mental health being the primary cause, but everyone desperately needs to understand why kids are shooting kids. In any case, it’s almost a given that someone psychologically prepared to kill innocent people is suffering from some form of mental illness.

 

Nevertheless, I concur with the thoughts and analysis by Steven Pinkers and Chris Uggen who say, “A narrow focus on stopping mass shootings is less likely to produce beneficial changes than a broader-based effort to reduce homicide and other violence. These rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases, and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.”

 

“We are compelled to pay attention to extreme events and we estimate risk with these vivid examples, but as much as we should try to prevent these horrific events from taking place we should not use them as the sole basis for making inferences that determine policy. The outliers are a tragic part of the overall story, but we must pay attention to the rest of the distribution.” Focusing on guns is not the answer; they’re just a tool, they are not the problem.

Thanksgiving

Every Thanksgiving just before we eat, each person at the table takes a turn to say what they're thankful for. This year I said I was thankful for my family and my church, and in solidarity with the rest of the nation I was thankful for my Second Amendment Rights.

As I said in my opening post, protecting our Second Amendment rights in particular and the Bill of Rights in general have become absolutely necessary if we are to remain a free and open society.

What About Tomorrow

Lessons From a Lamp Post: Why the numbers don't add up. Part 4 of 4

 

I am not a prepper, or a survivalist, or a doomsday bunker kind of guy but I am concerned about what I see happening in our country. I believe people are basically good, although not all of them and certainly not all the time. Like most citizens of our modern technological world I am wholly reliant upon a fragile web of services to meet my most basic needs. Now that Home Land Security has announced cyber war as the top most threat faced by America, have you considered what will happen if those services collapse? I am convinced that the answer is chaos. It’ll take a few days, but when people figure out that the power isn’t coming back on, and there is no water, and their store is out of food, and their car is out of gas, attitudes are going to change!

 

A simple example might be in relating to the recent natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita a few months later. Approximately 3.7 million people attempted to evacuate creating predictable results. The scene along the stalled evacuation route was like a segment from an apocalypse movie; crowds milling restlessly, gas stations and mini-marts picked clean and heaped with trash, and stranded families sleeping by the side of the road. After these hurricanes nobody had any illusions that help was on the way. So have you thought about what you will do if your power never comes back on, or your grocery store shelves are never restocked?

 

Regrettably, much of the gun violence after Katrina was racially-motivated demonstrating how bad and how quickly things can degrade into chaos. White vigilantes targeted Black people and four police men were convicted of shooting Blacks who were trying to walk to safety. Obviously guns in the hands of bad guys did not make the situation better, they made it worse. The New Orleans Police Superintendent’s suggestion to confiscate all firearms didn’t help either, even though it’s almost understandable given that he was under staffed because many of his officers had evacuated with the other victims.

 

I might be persuaded to accept the Superintendent’s plea that “no civilians be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms” if the police are willing and able to perform their duties. In any case this should never be extended to the right to protect one’s self in one’s home. Regardless, the Superintendent’s futile suggestion would not have worked anyway because the recalcitrant criminal will not be turning in his (or her) guns for the greater good.

 

Another example is the massive earthquake in Haiti a few years ago. An estimated 2.5 million people were displaced from their homes, and after big $$ the people are still living in temporary shelters. In fact I recently heard on NPR that it would have been more efficient if the United States had given every person $10,000.00 on which they could be living well, instead of wasting money on grand schemes that never reached the populace. Add to our threat of earthquakes, climate change, pandemic, meteor strike, terrorist attack, and now cyber war and it’s easy to see why I think we are woefully under prepared!

Think for Yourself

Gun Statistics

Lessons From a Lamp Post: Why the numbers don't add up. Part 3 of 4

 

Unlike Michael Moore's persuasive movie Columbine, data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice show a very weak correlation between gun-death and gun-laws, as does the Center for Disease Control which has kept data on gun-homicide despite resistance from firearm support groups. None of these studies have been able to establish a relationship of more guns equals more gun deaths. The real question is not about the number of firearm laws but whether the laws ultimately safeguard the citizens they are intended to protect.

