The Gun Debate

Originally posted in April, 2018.

Speaking about the gun debate…

The tragic event we want to avoid is a mass killing…

The preferred method is using a semi-automatic pistol or rifle…

The problem is the broken human being who has arrived at a point where innocent human lives are disposable and somehow an end to their unmet needs.

We could turn our schools into compounds, and that could have some affect on reducing the severity of these tragic events.  But there would be minimal affect for maximum loss of freedom and openness within our schools.  And in the end, it would only be treating the symptoms, not the problem.

We could arm teachers, and that could have some affect on reducing the severity of these tragic events.  Of course, it could also add to other tragic events and have collateral damage if those guns were accidentally fired in school.  And in the end, it would only be treating the symptoms, not the problem.

We could restrict certain guns, and that could have a higher affect on reducing the severity of these tragic events.  If we limit certain guns, how many guns would have to be limited or restricted to make an impact?   Several states have tight gun laws.  Have those laws reduced mass shootings?  If so, why not consider them for all states, but if not, we are fooling ourselves into thinking we are making an impact.  I did a brief search asking, “do gun laws save lives?”  Most of the titles of the articles proclaimed “fewer deaths where there are strict gun laws.”  Getting into the details, however, indicated that the tight gun laws mostly reduced suicides, but not much data was available about reducing mass shootings.  Well of course it’s good to reduce suicides, but most of the gun laws were passed under the fervency of reducing mass shootings, school shootings, and the like.  So once again, are we only treating the symptoms and not the problem?   Are we convincing ourselves that we’ve fixed something that we haven’t fixed at all?

TREAT THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE SYMPTOMS?

The problem is the broken human being.  The broken humanoften pulls a trigger, but sometimes slings a knife, drives a truck, or plants a bomb.  Why they are broken and how they can be helped, identified, or restricted is a complicated problem, which is why good intentioned people quickly focus on, and sometimes only see, the symptoms.

I spent 15 years as a Safety Director investigating hundreds of accidents and incidents, the most serious of which were two employee fatalities.  There is a strong human desire to fix a serious accident and make sure, “this never happens again.”  Obviously, that is a good thing.  However, I often witnessed good corrective actions that were mixed in with a laundry list of irrelevant ideas.  People inherently felt a need to implement a long list of items because it made everyone “feel” as if they were tackling the problem and eliminating it forever. 

We tend to seek the scapegoat symptom that is easy to implement, even if it’s only going to have minimal impact or no impact at all on the problem.  But we feel good that we have created a laundry list, and we move on with our lives in sublime ignorance that the cancer is still growing under the surface, but at least we treated the pain. 

If you had cancer and your doctor only treated your cancer pain, you would sue for malpractice and win.  But we apply this false symptom-treating scenario to society’s greatest ills because society’s great problems are complex and difficult to understand, comprehend, and actually solve, much like the homeless problem and the Federal debt; complex and difficult to solve.

I’m just an average American who owns a few guns and likes to shoot paper targets.  I comply with California’s restrictive gun laws, I don’t own an AR15 or anything like it, and I’m not a member of the NRA.

It’s fine to pass reasonable gun laws IF they actually reduce or limit the mass shootings or school shootings that everyone wants to see.  But too often, the gun laws are passed and people will pat themselves on the back and say, “there, we fixed it” when in reality, they have restricted the method (which will have a small affect on the number of shootings), but the real problem still exists, broken people who disregard human life.

Will the fervency for fixing the real problem continue once the gun laws have been passed?  Not likely.

Some would say, the solution is simple: ban all guns, and there won’t be any more shootings.

PLENTY OF CANDIDATES

The challenge is multifold: how do we identify them, help them and if necessary, restrict them?

Recently, many teachers have expressed that if you want to arm them, instead of arming them with a gun, arm them with smaller classrooms so they can spend quality time with each child, arm them with more social workers and school counselors to identify kids in need. 

These types of efforts would help the problem, but it’s easier to argue over guns instead of reducing class sizes. 

RESEARCH

I don’t put all my faith into any one study, but here’s an interesting look at the past.  The Global Research group studied mass shootings in this article.

