More guns, trained guns, no guns

As a precursor to today's post, I would be remiss if I didn't remind my readers that all posts I create which address what most people debate as the gun control issue, are saved in my blog under the title

Violence Control

I do so, not because I am trying to avoid the phrase gun control, but because it is clear that merely mentioning that phrase causes more ends to conversations as beginnings.  My recommendation for all people who perceive the need for an honest, sensible debate about guns in America, is to begin caching the issue as violence control.  While it is bewildering to me why any sane person believes that rapid fire, military weapons have a place in society, perhaps we can convince them the need to get a handle on the too easily used solution of resorting to violence to address conflict and disagreement.

So, before starting this post, I decided to read some of my other posts so as not to repeat what I have previously stated.  Sadly there were a number to read as many of them were written after previous mass killings.

To paraphrase a testimony given by General Mattis a few years ago during a congressional hearing on funding, he was adamant in stating that insufficient funding of the state department and its job of diplomacy, will result in the need for more funding for bullets and guns.  Conversely, it is not a big jump to the thought that without addressing the messages of our culture that advocate and even glorify violence, we will find ourselves wringing our hands over future mass killings.

Or, as the President has proposed, arming even more people.

So, let's get into it.

The premise is that by arming and properly training more people who are within the "soft" target areas, we will discourage future mass killings as the perpetrators will be reluctant to enter a place where certain death awaits.

Of course, there are a number of assumptions at work here.  First, that the mass killer uses logic to choose his targets (I won't say his or her targets since the vast majority of these people are male), and that death would be a deterrent.  Well, considering that most proponents of new gun control legislation argue that this is a mental health issue, doesn't that eliminate that line of reasoning?  If a mass killer is mentally unstable, the notion that logic is involved in the act is absurd.  And, I would posit that most mass killers are sociopaths at worst, temporarily bereft of any sense of humanity, at best.  If, however, a mass killer is sane, then he certainly knows that there are scant few instances where death or life in prison is not the end result of the act, so either the sane mass killer wants to die or somehow thinks that he will get away with it.  To me, any sane mass killer who believes he will escape justice for such a horrendous act, is probably not sane, revert back to example one.

The second assumption is that, under stress, an armed and specially trained teacher will hit their target.  This seems a bit of a stretch considering that there are many instances when the armed and specially trained among us, police and military personnel, have shot the wrong person.  Death by friendly fire in military conflicts is well documented, among the more famous being the friendly fire death of ex-NFL player Pat Tillman. Even more alarming, most articles about friendly fire deaths also mention the instances of death by one's fellow combatants on purpose which can arise from a lower rank soldier killing one of higher rank, or killing among the soldiers after disputes or fights.  What better place to hide a murder than in war.  And, of course, examples of police officers shooting unarmed citizens, innocents caught in the crossfire, and police using excess force when apprehending suspects, are all too familiar.  Would we therefore expect more or less instances of these errors by teachers who may only ever use their gun for cause once in a lifetime?  Or, in the apparent case of the trained gun on site at the Parkland School, would the armed and specially trained teacher even react in an appropriate way?

Additionally, and I know details of this plan are non-existent at this early stage, would the teacher actually carry a loaded gun in class?  On their person?  Again, are there not enough instances where victims are shot with their own guns when overcome or surprised by a third party?  Would we rethink the plan after the first instance of a teacher or student being killed by the gun assigned to protect the class, or would it take two instances?  Three?  Or, if, like those in the military who, under duress, use the cover of war to mask an non-authorized shooting, how do we react if an armed and specially trained teacher uses his/her gun inappropriately against a fellow teacher, administrator or pain in the ass student.  

Finally, there is the assumption that good people with guns will make the right decisions to use them, and that these armed and specially trained teachers, all certainly good people, will be perfect in this regard.  Huh? Again, we know that our military and police forces are filled with good people who have made poor decisions, or committed bad acts.  Yes, Virginia, good people sometimes do bad things.  Notwithstanding people like Bruce Willis in Death Wish, most relatives of victims are not people we should encourage to mete out justice themselves.  

