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.