 

Gun accidents are tragic and we tend to hear about them, but accidental gun death is relatively rare accounting for only 1.8% all gun deaths. “Undetermined” (0.7%) and “legal intervention/war” (1.0%) categories were even less likely. In the United States where “self-inflicted” death by gunshot is taken into account the thesis of more guns equals more gun deaths is supported more closely. Even though this correlation is astonishing it’s not surprising since such findings are intuitive. What is surprising is how high the gun-suicide rate actually is. As one of the “four major mechanisms of injury in 2009”, 59.8% of all “firearm injury deaths” were suicides and 36.7% were homicides. Suicide tops homicide by nearly two to one in gun-deaths.

 

So, as we enter further into the debate about firearm laws, we should keep in mind that whereas spectacular massacres with exotic weapons generate headlines, the larger numbers are composed of pensive individuals who give up fighting the forces they see arrayed against them and take the nearest exit. Unfortunately if firearms are outlawed the “nearest exit” will be something else, which is supported by countries with strict gun control laws that have higher suicide rates than those without gun control laws.

 

I would agree with the old adage that says we use statistics like a drunken person uses a lamp post, more for support than illumination. Despite the evidence, some of my friends remain convinced that the wide availability of firearms in this nation is a major factor in the rate of gun-related deaths, and they firmly believe that there is a need to reduce the number of guns. Unfortunately, this leads them to believe that removing firearms from law abiding citizens will reduce violence on the street. I believe that even if the number of guns could be reduced to zero which it can’t, crime isn’t going to go away. Guns don’t kill people and the problem isn’t the tool.

Fallen Heros

 

All gave some - Some gave all.

 

 

September 11, 2001

On September 11 2001, four passenger airliners were hijacked and flown into buildings in a suicide attack which resulted in almost 3,000 deaths, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It also was the deadliest incident for firefighters in the history of the United States. These four coordinated terrorist attacks launched upon the United States by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda changed our world forever.

 

Many countries, including the United States, strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls and the President signed the USA PATRIOT act into law. The stated purpose of the Patriot Act was "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". Its intent was to "deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes".

 

From the very beginning opponents of the law criticized the authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.

 

Several legal challenges have been brought against the act and the Federal courts have ruled a number of the provisions as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the reauthorization bill, criticized by both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns, kept most of the act's original language intact and was signed into law on March 9 and 10, 2006.

 

Not the Problem

Guns Are Not the Problem

 

Research Continues

Lessons From a Lamp Post: Why the numbers don't add up. Part 2 of 4

 

There isn't yet adequate data on the link between gun deaths and gun laws, even though a more recent study suggests that states with the most laws had lower gun-death rates than states with the least number of laws. The authors acknowledge that the research has limitations: “Just because the two factors are present, doesn’t mean that one caused the other”.

 

The researchers and critics agree that this study falls short of proving a direct link between the number of gun laws and gun violence. The study did not include a complete list of gun laws; it does not account for differences between a state’s specific laws; it does not include measures for how hard states work to enforce their laws; and it does not evaluate the effect on the flow of firearms between states with different laws.

 

One of the main points that limit this study’s conclusions is how the rate of firearm ownership in states impacts the correlation of gun laws and gun deaths. States generally fall to either end of the spectrum, strong laws with fewer deaths or weak laws with more deaths. The problem of associating the rate of firearm ownership with the rate of violent deaths is that it’s easier to enact these laws in states that have a low rate of firearm ownership to begin with, because gun ownership is not as important in those states. This study cannot say that these laws, individually or in aggregate, drive firearm death rates up or down.