Not withstanding this logic, lets pretend that specially armed and trained teachers are placed in every school that requests them, or every school if this becomes general practice, and lets further assume an example occurs in which a mass killing is shortened or stopped by one such armed teacher.  Success!!  Do we then move on to other soft targets?  Armed and specially trained ushers at all movie theaters, guides at churches, bouncers at nightclubs, seating helpers at music and sporting events, or any other such places where people congregate?

Many gun rights fight any and all gun control legislation for fear that it might the beginning of a trend to disarm all Americans.  Would a program arming teachers in classrooms be the beginning of arming all Americans?

Do we really want a society in which at any time someone could legally use their concealed weapon to address a situation which they interpret as hostile or dangerous?  Knowing that good people, trained people with guns use them improperly, imagine the result if more people, simply by hitting a few targets in a controlled setting, were armed?  

I saw Paul Ryan on TV talking about the action the House of Representatives might take in response to the most recent mass killing.  He mentioned the culture of violence that I alluded to in this post.  Good for him. But when will he connect our culture of violence with our obscene $600 billion a year military budget? And where is his reference to the fact that our current President uses threats of violence in response to many issues.  The method in which he blithely discusses using nuclear weapons against our enemies is appalling! And his horrendous record of so many ambassadorships being unfilled to the various countries of the world. President Trump seems to be all about, I have the biggest, baddest weapons, so do what I say or else. Does this not contribute to a culture of violence, and perhaps effect a confused teenager who sees violence as the only answer to the problems of his life?  If Ryan wants to truly change our culture from shoot first, talk later, perhaps he needs to take Trump aside and remind him that the perception starts at the top.

Of course, it is not President Donald Trump's fault that a troubled youth in Florida went on a killing spree. For better or worse, we get the leadership we deserve, are led by those we elect.  If our leadership believes that more guns is the answer to violence control, then we need to put up or shut up in the next election.

Without putting too fine a point on it, I also think that the violence control issue is becoming a watershed moment for America and Americans.  Do we really believe that God is on our side when it comes to using violence to address our problems?  Is she really looking down upon us and saying, yes, more guns to the good people, and I will continue to make the bad people shoot poorly.  (Another Hollywood created falsehood; bad guy with machine gun misses every time, good guy with handgun kills with each shot).  Now, clearly, it is difficult to know the reasoning of the Almighty.  Perhaps she allowed us to create weapons of mass destruction as a test.  Perhaps it is just a phase we need to pass through as a society before we achieve a more enlightened state of mind.

But what if there is a revelation on the horizon of mankind's perception that can only be realized when we eschew violence as a means to resolve conflict?  If so, will America be on the forefront, leading the way towards that realization, or will she be holding back the rest of humanity simply because we need to justify spending so much money on "defense"?

The simple fact is, guns make killing people easier, and rapid fire guns easier still.  The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to an assault weapon, only "arms", and we can choose, legislatively, how we define arms without amending or repealing that amendment.  Assault weapons of any type are weapons of violence. I imagine that most Americans would be aghast at using an assault weapon to hunt animals, yet we seem OK with using them to kill our fellow citizens.  There is no other use than for killing, so it seems obvious that we should be adamant in insisting that no citizen should legally possess one as a means of self defense, or, more likely as a means to kill multiple humans.  Similarly, devices like bump stocks which transform a
semi-automatic weapon into a more rapid fire one should be illegal.  Frankly, I am not sure why a citizen needs even a semi-automatic weapon, but we can at least start with those weapons that allow multiple shots to be fired with one pull.

Folks, in this age of instant information, it is quite simple to research firearm ownership and death by firearms.  And just as easily, it is clear that Americans own, per capita, more guns than any other nation, and that we consistently rank in the top 10 for most deaths by firearms.  Each and every year.  We are sacrificing our fellow citizens, and our children, to keep alive the illusion that our founders wanted us to be armed and ready to kill each other, when in fact they wanted us to be armed and ready to defend our nation against foreign invaders.  Happily, we have a well funded military for that, and state and local police forces to protect and serve our communities.

Violence control demands that we identify the tools which are used by both good and bad people to harm and kill Americans, limit and/or eliminate those tools from public access, and follow the example of the vast majority of civilized countries which experience death rates by firearms that are 50, 75, even 90% less than are own.