Very prophetic

Last Thursday when I opened my morning email I found this in my inbox:

It wasn't an hour later when we first began to hear the news of yet another mass school shooting, this one in Santa Fe, TX that so far has claimed 10 innocent lives.  The NRA (which I am not a member of) has for a while now been advocating for at least some classroom teachers to be armed.   As you might imagine this has been met with much resistance from those who claim teachers are trained to teach, not to be armed security.  I, too, have had some reservations....until now.  Now I'm reluctantly on board with the idea. 

One of the main lessons learned from the Columbine school shooting back in1999 is that shooters must be confronted immediately.  Back then it took SWAT one hour and 50 minutes to muster, brief, and finally enter the school.  The killing was long since over before they got inside.  Speed of confrontation saves lives, and that has been the standard police response ever since....the first cop on the scene enters and engages.

I think back to the Dark Ages and the high school I attended.  As I recall we had five buildings on campus plus two parking lots, spread out over quite a few acres.  Today, due to budgetary constraints, there is probably just one School Resource Officer (SRO) patrolling that same campus.  What are the odds of that one officer being in the right building, on the right floor, at the right time, able to respond immediately to a shooter?  Now imagine how much better the odds would be if there were five armed, trained teachers or administrators scattered around the campus, plus that one SRO, available to respond?  With speed being of the essence, this could save lives!

Of course the key to this is making sure those adults on campus who volunteered were themselves thoroughly vetted and trained.  And not just trained once, but subjected to ongoing training until their response becomes automatic.  This muscle memory is essential as (so I've been told) when the shooting starts, people suddenly exhibit the IQ of a gerbil.  It would be a hefty responsibility these volunteers would take on, and there are serious coordination and liability issues that would need to be worked out, but again, it could save lives!

My state has allowed school districts to permit teacher carry for some time now, but so far I've heard of only a few rural districts who have done so, mainly because they know police response would take too long to do any good.  I think this is an idea that, sadly, should be strongly considered by every district.  Laws can be passed that restrict this or that, and they might be effective, but confronting shooters will definitely save lives.  We can't afford to just sit here and talk about it ad infinitium.  We need action.

I'm S, and I approved this message.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem....

Millions of Americans across the country are demanding gun control in response to the new reality of seemingly monthly mass shootings, and just gun violence in general.  I'd like to ask those of you who agree with this sentiment to participate in a little exercise.  I'm not baiting anyone, but looking for some real (possible) answers to a real problem.

My exercise goes like this:  If you were a member of Congress and you wanted to introduce a bill relating to gun control, what would you include in your proposal?  For example, "Prohibit the future manufacture, importation, and sale of automatic / semi-automatic rifles", or "No handguns larger than ___ caliber", or "No magazines containing more than ___ rounds".  Would you address the 250-300 million guns that are already in public hands?

Question 2:  If enacted, how would you enforce it?  Would you leave it up to local / state law enforcement, or the ATF, or the FBI, or all the above?  Regardless, it would seem like they would have to take time away from other duties to enforce your new gun control law.  Do you think that's wise?  Or would you establish a new law enforcement body to police just this one thing?  Who would pay for this?  Would this be an "unfunded mandate" (requiring someone to do something, without providing them the funding to do it)?

Question 3:  What would you do with those brought in for violating your new gun control law?  Our Constitution allows everyone their day in court.  By all accounts our court system, at every level, already has a considerable backlog of cases waiting to be heard.  Would you provide for a new, single issue "Gun Violation Court"?  If so, this would require physical courtrooms and offices, clerks, bailiffs, judges, etc.  How would all those be paid for?

Question 4:  Assuming you could resolve Question 3, what would you do with those convicted?  I'm going to assume that in your new gun violation roundup you would also automatically include those you find who are already prohibited from possessing a firearm, such as previously convicted felons.  I would also assume you would go after black market sellers, too.  Do we have enough state and / or federal prisons & jailers to handle them all?  I've heard it costs tens-of-thousands of dollars to incarcerate one prisoner for just one year.  How would these costs be funded?