 

For example: The Brady Campaign named California as the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011, and yet, according to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's uniform crime reports, California, with a population of about 37 million, had 1,220 gun murders in 2011; 68 percent of all murders for that year, or 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

 

"What is very unusual is that California also has a program by which guns can be removed or “recovered” from people who subsequently become prohibited from owning firearms. While it might make sense that it would have a high number of murders due to its high population numbers, notice that gun control has not had an impact on gun crime.

 

Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and it had 699 total gun murders in 2011 (nearly half that of California); or 2.91 murders per 100,000 people. The Brady Campaign named Utah, with a population of 2.8 million as the state with the weakest gun controls in 2011, and it experienced 26 gun murders in 2011; or 0.97 murders per 100,000 people. Notice that in Utah gun crime isn’t high like the Brady Campaign might argue, and notice again that gun control is not a predictor of gun crime.

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's data also notes that Washington, D.C. had the highest murder rate per 100,000 people. The nation's capital saw 12 gun murders per 100,000 in 2011, even though in 1976 the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handgun sales and required guns stored at home to be dissembled or locked up. These measures which lasted more than three decades didn't have the desired effect, demonstrating that the tool is not the problem.

 

In 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported, “The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454”.

 

Though it should be noted that the gun murders started decreasing in 1994, once the gun ban was struck down murders in the District went down steadily, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, which is the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. Today, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and yet the gun murder rate remains the highest in the United States. Once again, focusing on the tool is not the answer.

Breaking News

Who's in Charge

Lessons From a Lamp Post: Why the numbers don't add up. Part 1 of 4

 

Until I joined the Navy I had never carried a hand gun, but while I was there I became comfortable with my semi-automatic side arm. After the Navy my first gun was a used single-action revolver my brother gave me. I shot it a lot, mostly on camping trips where I wore it out so I put it away. After quite a few years I purchased a new semi-automatic pistol and started shooting again. Now my options to own and use a firearm are being threatened by the Government that is supposed to be protecting my Constitutional Rights, and that makes me uneasy.

 

My relationship to firearms might have ended after the Navy if I was not convinced of their necessity. It hasn't happened overnight, but over time and especially in the last few years my Western liberal sensibilities while intact on other issues have shifted strongly in favor of firearm ownership and preparedness. I lived for years with a simple pump shotgun, with very little fear of the unknown intruder, but now I recognize other less obvious threats.

 

One concern is the days of à la carte politics seem to be over, if they ever existed, because of the growing divide in our Government. Any parent will tell you that children are rarely able to compromise, and this is exemplified by the far right with their unrealistic pronouncements arguing with the far left about their unsustainable goals. These are the children currently debating the solution to firearm violence in America and the Constitutional Rights of all Americans.

Missing Ingredient

Reality Check

The Sandy Hook School Shooting: The tragedy and the lesson. Part 4 of 4

I read an excellent article about school shootings that was very interesting, well researched, and well presented, but it was historical in nature dealing with ten years of school shootings prior to 2001. The results presented in this article concluded that bullying, not mental health, was the primary cause of school shootings. Those that support gun rights may or may not be off base about mental health being the primary cause, but everyone desperately needs to understand why kids are shooting kids. In any case, it’s almost a given that someone psychologically prepared to kill innocent people is suffering from some form of mental illness.

 

I would like to see a follow up study like this one done for mass shootings since 2001. For example: The Aurora Theater shooter had stopped seeing his psychiatrist. Thirty days prior to the shooting his doctor “reported to a police officer that her patient had confessed homicidal thoughts and was a danger to the public”, and he was threatening her in text messages and emails. The Sandy Hook School shooter was evidently aware of [his mother’s] petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed”. Even though it’s unclear whether his mother was really filing the paperwork because the records are sealed, his attack on the school children is understood to have been because he “believed she cared more for the school children than she did for him”.

 

A friend of mine works for a nearby police department directing a television program called Make the Call about unsolved crimes. On this show the families and friends of murder victims are interviewed, giving us a personal account of the drive-by shootings, gang shootings, and seemingly random shootings so common in this area. He contends that some of the victims were wonderful loving people and some were not, but we must never forget that they all had people who loved them.

