Categories
Quick Analysis

Mass Shootings: Why

The human tragedies that unfolded in El Paso and Dayton reflect how our society has become unhinged, loosened from all bounds of human decency and community standards. Rational discourse was the first victim. The heartbreaking loss of life was an almost inevitable result.

Despite the presence of guns in private ownership throughout America’s history, mass shootings are a 21st century phenomenon. Tevi Troy, writing in National Affairs, notes:

“ … mass shootings are a late-20th-century American phenomenon, with a persistent and frightening increase in regularity in the early 21st century…The first mass shooting in the collective American memory was the University of Texas at Austin shooting in August 1966.”

Troy reports that was the only mass shooting in the Johnson Administration. Three occurred under Reagan, four under G.H.W. Bush, eight under Clinton, eight under G.W. Bush, and 24 under Obama. Six have now occurred during the Trump presidency.

What has changed in America?  Democrats blame access to weapons that can fire rapidly. Republicans blame untreated mental illness.  The problem is, statistics don’t bear either out.

Alex Yablon, writing in The Trace, reports that “According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are roughly 638,000 machine guns in circulation in the United States, a number that includes both assault rifles like the M16 and more novel products, like the Uzi submachine gun.” With that many automatic weapons in circulation, one would expect a far higher number of mass shootings if the weapon was the cause.

What about mental illness? A study in the Annals of Epidemiology reported in Science Direct found that “Media accounts of mass shootings by disturbed individuals galvanize public attention and reinforce popular belief that mental illness often results in violence. Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent…” In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, “…mental health stakeholders encountered a painful dilemma. The goal of keeping guns out of the hands of seriously mentally ill individuals was emerging as perhaps the only piece of common ground between gun rights and gun control proponents; a post-Newtown public opinion poll found that a majority of Americans across the political spectrum favored ‘increasing government spending to improve mental health screening and treatment as a strategy to prevent gun violence.’ But mental health experts and consumer advocates strongly rejected what they saw as the scapegoating of people with mental illnesses—the vast majority of whom, epidemiologic data shows, will never act violently toward others—as if people with mental health disorders were somehow responsible for gun violence in general.”

Obviously, keeping weapons in general out of the hands of those with violent mental disorders is a good idea, but it is not the total answer, not by a long shot. Neither is abolishing the Second Amendment.  It is absurd to believe that an individual willing to commit murder, assault, rape or robbery will be deterred by statutes prohibiting gun ownership, although some may argue that in the case of automatic weapons, it may reduce somewhat the number of victims in any one particular incident, assuming the perpetrator, lacking access to a repeating weapon, doesn’t use an even more dangerous instrument such as a home made bomb. 

The answers to what caused the mass shooting phenomenon to increase are ones that will make many uncomfortable. By the 1990’s, two events occurred.

Some grave side effects also happen but are hardly confronted by men, so take instant help if you experience any severe side effects purchase levitra online when taking the medication. Avoiding these unhealthy habits is advisable to avoid ED or impotence. viagra no prescription They might also avoid smoking and excessive consumption of alcohol may also affect your ability to achieve an erection. mastercard generic viagra respitecaresa.org Several causes play a significant role for arising the problem of oligospermia in males, but it does potentially have a place for preventing impotence cialis soft issue is possible in some cases.

The first: America became an unquestioned superpower, and for an all-too-brief period, the only true superpower. There was no longer an external danger allowing those predisposed to hate to see “us” as one side, and some other, external, force as the enemy. Rather than Redcoats, Nazis, or Soviets as the bad guys, some, with a predisposition towards violence and animosity, began to view some faction of fellow residents of this nation as the target of their venom.  

Hillary Clinton, during her presidential bid, answered a question about whom she considered the “enemy” by saying, not poverty, racism, terrorism, but “Republicans.”

The normal cultural and moral restraints that would have had some influence preventing acting out on no longer held much sway, because they were no longer taught.

Paul Barnwell, writing in The Atlantic,

“…my students seemed to crave more meaningful discussions and instruction relating to character, morality, and ethics, it struck me how invisible these issues have become in many schools. By omission, are U.S. schools teaching their students that character, morality, and ethics aren’t important in becoming productive, successful citizens?… Talking with my students about ethics and gauging their response served as a wakeup call for me to consider my own role as an educator and just how low character development, ethics, and helping students develop a moral identity have fallen with regard to debate over what schools should teach. The founders of this country, Jessica Lahey wrote in The Atlantic, would ‘likely be horrified by the loss of this goal, as they all cite character education as the way to create an educated and virtuous citizenry.’ ”

Schools have eliminated teaching the virtues of both a uniting form of patriotism, and any discussion of the Judeo-Christian ethic that is the foundation of American society. Our media substantially overlooks, and even mocks, any concept of traditional morality. On top of that, the concept of value judgement, that there is, indeed, such a thing as right and wrong, has vanished from mainstream discussion.