One final rule:  You can't just say, "I don't know how they'd do it, but they'd just have to find a way", or "I dunno, they're smart guys up there in Washington.  Let them figure it out."  Put on the table some concrete ideas that real lawmakers could build on.  Even if you can only contribute a little, you'll be light years ahead of those who are just perpetual whiners.

Now, independent of this exercise, tell me....what do you think the odds are a real bill similar to what you've suggested would have of garnering the votes of 50% +1 in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and be signed by the President?  (Forget for a second the NRA exists.)  

Thanks for participating.

S

Opposition research

Ever hear of "opposition research"?  No?  Apparently neither has Donald Trump.  Actually he has, but he vetoed the idea when his two previous campaign managers brought the idea up to him.

Opposition research is the common practice of having the past history of a political opponent investigated.  It's always helpful to know if they have a mistress, have any DUI's or a criminal record, have any mental health issues, who they've stiffed in business, what their tax return looks like, who they've donated to, if they are on the payroll of some underworld character, etc.

It's also common practice for candidates to have the same investigation done on themselves so they'll know what the opposition will find and might make public in the heat of the campaign.  That way they can have wet-wipes at the ready regardless of the mud that's slung their way.

Opposition research was suggested to Donald Trump early-on by his professional political managers and he nixed the idea.  He must have known his tax returns would show contributions to special interests that he no longer wished to associate with, or to hot button groups like Planned Parenthood, the NRA (unlikely) and others, or that he hadn't paid taxes in years.  Maybe there were building trades he finally paid at less than the contracted price, or deals made with foreign "undesirables" who just happened to own properties with magnificent views.  Or women he found inappropriately appealing.

That's his problem today.  Donald Trump either honestly thought his bank account made him Teflon coated, or that he had properly covered his tracks and no one could ever find anything on him.  Or maybe in his mind he was pure as the driven snow.  I dunno.  Regardless, he grossly underestimated Washington politics.

Lesson learned:  When you try and keep your past hidden, everyone ASSUMES the worst about you, whether you're guilty or not.  "You can run, but you can't hide" applies to politics, too.  Especially politics.

S

The Status Quo Lives!....with EDIT

Did anyone but me watch the Townhall Meeting last night where Prez O'Bama politely sparred with pro-gun advocates?  As expected, when the dust settled, the status quo was still intact.  I can't for the life of me understand why the pro-gun side still believes the Federales are intent on coming for their guns (it's a physical impossibility), and why the anti-gun advocates believe that the pro-gun side will someday just say, "Oh, OK, we'll do it your way."  Square peg, round hole.

Full disclosure:  I have guns.  I enjoy shooting them.  I have a Concealed Handgun License.  I will not carry openly.  I am not a member of the NRA.  I'm a political skeptic.  I don't trust either side.  I (arguably) have a fair amount of gray matter between my ears.

On O'Bama's proposal to require background checks on all gun purchases, I don't see a problem with it.  If I were a federally licensed gun dealer, I'd be all for it in order to level the playing field.  Am I worried about having my name on a federal database identifying me as a gun owner?  Ha! I suspect my name is on a whole lot of private and government databases already.  What's one more?
 
If the feds someday come to my house to confiscate my guns, I'll just say "no".  I'll have a legion of Pro Bono lawyers line up to represent me (and enhance their reputation), and I'll win.  And when I do, I'll never have to buy another restaurant meal or beer ever again.  I'll be a folk hero.  Gun makers will fawn all over me, and will happily give me their products just to see me photographed holding one.   And the feds know it.  It's a DOA idea if there ever was one.

Will more background checks keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them?  Highly doubtful.  Will the NRA-types ever be willing to give it a try?  Lololololol!

So can we do anything to curb gun violence, something that both sides might buy into?  I think so.  It's common knowledge that convicted felons have, by existing law, forfeited many of their civil rights, including the right to own a gun.  It's also common knowledge that many convicted felons continue to own guns, and continue to use them.  So lets round 'em up and lock 'em away!

Oops....one little problem.  It costs LOTS of money to incarcerate a person.  I suspect we could get hundreds of thousands of felons in possession of guns off our streets if we would just put a concerted effort into going after them.  BUT WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO AGREE TO PAY THE PRICE TO BUILD MORE PRISON CELLS, AND HIRE MORE PRISON GUARDS, and probably pay more welfare to the families left behind by their now-jailed breadwinners.