 

The tragedy is that these people, or others, lost their way before they lost their lives and the hope is that viewers with helpful information will call an anonymous tip hotline. Ignoring the causes of these situations, I would agree that the grief of the families and friends is palpable and understandable. It is a sobering reality check that the one injured or killed by gun violence is not the only victim of the crime. It naturally inspires in us the desire to do what is possible to prevent this kind of violence.

 

I concur with the thoughts and analysis by Steven Pinkers and Chris Uggen who say, “A narrow focus on stopping mass shootings is less likely to produce beneficial changes than a broader-based effort to reduce homicide and other violence. These rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases, and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.”

 

“We are compelled to pay attention to extreme events and we estimate risk with these vivid examples, but as much as we should try to prevent these horrific events from taking place we should not use them as the sole basis for making inferences that determine policy. The outliers are a tragic part of the overall story, but we must pay attention to the rest of the distribution.” Whether the cause of the more recent shootings is bullying or mental health, that is where the focus needs to be: Focusing on the tool is still not the answer.

Speak Up

The Big Mistake

The Sandy Hook School Shooting: The tragedy and the lesson. Part 3 of 4

There are a lot of reasons a firearm feels right in my hand but one of most important is the protection of my family. I hope I never have to use one for this purpose and I doubt I ever will, but I am my family’s last line of defense. I have chosen to meet this responsibility, in part by being armed and prepared. I disagree that “most criminals are not violent”, but I recognize that most of them do not want a confrontation. Interviews with prison inmates confirm, “If they know a gun is in the home they will pick another target”. Unfortunately, using window stickers to advertise the presence of firearms or the intent to use one for home defense isn’t acceptable behavior at this time.

 

In the weeks since Newtown Connecticut, I’ve watched news feeds full of dispatches divorced from reality. Almost everyone seems to be making the same mistake, focusing their anger on the tool instead of the problem. When a deranged bomber kills people we blame the bomber, when a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver, but when a disturbed shooter kills people we blame the gun. Some go so far as to insist that a world with exactly zero guns in it would be a safer place, even though that’s never going to happen, and although it seems intuitive I seriously doubt that it’s true.

 

For now, with one side calling firearm owners “a bunch of inbred rednecks” and the other side labeling everyone as “gun grabbing liberals” there hasn’t been much in the way of rational discussion. I can't stand the anti-government, partisan rants, and one sided arguments found on some radio stations, so I listen to National Public Radio and Catholic Radio; but although I agree with most of what I hear I don't agree with their positions on gun control.

 

Lots of people on both sides of the aisle own firearms, or don’t, for reasons that supersede their broader political and cultural affiliations. The Obama Administration’s proposals make him sound responsive following the horrific shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, but I don’t think there is much he can do without Congress and with Congress things are not going to change much. Most states, like California, already have very tough firearm laws that are ignored by the criminal element, and more laws applied to law abiding citizens are not going to help. These proposals may be a good starting point for a rational discussion, but so far the proposals in California are simply an attempt to push the limits of gun control “while the issue is hot”.

Pay Attention

Are You Paying Attention?

 

Statistically Speaking

The Sandy Hook School Shooting: The tragedy and the lesson. Part 2 of 4

Like lots of other kids I grew up watching Westerns on television and playing shooting games with my friends. Eventually I joined my Dad hunting ducks, pheasants, and deer; and today I am a gun owner with various firearms safely stored in a gun safe. I go to the range about every two weeks, and I've taken multi-day training courses from instructors I know and trust. I enjoy practicing something familiar, and even though I no longer hunt I enjoy operating a complex tool which is what a modern day firearm is. I don’t deny the seductive psychological power that firearms possess, but I resist the sense of safety that a gun provides.

