Focused on the Bang-Bang

pan·a·ce·a

/ˌpæn əˈsi ə/ Show Spelled [pan-uh-see-uh] 

noun

1. a remedy for all disease or ills; cure-all.

2. an answer or solution for all problems or difficulties:
His economic philosophy is a good one, but he tries to use it as a panacea.

The events of 14 December 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut were nothing short of horrific.  A man willfully gunning down small children defies even the most widely stretched logic.  It leaves a society with nothing but unanswerable questions and a desire for vengeance that can never be sated. 

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings, I refrained from any reaction on Facebook, simply changing my status to, "There are just no words. I don't know how they possibly could but may the families of the victims in Connecticut somehow find peace. And may God bless them."  And I let that be it as far as my response because there really were no words.  There still aren't. 

As expected, social media was immediately lit up with calls for the banning of guns, arming teachers, locking up all the mentally ill, declarations of love for one's children and about a thousand other examples of people piggybacking their personal cause onto a tragedy.  Other than a few pointed replies to the posts of others, again I held my tongue.  The time for a reasoned analysis of how to minimize of not prevent these types of incidents is not in the hours immediately following a shooting spree.  Emotions are too raw and people are not thinking clearly. 

Yet every Tom, Dick and Harpo has an, "easy solution" to the problem.  Let's take a look at each of the most popular ones and I'll tell you why it, in and of itself, won't work. 

1) Banning guns will prevent school shootings.

It's an annoying cliche but it's true -- if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.  Taking away the weapons of innocent, law-abiding people will only serve to give the unlawful weapon holders an advantage -- we'd be essentially sending society to a gun fight with a pocket knife.  The overwhelming majority of gun owners are in legal possession of legally obtained firearms and do not use them to commit crimes.  Taking away their weapons is like taking away everyone's motor vehicle because a mall percentage drink too much alcohol and get behind the wheel.  It simply won't work.

Then there are the Second Amendment issues.  While one may argue where the limits are in terms of what types of weapons can be owned, the 2nd Amendment clearly allows for some type of individual ownership of firearms.  Between the NRA, other lobbyists and regular people, there is no way that amendment is ever going to be scrapped -- and no way enough states would ratify an amendment repealing it.  That, in and of itself makes this whole, "solution" a non-starter.


2) Arming teachers will prevent school shootings.

Teachers are just like any other cross-section of society.  There are smart teachers and there are dumb ones.  There are responsible ones and there are irresponsible ones.  There are poised teachers and there are hotheads.  Giving blanket permission to all of them to strap up is lunacy.  What happens the first time one of them fails to secure their weapon and a kid gets ahold of it?  Or when a teacher flips out and guns down his or her class?  Do the school districts pay for the guns?  Do they pay for the training insurance companies would surely require in order to cover an armed campus?

You see, it is just not as simple as giving all the teachers guns.


3) Putting armed guards on school campuses will prevent school shootings.

How did that work out in Columbine?

The thing with armed security is, it ain't cheap.  Finding a qualified armed security officer is not like hiring a janitor.  Many school districts are having trouble finding money to pay for books.  How are they going to pay for the selection, qualification, salary and insurance for armed guards?  If they contract it out to a security company, it is even more expensive -- and the district loses control of the process.  What happens when a guard uses poor judgment?

It may sound mean but the simple fact is that most security guards are such because they were not qualified to be a police officer.  Do you really want someone like that walking around your kid's school with a gun?

Could an armed guard conceivably prevent a shooting spree?  Sure.  Is it likely?  Not very.


4) Allowing retired military veterans to volunteer for armed patrol of school campuses will prevent school shootings.

Look, I have much love for the military but this is one of the worst ideas I have heard.  It is a widely-acknowledged fast that we as a nation do a poor job of caring for our veterans -- particularly for the mental health of our veterans.  So we give them guns and turn them loose on school campuses?  That's a good idea?

Again, you are running into insurance liability issues, administrative costs, hiring and screening costs and the fact that, just as with any other cross-section of society, just because someone wears a uniform doesn't necessarily make them a good person.  Could some sort of a program where National Guard troops are used on a rotational basis, in lieu of their annual training deployment?  Sure.  But just  handing combat veterans guns and putting them in schools is not the answer.