So, can we afford it?  No...and yes.  The original numbers to do all this would be staggering, and the Tea Party would no doubt piss and moan about it because all they know how to say is "cut taxes".  But then once some non-partisan think tanks examined it, I think they would find that since the perps would likely wind up back in jail at some time in the future anyway, and the cost of legal proceedings and public defenders being what they are, yeah, we probably could afford it.  It fact, it would likely be a good investment of taxpayer money. 

I'd love to see the NRA try and oppose such a strategy, try to oppose putting bad guys back behind bars.  The most hemophilic of the bleeding heart left might bemoan yet more people being locked up vs rehabbed, but I think they could be drowned out by the public applauding the lower gun violence numbers.

So why don't we think more outside the box to find things that could be agreed to by all sides?  Have we become that unimaginative?  *shaking head*

S

EDIT:  The news is reporting a Philadelphia police officer was ambushed in his car by an assailant claiming to be an ISIS sympathizer.  But beyond that, he also had a lengthy criminal record.  This is EXACTLY the type of gun violence that could be prevented if felons in possession of guns could be locked up.

And you thought the broccoli salesman has a tough job!

I just listened to the President outline his plan to put an end to the "gun show loophole" and other measures to reduce firearm deaths in America.  I'm not sure people not interested in firearms understand what the gun show loophole actually is.  Let me shed some light on the subject for you:

There are hundreds (?) of gun shows every weekend in this country.  Interested vendors can rent a table from the gun show promoter and then display and sell their offerings.  Many vendors sell peripheral things like holsters and cleaning kits and ammo and such, while actual gun dealers sell their firearms.  

You or I cannot buy a gun directly from Smith & Wesson or Colt or Sturm Ruger.  If you inquire they will direct you to a federally licensed firearms dealer.  These dealers buy from the factory and sell to individuals, but they are first required to submit the buyers names to the Feds for an (almost) instant background check.  If the Feds say OK, money and guns can then change hands.  The dealers are routinely audited by Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), and are rarely a problem.  These are the rules all licensed dealers follow, regardless of whether they are selling off a gun show table or from a brick and mortar store.

But the law says an individual can sell directly to another individual WITHOUT a background check.  If I want to sell one of my personal guns to a friend or relative, for example, I can.  That's not in question.  This is the scenario the law meant to allow.

The problem comes when an individual buys guns from wherever he can find them all week long, then takes them to a show, rents a table, and resells them for a profit to anyone who plops down their cash....WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK.  That's the gun show loophole.  He might claim they are his "personal" guns, but that's a farce.  He might own them, but they are just products for sale.  It's just a way to make $$$ without doing any paperwork.  It's a cash business, no receipts exist, it's totally anonymous, and of course no taxes are collected from the buyers or paid by the sellers.

I can think of three groups who might buy from an unlicensed seller:  Those who can't pass a background check, those who prefer buying used guns (most of the guns sold through these sellers are pre-owned) because they are less expensive than buying new, and those who can pass a background check but simply don't want the government to know they own guns.  To them it's a privacy issue.

I don't think many of us have any sympathy for the group that can't pass a background check.  They can't pass a check for a reason.  And I doubt many of us would have any prejudice against those who just want to save money.  But I DO think many of us have a problem with allowing their names to be added to a government database that identifies them as gun owners.

The argument goes that with such a database as a starting point the government could build on it until they knew exactly who owns what guns and where they are.  Then it's just a matter of time before the ATF knocks on your door and says "hand 'em over" *.  It's this potential "mission creep" that worries gun owners.

And honestly, who trusts the government?  If you've ever dealt with the government at virtually any level, it's pretty obvious they don't act like they work for us.  It often seems like the tail is wagging the dog.   This is the problem.  

It's our government's habitually abysmal performance and blatantly non-transparent way of doing business that the NRA so easily exploits.  The NRA can hit that hanging curve ball out of the park all day long.  Until people believe their name will never appear in a background check database, at least this part of "gun control" will be a hard sell.