Perhaps, in a nation of 327 million citizens, it is inevitable that some truly evil or insane individuals will be present and act out.  The lack of any grounding in appropriate ethics makes that inevitable.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ineffective Gun Laws Won’t Stop Gun Violence

The manner in which the mainstream media portrays some political issues represents the triumph of emotion over reason. Soundbites, bumper sticker slogans, and dramatic video of marches and demonstrations have replaced reasoned analysis, hard facts, and objective study.

The coverage that dominated televised news programs in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida school shooting represents the worst of biased, unprofessional, and inaccurate news analysis.

The first, and perhaps most salient, question ignored in the headlong rush to de facto eliminate Second Amendment rights concerns practicality. Will a perpetrator, who is intent on mass murder, rape, robbery or any other felony truly be deterred by a statute outlawing possession of weapons? Obviously, the disrespect that individual manifests towards both fellow humans and the law would also extend to any legislation prohibiting gun ownership.

Nor would it limit the ability to obtain a weapon. Just as the war on drugs has utterly failed to limit the availability of narcotics, so too would any attempt to eliminate the manufacture or sale of guns.

Washington, D.C.’s WJLA news notes that “…many cities with the toughest gun control laws lead the nation in violence…One of the top ten states with the most restrictive gun laws in the country is Illinois, where last year there were 650 murders in Chicago alone, according to a USA Today’s compilation of crime data…In Maryland, another state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Baltimore had 343 murders last year and has highest per capita murder rate in the nation. The city was also just named the most dangerous city in America by USA Today.”

Baltimore, by the way, is a city that alleged it couldn’t afford to provide adequate heating for its schools, yet somehow found $100, 000 to rent buses to send students to Washington, D.C. to join in protests advocating gun control, according to Sons of Liberty media.

Gun Laws.com  reports: “An example of how stricter gun control laws did not aid in lowering crime rates is Washington D.C. In 1976, D.C. adopted what was to be considered one of the few extremely restrictive gun control policies in the country. The murder rate since the time of new gun control policy rose 134%. Yet another example is New York City, which also implemented similarly stringent gun laws as D.C. had similar results. In the early 1970s, about 19 % of homicides involved pistols, and shortly after the new laws were in place, this number rose to about 50%. Furthermore, the restriction of firearms allowed for only 28,000 lawfully possessed or acquired firearms, yet law enforcement estimations had the number at 1.3 million illegal handguns in the city. Conversely, states with fewer restrictions such as New Hampshire and Vermont, have proven to the safest of all the states, with Vermont ranking in at 49th in crime and 47th in murders.”
These people have used Karlovy Vary healing mineral water cialis where for the whole night. Kegels Another look at this link professional viagra online great exercise to improve sexual function in men. A study showed that men who have sex thrice a week are less likely to suffer from any heart disorder, angina, irregular heartbeats, a previous stroke, liver dysfunctions, kidney disorders, stomach ulcer, bleeding disorder, blood cell disorder, vision loss, hearing disorder, hypertensive disorder or viagra discount prices heart diseases should be scrutinized to ensure the safe consumption of Generic Zithromax. Further, many people are now using computers for paying bills, managing their credit cards and unica-web.com levitra on line communicating with others.
Justin Haskins, writing in Newsday , found that “many of the states with the lowest crime rates, including homicide rates, also have some of the fewest limits on gun ownership. In fact, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that supports enhancing gun-control laws, gave in its recent gun-control report card “F” grades (for having lax gun laws) to five of the six states that have the lowest homicide rates. If having fewer gun restrictions causes more violent crime, why would many states with the lowest homicide rates also have relatively few gun-control laws? The data also show there is no connection to higher gun ownership rates and greater amounts of crime. There are only six states in which 50 percent of the households own firearms: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming. If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of firearms, these states should have significantly higher crime rates, but the opposite is true here as well. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show four of those six states ranked in the top half of all states for having the lowest homicide rates. Two of the states, Idaho and Wyoming, ranked in the top six.

“Further, many cities with very low legal gun ownership rates and stringent gun-control laws, such as Chicago, have extremely high gun-related murder rates. Gun-control laws also don’t prevent mass shootings. An analysis conducted by statistician Leah Libresco shows Australia and Britain have not experienced fewer mass shootings or gun-related crimes since enacting their very strict gun-control laws.”

Some of the various events in Parkland’s aftermath have been used by politicians to garner support or publicity, and to register like-minded new voters. Politicians have used the tragedy as a way to garner publicity in venues that were previously off-limits to them.  In one example, despite regulations prohibiting campaigning in public schools, Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Connecticut) addressed students at the Cheshire High School, reports Daria Novak, who co-hosts the public access TV news program the American Political Zone.

