Consider

Response to a news article

An article was published in our local weekly paper written by Sally Lieber, a former state Assembly member, hoping to influence our local city decision makers. I submitted a response the next day, but it was eventually rejected by one of the editors.

 

I was told that to be considered for publication, my opinion must be more than 950 words, be in response to a recent article, and focus on a local issue. I submitted this expanded response shortly thereafter, but it wasn't published and I haven't heard anything more from the Palo Alto Weekly.

 

Understanding Violence

 

On June 27 2014, the Palo Alto Weekly published a Guest Opinion written by Sally Lieber, a former state Assembly member, titled Stemming the Tide of Gun Violence. In this article she suggests that our community should not acquiesce to the gun industry, and she encourages the City of Palo Alto to take action, suggesting that “strong, common-sense measures to deter gun violence can — and must — be advanced in every local community”.

 

She acknowledges that Palo Alto currently has regulations in place regarding the sale of guns, but she is using the fear of violence to motivate residents in Palo Alto to focus on gun violence, and she wants the City to add additional measures to further regulate gun and ammunition dealers.

 

I am a long time resident of Palo Alto, and I appreciate it as a city with both insight and foresight because of its educated and informed population. I too hope that our community can reduce gun violence and create a safe and sane future, but I would hope that we continue to carefully consider the issue of violence without allowing emotion to overwhelm our understanding.

 

We often hear that statistics are like lamp posts, they’re used more for support than for illumination. Palo Alto should be considering policy based on fact rather than fiction. To do that we must stop paying attention to reports promoting specific agenda(s) and start paying attention to un-biased reports from neutral parties. For instance: Recent reports from the Center for Decease Control, law enforcement organizations, and even Congress acknowledge that gun violence has been declining for the last 20 years.

 

I agree that the one injured or killed by violence is not the only victim of the crime, and that it naturally inspires in us the desire to do what is possible to prevent any kind of violence. To do that we need to understand the cause of violence, and we need to recognize that guns are not the problem. The recent knife attack in China and the bombing at the marathon should suggest to the most casual observer that violence is not a gun issue. Violence comes from the heart, not the barrel of a gun; guns are just the tool.

 

I also agree that the right to safety is inalienable, but like the Bill of Right’s protections for the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, the people have a constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms. Unfortunately, like the First and Fourth Amendments the Second Amendment is under attack by those who would prefer control to freedom.

 

Before you ask me what I’m afraid of, let me say that what I fear most are people who are willing to give up their rights and take away the rights of others, because they have been convinced by someone else that it’s for the greater good. Unlike the suggestions promoted in the Guest Opinion by Sally Lieber, I do not believe that her solutions regarding gun violence will be affective.

 

Restricting the rights of citizens, in Palo Alto and across the nation, will not reduce gun violence and I believe it will increase crime. How successful has the Government been at keeping drugs off the street? How successful has the Government been at stopping human trafficking? What makes anyone think that the Government can take guns out of the hands of criminals?

 

Steven Pinkers and Chris Uggen write 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.”

 

They continue, “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.” Their conclusion is that whatever the cause of violence is, that is where the focus needs to be: Focusing on the tool is still not the answer.

 

Sally Lieber’s suggestion that Palo Alto should “build on its existing ordinances by requiring additional physical security measures for gun businesses” does not address the problem of violence. Asking the city to “make gun and ammunition dealing a conditional use”, or “requiring a zoning permit” is not going to make the city a safer place to live.

 

While I encourage the community to get involved in the public decision process, I would ask that we approach the issue with understanding and not acquiesce to the fear mongering of anti-gun groups. Like so many others who do not understand the cause of violence, Sally Lieber is focusing on the tools of violence. The focus should be on why bad people are doing bad things; not on their tool of choice.

 

When a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver. When a mad bomber kills people we blame the bomber. When a deranged shooter kills people we blame the gun. It doesn’t make sense. Like cars, bombs, and knives, guns are just a tool. Punishing law abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of a few is not going to make our streets and neighborhoods safer.

 

In fact, if we as community in an enlightened city are so concerned about the safety of our children why don’t we focus on the biggest problem first. Thousands of children lose their lives every day through the violent act of abortion: Where’s the outrage?

Had Enough Yet?

Lock Down is not the Answer

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 5 of 5

 

A friend of mine once asked me “what I was afraid of” to which I wanted to reply, “Nothing”. Others have also asked this question, but he was suggesting that my interest in guns must be motivated by some great [unfounded] fear. My initial response to this line of questioning was there are plenty of things that scare me. I’ll admit that I’ve continued to think about this and recently came to an interesting realization.

 

What I fear the most is people who are willing to give up their own rights, and take away the rights of others, because someone has convinced them that it is “for the greater good”. Some call these people “sheeple” which admittedly is a bit derogatory, but they fit the profile of sheep that are exceptionally passive, easily controlled, and unwilling to argue with the sheepdog.

 

I’ll admit that I would feel worse about killing a stupid kid who thought breaking and entering was cool than about killing someone who deserved it, but I would feel bad about either for the rest of my life. It’s also important to note that I would never shoot someone who is not a serious threat, because I don’t intend to hunt them even in my own home. I will remain in my safe zone armed and prepared, call 911 to establish a timeline, and await the police. In fact I have no intention to take any action unless they present themselves and try to harm me or anyone with me. If however, another family member is present and threatened somewhere else in the house I will have to leave my safe zone; and that’s where things get tricky.

 

So I hold the following to be evident: When an intruder psychologically prepared to kill innocent people enters my home, or my work place, or my grandchild’s school building, lock down is not going to prevent the loss of life. Relying on 911 as an affective first line of defense is not going to work because by the time help arrives it will be too late. Cowering in the corner of a bed room is not my preferred position of defense because it will not protect my family. In these situations, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. I pray that this never happens!

Is it time yet?

It's Up to You

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 4 of 5

 

In addition to being trained it’s important to be prepared, and for now I am convinced that all of the firearm regulations combined are not going to keep my family safe, on the street or at home. I know this sounds paranoid to some, but I am still convinced that "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". A few minutes of careful thought is all it takes to realize this isn’t as crazy as it sounds! How well has the government kept drugs off the street? How well has the government secured the boarders? What has the government been able to do about human trafficking? What has the government done to protect our water or food supplies? How safe is the power grid or the internet for that matter?

 

What makes anyone think that the government will be any more successful at keeping weapons off the street! Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens is not going to prevent gun violence. We, including those who champion gun control, will simply be more vulnerable because those who don’t follow the law will still be able to purchase guns. Especially in times of natural and manmade disasters, law abiding citizens need to be armed and prepared to give others time to change the system that created the mess. If we aren't, the outlaws will have all the power and they'll simply over run our unarmed barricades.

 

Today as a result of strongly held beliefs and partisan infighting, our government is slowly losing its grip on the ability to function, let alone govern The People. This isn't just in our nation’s capital; it's infecting our states, counties, and cities. While I would hope never to need an AR-15 I am concerned that someday the lack of a semi-automatic rifle may inhibit my ability to protect myself and my family in an extended crisis. Because there will always be a lot of firearms out there, those who cower in their bedrooms with a baseball bat and those who bring a knife to a gun fight will not be able to protect themselves, their families, or their friends; and NO they will not be able to defend their nation either.

End Times