S

*  Never gonna happen.  By noon on the first day of "Operation Gun Roundup" there would be dead ATF agents littering the landscape.  Resistance would be violent, extreme, and widespread.  Not even the government is dumb enough to try it.

Debate, debate, de took de bait

 

The two Democratic candidates for President plus three other guys.

The political / news junkie I am watched with interest the Democratic presidential debate last night.  Short version:  Hillary Clinton came across as polished and "presidential", and Bernie Sanders came across as honest, sincere, thoughtful, a guy who genuinely cares....and as un-electable.  Sen. Jim Webb was voted Most Likely To Die On Stage From A Stick Up His Ass, Gov. Martin O'Malley seemed to be auditioning for a Hollywood movie roll, and Sen. Lincoln Chaffee seemed happy just to be allowed to eat the free munchies back in the Green Room.

One issue I personally agreed with was their almost universal (except for Hillary C) position that our financial system (the banks) are too powerful, too big, and should be reined in or even broken up into smaller, less dangerous pieces. I think it was Bernie Sanders who said, "Fraud has become their business model".  He was spot on, and there are sanctions and fines against all the big banks to prove it.

They were also spot on when they said our campaign finance rules that allow PAC's to decide elections is a travesty.  (Hillary was understandably quiet on the subject as she has Super PAC's supporting her.)  I like the way Bernie Sanders raises his money, $30 at a time.  

But their call for a $15 minimum wage, a "living wage", doesn't seem well thought out.  My understanding of economics is that if your costs increase without also increasing the value of what is being produced accordingly, you'll get inflation, negating the pay increase.  And it's hard to increase the value of a burger enough to justify paying flippers $15 an hour.  Noble idea, but DOA.

And they want to take on the NRA?  Are they nuts?  Stoopid!  Without even trying to debate the merits of their position, all I can say is they're chasing the proverbial windmill.  Their best move would have been to just say nothing about gun control, which was the winning strategy Brick O'Bama had back in '12.  Bernie hit the nail when he said if they think they're going to Congress with a comprehensive gun bill, they're delusional.

A global warming remediation agenda....sure, they can sell that.

Notice how little mention there was of the pro-choice / pro-life issue?  Smart.  The two positions aren't likely to change their minds, so smart politics says just leave it alone.

They seemed to agree the Middle Eastern countries should take the lead fighting ISIS, with the US supporting.  That seems sellable.

The best line was Bernie's.... "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's damn emails."  That sold well in that highly partisan auditorium, but I doubt FOX News and the Republicans will be as kind over the next year.

Bottom line....IMHO it's now a 2-person race for the Democratic nomination.  Hillary comes with lots of baggage, and Bernie used the "S" word.  It's gonna take a lot of lipstick....  ;)

S

COMPROMISE dammit!

I have quite a few friends and family members who are justifiably proud of their principles, their sense of right and wrong.  To waiver for even a nanosecond is unthinkable.  I respect them immensely.  But they are wrong.

Here's why:  Once again there has been a mass shooting, a massacre at a school, this time in Oregon.  And once again the rhetoric from both the political right and left is in-your-face.  The liberal left would just love to outlaw all guns, just declare them illegal and confiscate them all.  The Tea Party and the NRA say that will happen when you pry them from their cold dead...well...you know the rest.

And nothing gets done.

The left must understand they can NOT close down gun makers, gun stores, private ownership of guns, etc. If they try the matter will be tied up in the courts for years, decades even.  Not gonna happen!

The right must understand that no one is going to knock on their door and rifle through their stuff (pun intended) and seize their guns.  If someone tries, there will be blood in the streets.

Nor can they grab up all the ammo.  There are already hundreds of millions (billions?) of rounds of ammunition in private hands.  If they try it will just give the black market and smugglers another product to profit off of.  Not gonna happen!

Both sides need to suck it up, bend their principles a bit, and find common ground.  To a pragmatist like me this is just so obvious.  They need to sit down and find out exactly what both sides CAN agree on. 