Shootings by the decades in America show minimal numbers between 1910 and 1960, and most of those were from family homicide/suicides or deaths while committing a felony, like a bank robbery, etc.  Those shootings are far fewer and far different than what is consuming us today with public shootings based on an angry shooter against innocent victims picked at random. 

Three major points I find in the research are:

1.  Their research shows a sharp jump in shootings from the 1980’s until today.  So what changed in the 80’s, 90’s and today?  America has had guns since the 1990’s, but the mass killings we are dealing with now didn’t start until the 1980’s (according to this research.) 

2. Of the 67 shooters in the last 30 years, 65 had mental health issues.

3.  Of the 67 shootings in the last 30 years, 3 (4%) were at religious locations, 12 (18%) at schools, 20 (30%) places of work, and 32 (48%) other public places.

Yes, countries like Japan and most of Europe don’t have mass shootings because of their restrictive gun laws!  Some have argued that removing guns is therefore the answer.  But America has had guns for decades, and the mass shootings we fear today didn’t happen until the 1980’s.  Maybe it’s not the guns, but society that has changed.  Further, what’s the likelihood of actually banning and removing guns like Japan’s model?  Our current reality says that because of the Second Amendment and the current culture of gun support, banning all guns is not likely.  So let’s deal with reality, and make change that can be made.

If 65 of the 67 shooters had mental illness, then maybe the problem isn’t the guns, but the mental illness that wasn’t diagnosed or wasn’t treated.

If 70% of the shootings were not at schools, we still need to do something about school safety, but it shows us that the problem is larger than a school issue.

COMMON SENSE THAT ISN’T SO COMMON

The debate on the gun control is raging through America.  There’s no better example than this illustration I found some time back.

When the extreme views on both sides of gun control dig in, we can’t find common ground to accomplish anything.  We have to be able to have dialog, discussion, and debate without the extremist statements.  Extremist statements get headlines and get reposted, but they don’t help us solve complex problems. 

BAN STICKS, REALLY?

A recent social media post made the rounds recently.  It stated, “If my child hit someone with a stick, I wouldn’t blame the stick, but I’d still take the stick away.”  Many people liked it, reposted it, and in general agreed with it.  It’s great that they recognized that the stick was not to blame and that removing the stick gave temporary relief to the issue.  But the simple post illustrates the complex situation we are all facing.  The most important part of the social media post was completely missing!  After you take away the stick, have a conversation with your child about not hitting others!!!  No, the stick was not to blame; do you intend to take away every stick and every rock?  Why not start with making sure your child, or other children, understand the value of human life, and finding an outlet for their anger besides hitting others.

CONCLUSION

We should be emotionally and fervently stirred up after a mass killing.  It is right to be outraged at the harm and destruction, the intense pain that has been arbitrarily thrust upon families and communities.  We should be demanding change!  The question is, “what change are we demanding?”  Banning AR15’s, raising the purchase age limit to 21, and closing loopholes will do something, but what?  It will definitely make some people feel better, while making other people feel outraged about their rights being limited.  But will new gun laws actually accomplish all that the protesters think they will?

We have to get to the place where we don’t dig in and dogmatically fight every gun restriction that could provide reasonable safety for the masses, nor can we pass laws based on the misplaced emotional fervency of the moment.  Both sides need to give way to logic, research, and reality. 

I have more to say in a future article about why gun advocates dig in at every turn: “When gun laws do more harm than good.”

Mass Shootings in America: A Historical Review

Originally posted in April, 2018.

Since this original posting I have come across this interesting article.

Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Had One Thing in Common

This article simply adds some further thought to the concept that “if we just ban the guns it has fixed in part or in whole the issue.” This is certainly not the case. If the article is to be believed, of the last 27 mass killings, only one had been raised by a biological father and that fatherlessness must have some bearing on the issues of why these boys are broken and turn to kiling. If fatherlessness is adding to their behavior that leads to such horrible actions, banning guns would remove that tool of destruction but it does nothing to address the bad behavior that was birthed from fatherlessness. They are still broken boys and may still turn to other violent actions.

The author’s conclusion is similar to the point I am trying to make in the discussion.

A final thought from Mr. Washington