5.  Letting God back in school will prevent scool shootings.

You know who pray every day in school?  Amish kids.  Guess what -- their schools get shot up, too.

Children who attend public school are not getting their religious education there, nor should they.  Kids in public school receive their religious education at home and in their church.  The values they learn there are the ones with which they go forth.  Having postes in the hallways of their educational facilities that read, "Jesus Loves You", are not going to have any effect on thse beliefs one way or the other.

I find it interesting that the people who support this argument are, by and large, folks who claim to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God.  So by definition, they purport to believe in a God that is so powerfully present, He cannot simply be shooed away form anywhere.  The Christian viewpoint og God is that He is in fact everwhere and the impetus is on the individual to accept the love and grace He offers.  This can be done anywhere, anytime. 

So when someone says, "putting God back in school will solve the problem", what  hear is, "forcing my beliefs on others will solve the problem".  So not only are you contradicting yourself, you're also using God to try to make a political point.  Lovely.

Hate to tell you, folks but if you are a Christian or monotheist of any breed, you must also believe that God was very much present when dude shot 27 people dead in that school. 


6. Putting all the mentally ill in hospitals will prevent school shootings.

There are myriad issues here, not the least of which is that it's a slippery slope you head down when you start talking about forced commitments.  Who decides the criteria?  Who determines length of stay?  Who pays for all of this?

The thing about mental illness is, often times, it goes undetected until a blowup.  It's easy to say, "people had to have seen signs that dude was cracking", yet how many times do you see the neighbor on the news saying, "he was such a sweet boy"?   

Addressing this aspect and not the gun aspect is just as short-sighted as doing the opposite and our society and health care system are simply not set up to do this anyway even if we wanted to.

So what does that leave?  

I think it leaves a very complex problem that will take tremendous effort in many areas in order to effect change.  I think people have to take emotion out of the equation and simply ask themselves what makes sense.  And I think extremists on both sides of the aisle need to be willing to compromise.

That being said, here is what I propose:

1.  Reasonable Gun Policies

Gun control does not equal gun abolition and it never should.  People should absolutely have the right to arm themselves for the protection of their life, family and belongings.  While I personally feel it futile, they should also be able to arm themselves in protection from their government.

How does all this work?

First, the purchase of every weapon in the United States needs to be registered and tracked, without exception.  In order to be eligible for the purchase of a firearm, a prospective purchaser must clear a background check and both a written and demonstrative test.  They are then granted a license to purchase firearms.  They must quality for each type of weapon they wish to purchase, much like one must pass both a car and motorcycle test in order to receive a license for each.  Similar to driving licenses, these privileges must be renewed on a regular basis.

Gun advocates will say this is too stringent.  Too damned bad.  You have a right to a firearm.  That does not mean that right cannot be subject to reasonable guidelines.  In order to be hired and issued a firearm, a police officer must pass a psychological evaluation, written examination and demonstrative test.  The same holds true for a member of the armed services.  It makes no sense to me that we would not also want our neighbors to be similarly qualified if they own firearms.

If you pass the tests and keep your licensed maintained, you can own whatever society decides is an appropriate weapon for personal ownership.  That list can be determined through the democratic process, which is already how it works.  I can't own a fully functional tank if I want one because society has agreed that individuals should not own tanks.  Or ICBMs.  So, whatever society deems an appropriate weapon, have at it.  Just follow the rules everyone else does.

Additionally, folks should be required to make reasonable attempts at securing their weapons.  Almost every public shooting, be it a Luby's, a mall or a school, has been committed with legally purchased weapons.  Where the breakdown occurred -- well where part of the breakdown occurred -- is in the improper securing of these legal weapons.  It is a reasonable expectation to me that anyone who has gone through all the requirements to obtain a legal firearm take every reasonable action to ensure it is not put to illegal use.  Further, it is reasonable to me that anyone who fails to do so is held to some degree culpable for the resultant criminal act(s).

If I leave my gun in my nightstand and my granddaughter pulls it out and shoots herself in the face, guess what -- I'm probably going to jail, as well I should.  Owning a firearm (or knife or truncheon or hazardous chemical or power tool) comes with a responsibility to those around me.  It is on me to be sure I secure these things so that they are not misused.