Obviously criminals past and present can not...MUST not have guns.  When they are found in possession of guns, it's off to the lock-up they go.  Look aggressively.  Not enough prison space, you say?  Then MAKE more prison space.

Obviously the mentally unstable can not...MUST not have guns.  Find a way to identify these sadly troubled people.  Look aggressively.  

Surely both sides can agree on this.  Yes, compromise is often dirty, and often leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  But at least SOMETHING gets done.  And something desperately needs to get done.  We all need to quit beating our chests and refusing to bend.

Lets face it:  The only difference between good guns and bad guns is who is holding them.  Lets stop focusing on the guns, and concentrate on who is holding them.

Compromise, dammit!

S

Half of us are crazy, and the rest are just nuts!

It's been a few days now since the senseless killing of 9 worshipers at a church in Charleston, SC.  Tragic....racist....simply beyond comprehension.  But it happened, and it has started the conversation anew about gun control.  And IMHO we have again taken the wrong fork in the road.  We're headed towards a dead end where nothing will happen except get everyone even more polarized and pissed off.

We have lost our sense of reality.  As in most instances, we know what we would LIKE to see happen, without seriously acknowledging what actually CAN happen.  There is quite a difference between the two.

My liberal friends think Congress should pass a law restricting certain types of guns, or even outlaw them all together, similar to what has been done in the past in the UK, Australia, etc.  End of problem, and we all live happily ever after.  La-tee-dah!

My conservative friends think Gubment agents will soon be knocking on their door....no....KICKING THEIR DOOR DOWN....in order to confiscate all their firearms.

The first scenario is a pipe dream, and the second is silly.

No law can change people's thinking.  A law is a signed piece of paper, nothing more.  People have to be willing to accept it before it can have any long-term practical affect on our society (think Prohibition), and a huge portion of our population will NEVER give up their firearms.  ("....when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.")  It simply won't happen.  And no one, no amount of force, can go door-to-door and confiscate people's guns.  There would be blood in the streets. 

And for that same reason, no Gubment agents are going to come into our houses and confiscate our firearms.  There aren't enough police or soldiers to do it, and besides, a good many would probably mutiny if they were ordered to do so.

Nor can they prohibit / buy up all the ammunition, making our guns little more than paperweights.  There are already BILLIONS of rounds of every caliber ammunition you can imagine in private hands.  That goal is even more pie-in-the-sky than confiscating our guns!

Instead of chasing those windmills, why don't we pursue something more realistic, something we can all (?) agree on, like keeping firearms out of the hands of known criminals and the mentally unstable?  How difficult would that be to do?  Damn difficult....but much easier than turning the country upside down looking for several hundred MILLION guns and BILLIONS of round of ammo, and creating a civil war in the process.

Known criminals are just that, known.  They should regularly be subject to random searches of their residences, cars, their persons, etc, to insure they are not in possession of guns they are prohibited having due to their status as felons.  A daunting task for sure, but even if marginally successful, likely to yield immediate, noticeable results.

The mentally disturbed....Oooo....that will be tougher.  Who gets to decide who is mentally disturbed?  Their former spouse?  Their next door neighbor with an ax to grind?  Will counselors and therapists rat out their patients who they suspect might be dangerous, without having any real proof?  Will that doctor / patient confidentially thing come into play?  I dunno.  Still, I think this, more than anything else, will make our country safer.  

We must somehow identify those among us who are disturbed enough, desperate enough, hate-filled enough, to resort to violence.  Making this a national priority should start NOW.  We can talk this subject to death and accomplish nothing, or we can get real and maybe see something good come of this tragedy.

S

Guns!

I'm on a roll....my last several posts have pissed off a lot of people.  Now I'm really gonna stroke people out.  My topic today is GUNS!

It would be pretty easy to make the argument that the world would be better off if there were no guns at all.  (Hunters might disagree, but that's a topic for another day.)  No guns would mean fewer wars, robberies, accidental shootings, and ex-spouses offed by their former mates, all good things.  Some countries have even outlawed guns in the hands of private citizens, with varying degrees of success.