 

I realize that whereas the gun safe increases the wellbeing of my family it interferes with my ability to quickly access a weapon. I mentally struggle with this constraint a lot, because I can’t in good conscience keep a hand gun in a mattress holster or simply under my pillow. I am hoping to gain time as the result of crashing glass or noise from the outside but it’s only a hollow wish. On the plus side the advantage is that it provides some activity and time to wake up, and thoroughly evaluate the situation, prior to having a loaded weapon in my hands.

 

One theory, suggesting boys are simultaneously aware of their own powerlessness and society’s mandate to serve as protectors of the innocent may or may not be valid; but I believe that being prepared to shoot a bad guy helps moderate this anxiety, which never completely goes away. I reject the suggestion that this gives a chronically unemployed person who feels powerless the right to use a weapon to steal food or to kill someone to prove his manhood. It should be obvious even to the most casual observer that using a gun for defensive purposes is not the same as using a gun for offensive purposes.

 

I haven't applied for a concealed carry license though I occasionally consider it. A detailed, but again historical study from the University of Texas found that there is “little evidence that RTC [Right to Carry] laws increase or reduce the number of mass public shootings”, noting, “the coefficients ... are generally in the negative direction consistent with the hypothesis that … RTC law immediately reduces mass public shootings”. I should acknowledge that the authors are walking a fine line, since they make this statement while admitting “none of the point estimates are even close to being significant”; meaning their findings are not consistent with either hypothesis.

 

I should also point out that I’m trusting the data, tables, and results in this study because it’s too complicated for me, and of course it would be nice to know if these results hold true for the more recent mass shootings. The study concluded that there is “little support for [the] hypothesis that RTC laws deter prospective shooters from going on shooting sprees in public places". It also found that "There is also no evidence that RTC laws increase the number of mass public shootings by making it easier for prospective shooters to carry guns in public places.” It went on to say that while "RTC laws do not deter mass shootings it is still possible that the laws reduce the number of people killed and injured during these incidents”, because the “perpetrators of mass public shootings [may] choose smaller public venues where the probability of coming into contact with armed citizens is lower”.

 

I am also aware that statistically speaking a firearm in the home represents a greater danger to its inhabitants than to an intruder, so it wasn’t a choice I made lightly. This statistic indicates that “owning a gun makes it more likely”, but as with all statistics it may or may not apply to my home: It will be more likely in some homes and less likely in others. Still, not every choice we make is data-driven; a lot comes from the gut. For instance, I would imagine that statistically speaking owning a car makes it more likely that the owner will be injured in an automobile accident, yet we accept this increased risk and continue to drive our cars every day.

 

Opponents will point out that we register our cars, track their sales, regulate their operation, test driver knowledge and skills, and require driver training for the greater good of society. They will also agree that when a drunk driver injures others in an accident or takes out a group of people on the sidewalk we should revoke their driving privileges due to physical and/or mental incapacity.

We do this because we recognize that the problem is not their vehicle of choice. We don’t blame their car or focus legislation on vehicles like Jeeps and Hummers with military characteristics, and we shouldn’t be focusing on the guns; they’re just a tool, they are not the problem.

Easter

Dying He destroyed our death
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who
believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
John 3:16

Rising He restored our life
"I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.”
John 11:25

Identity Crisis

The Sandy Hook School Shooting: The tragedy and the lesson. Part 1 of 4

 

I was born and raised in a small town in Northern California in a home with conservative views which I adopted as I grew up. After leaving home those views were combined with more liberal ideas and experiences that helped me make sense of a complicated world around me. My early Christian faith included an evangelical perspective and it too has experienced change, because although I grew up Protestant I am strongly Catholic today. As a result, I’ll admit my faith tends to be a bit conservative and my politics tend to be a bit liberal; and they both tend to meet in the middle.

 

I don’t appreciate the rant against all liberals as “gun grabbers” because although I identify myself as a liberal I am a gun rights advocate in agreement with the rant that makes me uncomfortable. In fact, until recently I didn’t even realize there was a divide between gun owners.