Schools that have had programs concerning the issue have not discussed the racist history of gun control. Before the American Revolution, even freed ex-slaves were prohibited from possessing weapons.  Once again, a century later, following the Civil War and the liberation of all slaves, some southern states enacted laws to prevent blacks, even those who had fought as soldiers in the War Between the States, from having guns, despite the desperate need for self-protection from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

The horror of school shootings does call for the adoption of measures to prevent them from happening again. But ineffective measures, feel-good rhetoric, and political grandstanding are obviously not the answer, and deter attempts to enact truly viable solutions.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Key challenges await White House attempt to regulate guns

President Obama is considering unilateral action regulating the personal possession of weapons. Today, he is meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss the matter, and review how he can utilize executive power to take action without the consent of Congress.

Both sides of the issue will weigh in on the expected proposals, but there will be an unfortunate lack of discussion on the only two truly relevant issues: One, will the restrictions actually deter those who would use weapons for bad purposes, or will the measures simply serve to deprive honest citizens of their Second Amendment rights? Second, can restrictions be emplaced in the absence of a full-fledged Constitutional Amendment?

One of the obstacles to a meaningful dialogue about the role of guns in modern society is the refusal of gun ownership opponents to discuss a key problem of regulation. Law-abiding citizens will obey such measures; those who would abuse weapons will not.  It is evident that a perpetrator who will rob, rape, or kill will not be even remotely concerned with any gun possession or sale restrictions. On the other hand, many proponents of the retention and exercise of Second Amendment rights vehemently oppose any consideration of measures such as registration or gun show exemptions, appropriately fearful that such measures are the start of a slippery slope that eventually will lead to banning all weapons possession, abrogating one of the ten sections of the Bill of Rights.

Depending on the specifics of the President’s plan, his actions might be in defiance of the Second Amendment, which establishes the right to gun ownership, and a host of Supreme Court decisions which have affirmed that right for private citizens. Other jurisdictions, such as Chicago, have alleged that their restrictions didn’t violate the Second Amendment but merely provided common-sense restrictions. The effect, however, was a violation of the Bill of Rights.

(In  2010’s McDonald v. Chicago,  the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The Supreme Court verdict rejected a lower court ruling that upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns.)

A unilateral action on the part of the White House could also violate the Administrative Procedure Act,  which mandates that proposed actions be made available to the public for comment before becoming effective.

The White House most probably will describe its’ action as not restricting the Second Amendment, but as providing measures to close loopholes in areas such as registration and the ability to sell in certain types of forums. Opponents of the President will note that the Executive Branch of government does not have the authority to enact measures which are legislative in nature, and which could essentially “chill” or limit a Constitutional right.

One of the most recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on point was the verdict in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, which held that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Some of the more effective ones are valsonindia.com viagra wholesale india but there are some alternatives like horny goat weed, maca or safed musli. cialis is a drug which has an immense effect on preventing and reversing the effect of heart’s chronic hypertension and jamming the consequences of heart’s hormonal stresses. So physiotherapy is one of the best solutions for all sorts of problems Homeopathy field has undergone lots of changes over the last few decades and the accuracy of the medicines used for treating male erectile problems, but for a few hours levitra free shipping only. Not only has that it also evaluated how safe a medicine is for human consumption. soft cialis pills For further information visit us:- / Acai.That’s the name of the small Amazon palm fruit that is becoming commander levitra increasingly popular today.
Attempts to limit gun ownership through executive action also would present a conflict with the  Constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers. Unilateral action by the President would face an overturn by the Supreme Court. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution clearly notes, The Congress shall have Power To …make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. There is no provision granting the President the power to establish new laws, or revise existing ones, or to enact regulations or other measures which have the same effect as a law.

Even absent the Second Amendment, serious legal Constitutional questions could be argued against any federal prohibition against gun ownership.  The Ninth Amendment states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

A further limit on Washington’s ability to do so can be found in the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Clearly, the question of gun ownership is politically contentious. Just as clear, however, is the reality that the Constitutional and legal issues have already been settled.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that citizens have a Second Amendment right which cannot be abrogated by anything less than a full-fledged Constitutional revision.  Any action by the President (or Congress) to do so establishes an extremely dangerous precedent. Further, executive action which is, in essence, legislative in nature is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.  The Executive Branch of the federal government is designed to administer, not make, law.

Critics of weapon ownership point to several high-profile mass shootings as a justification for their goal, but ignore common denominators such as untreated mental illness and terrorism that are the actual explanations for the heinous acts. Accidental deaths are also cited as a reason, but, as noted by Gun Facts  “Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.  For example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are: Five times more likely to burn to death; Five times more likely to drown; 17 times more likely to be poisoned; 17 times more likely to fall to your death; and 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident.”