Fact is, though, in the USA there are already well over 300,000,000 guns in the public domain.  Fortunately most are in the hands of decent, law abiding citizens, but sadly more than a few are in the hands of some really bad people, hereafter referred to as "the Bad Guys".  What makes them "Bad Guys" is the fact that they disobey laws.

Guns are a major political issue.  One group wants to ban them entirely, one group wants virtually no restrictions at all, and another group is somewhere in the middle. 

Those who want to ban guns are IMO living in La-La-Land.  Even if a law was passed that said everyone must turn in their guns, only law abiding citizens would comply.  Bad Guys, by definition, disobey laws, and this is one they would surely disobey.  Guns are the tools of their trade, just like a hammer is to a carpenter, or a Word program is to a writer.  We will NEVER get rid of all guns in America.

The crux of the "ban-'em-all" argument is that the Constitution says only MILITIAS can be armed, not individual citizens.  To which I say, it's a moot point.  Those 300M genies are NOT going back in the bottle.

At the other extreme are the hard-core NRA types who say they will give up their guns only "when you pry them from my cold, dead hands", and I believe they're speaking literally.  They will (reluctantly?) agree that felons and the mentally insane shouldn't have guns, but not much more.  I'm always amazed by the power of the NRA.  (Full disclosure:  I'm not a member of the NRA.)

Unless you're one of the unlucky ones who lives in a high crime area, you've probably never been the victim of a violent crime, which might lead you to say people don't need guns.  The odds of being attacked are infinitesimal.  Not true.  You can be a victim anywhere.

Some examples:  I have a friend who was shot when he was caught in the middle of a botched robbery.  He walked in to a rather nice restaurant on Mockingbird Ave in Dallas, not far from the fashionable M Streets and Lakewood, at the wrong time.  (He recovered.)

My cousin and her husband were once the victims of a home invasion.  They lived in a comfortable neighborhood, but were run over by armed intruders who ruffed her up and pistol-whipped him so badly he needed brain surgery.  (Fortunately, he recovered, too.)

And this lady....

She was visiting friends at the high-end Shops of Legacy, the same neighborhood where K and I lived for three years, when she was abducted.  Now, five months later, she's still missing and presumed dead.  I've parked in the same garage she did, dined at the same restaurants, and walked along the same streets. *gulp!*

I think the middle-grounders are on the right track.  Some people definitely should not have guns, but others, those who know guns, all the safety rules, and the legal obligations of gun ownership, should be allowed to have them, and even carry them concealed.  Odds are they will never need to use them, but the odds are their house will never burn to the ground, either, but they still want the protection of fire insurance.

It's relatively easy to identify who the good guys are.  They agree to being fingerprinted and photographed, a very detailed 2-3 month long background check (by local, state, and national law enforcement), and take safety classes and pass proficiency tests with their firearms. 

These measures seem to work.  In the most recent year my gun-totin' state of Texas has records for, the number of crimes committed by over 500,000 licensed concealed handgun carriers was only .1897% of all crimes reported.

If you ask a concealed carrying gun owner why he carries, he will likely tell you there are too many Bad Guys, and not enough good guys (cops).  True.  Cops are almost always RE-active.  They show up AFTER a crime has occurred.  

A super efficient police force might take 4-5 minutes to respond to a call for help, but in many cities that might be 30 minutes or more.  In rural areas it might take an hour.  Most violent crimes are over in less than 2 minutes.  

Unless we're prepared for a DRAMATIC increase in taxes to support 5 times (?) as many cops as we have now (and good luck even finding 5 times as many potential cops!), enough to put one on every corner, we can't depend on the police to protect us.

The real answer to the "to have or not to have" guns issue is finding out how to get guns out of the hands of the Bad Guys, and that is an answer we may never find.  *sigh*  Figure that out, and everything else will fall into place.

Some might say, "two wrongs don't make a right".  Just say "NO" to guns.  Others will say it's human nature to want to protect yourself, and the more you tell people they CAN'T do something, the more they'll want to do it.  

Bottom line:  Guns are here, now.  People already have them.  Many people will carry them concealed for protection.  I would rather see them reasonably regulated and made legally available to those who are vetted and properly trained, than have them purchased with no restrictions from a guy named Rocko in a back alley somewhere.

S