Yes, people break in to houses and steal guns.  That happens.  Knowing this, it is reasonable for me to lock my guns up.  Now, if they break into the gun cabinet or lock box or whatever it is I have, then ok -- I have taken reasonable precautions and they failed.  If I left them all laying out in my garage though and dude just walks in, takes them and drives to Wendy's to start shooting -- I bear part of the blame for that.  I don't get murder charges but I have certainly failed to prevent something I had a reasonable expectation of happening. 

To me this is not at all lessening the culpability of the shooter.  Sometimes though, there enough blame for more than one person.


2. Real Penalties for Breaking the Rules

The only way regulating legal gun ownership works is if illegal gun ownership is eradicated.

Can you ever get rid of illegal gun ownership and use?  No.  The same holds true for pretty much any legal infraction in existence.  However, society can make the consequences of illegal gun ownership so punitive that it can greatly curtail the practice.

When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, I saw a man turn himself in for stealing a car, knowing his hand was going to be cut off.  The reason he did this is because he found a gun in the trunk and knew that if he was found with the gun, he would be killed.

Am I suggesting we kill people found with an illegal gun?  Absolutely not but this story shows me that if you make the consequence painful enough, most people will rethink their options.  What those penalties are, I don't know.  But at some point, the juice is no longer worth the squeeze and illegal gun ownership and usage will decrease.

Will this prevent anyone from shooting another person or possibly even a group of people?  No.  But it could help reduce the numbers of incidents.  Will it end all violence?  No.  But I guarantee you it is a hell of a lot easier to click-boom-shoot someone from across a room than it is to physically murder them with a knife, bat or one's bare hands. 

Reducing the number of illegally owned guns will absolutely reduce violence.


3. Take the Mental Out of Health

We could take all of the guns -- illegal and not -- away from everyone and we'd still have only removed a tool from the psychopath's bin.  We will have done nothing to address the underlying causes of his or her behavior.

If your liver stops working, you go to a doctor.  The doctor looks at it, says, "we need to do a, b and c", they do a, b, and c, you pay your copay, if any, and the insurance company pays the rest.  That pretty much goes for private medical insurance, Medicare, Medicaid -- whatever.

If, however your brain stops working properly, you still go to a doctor.  In this case though, you follow the same steps but your insurance coverage is severely limited.  Because it's a mental health issue, not a health issue.  Huh?

The distinction between a mental health issue and all other kinds of health issues needs to be eliminated.  This distinction serves only three purposes:

     1) It stigmatizes the mentally ill and causes many people to not even seek the help they desperately need.
     2) It limits the scope of assistance to those who do seek it to a level that in most cases is insufficient to the task. 
     3)  It allows insurance companies to make more money by limiting their coverage.
 
 I am not getting into a health care debate here and I am not talking at all about Obamacare.  What I am saying is that health care needs to include the whole self.  If that means it costs more than so be it.  The brain is part of the human body!  Its care is absolutely part of maintaining one's health.


I don't know if these steps would change anything but i have to believe they would.  Now, my friends on the left are going to say I am being too permissive with all these killing tools.  My peeps on the right will say I am trampling on their freedom.  Frankly, I think they are both wrong.  Like it or not, we have a tremendous amount of freedom in this country and the people need to be trusted to exercise it.  Similarly, the people need to show good judgement in that exercise and live up to the responsibilities that come with that freedom.

In the coming weeks and months there will be all manner of political outrageousness on these issues.  While I don't pretend to have all the answers, what I would suggest to folks is that when listening, immediately discount the words of anyone who you have never heard voice a single positive thing about a position held by the "other side".  They are an ideologue who cares more about being right than getting it right.  Having eliminated them, listen to the reasonable folks, think about what makes sense to you personally and, if you're so inclined, pray on it.

In the end, we all want the same thing.  How far adrift are we that this story only became truly shocking to us when we found out most of the victims were little kids?  And how sad is it that nobody is talking about the fact that 27 people get killed in this country on most days?  The only thing different about 14 December is that they were all in one place.

That thought should scare the hell out of you.  It does me.

It's time for a rational, intelligent national conversation.