 

You’ll be glad to know that my identity crisis hasn’t prompted me to re-evaluate my interest in firearms, or my support of the 2nd Amendment, or my concern for the future of our country, even though some of my family thinks I’m slipping over the edge.

 

I’ll admit that plenty of liberals are trying to take advantage of recent events and they do fit the gun grabber label closely, but there are lots of other liberals (like me) who own and appreciate firearms, and I think it’s time for me (and for them) to stand up in defense of the Second Amendment.

I believe that credible people (should) suspend judgment when considering another person’s perspective. This doesn’t mean they don’t have passion and strong beliefs; but everyone should be open to other opinions, even if they are quite different. We don’t see this much today, it’s rarely seen in government and so far it’s been absent in the gun debates.

Stand Up

It's time for me to stand up!

A Dark Path

I would like to begin by confessing that I’m a Liberal and a Catholic, and I’m also a gun owner which makes me something of an enigma or at best a public contradiction, because despite my politics and religion I strongly support the Second Amendment. While struggling with my personal identity crisis I’ve been writing down how I feel about the argument currently raging across our nation.

 

I should also confess that the name for this blog came from someone else’s article, which inspired me. I found myself wanting to reach those who are focusing on the tool instead of the underlying problems to help them understand why I think they are fighting the wrong battle. I hope the posts in this blog will promote a more reasoned and less emotional understanding of gun ownership and use.
 

I started out trying to understand what gun control advocates understood about gun violence. I pulled information from statistics and reports as well as input from family and friends on both sides of the issue, but most of what I’ve written are my own thoughts and beliefs. I was also concerned that the saying, “United we stand, Divided we fall” applied to gun rights activists regardless of political affiliation. If we don't unite and work together I'm convinced that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms will be permanently infringed.

 

I now realize that there is a much bigger problem: Modern “rights” theory is redefining our personal and collective rights as rooted not in human nature but in the human will, which in turn is manifested in a system of law. In other words, natural law is being ignored and our personal rights are assumed to be dependent on existing law. As a result, if a person proposes some form of truth that society does not accept and also proposes that we can know this truth, such as a belief in God or the basic rights of individuals (including the unborn), then that person is labeled as a trouble maker.

 

In our government's actions we are being told that thinking for ourselves means we are acting against the best interests of society. This is especially true regarding the Second Amendment which even includes the phrase "shall not be infringed". I recognize that the common will of the people can be guided by personal gain or misinformation, but too often it is simply usurped by political and corporate power. As a result of misdirection and misinformation by the media, dialogue and affirmation by the people will not keep political evil at bay, nor will a misguided attempt to maintain a free and open society protect us.

 

Protecting our Second Amendment rights in particular and the Bill of Rights in general have become absolutely necessary if we are to protect any of our other rights. Unfortunately, taking a Patriotic stand today is defined as not acting in the best interests of society, and not accepting the rules created for the "common good' has become an act of terrorism. This country is headed down a dark path, and I hope that this blog is not the record of its fall.

Loss of the Innocent

If we as a nation are so concerned about the safety of our children,

shouldn't we focus on the biggest problems first?
 

 

Newtown Tragedy

I stand with the millions of people around the world in remembering the horrific shooting in the Newton Connecticut school one month ago today. I am saddened by the tragic loss of life, and by the struggle of those who survived. It was a terrible event, but I am also saddened by this nation's reaction to that event.

 

In the short time since the shooting almost everyone is making the same mistake, focusing their anger on the tool instead of the problem. When a deranged bomber kills people we blame the bomber, when a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver, but when a disturbed shooter kills people we blame the gun. Some go so far as to insist that a world with exactly zero guns in it would be a safer place, even though that’s never going to happen, and although it seems intuitive I seriously doubt that it’s true.

 

Steven Pinkers and Chris Uggen have writtent that, "A narrow focus on stopping mass shootings is less likely to produce beneficial changes than a broader-based effort to reduce homicide and other violence. These rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases, and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.”

 

Focusing on guns is not the answer; they’re just a tool, they are not the problem.