Tuesday, April 16, 2013


Bombs are already illegal but terrorists don't care about that, much like the criminals who have guns will scoff at gun control attempts and take advantage of disarmed people and 'peaceful events'.  Imagine a homeowner defending himself against an AK or a bomb thrower with a cylinder handgun or a shotgun?  We live in a dangerous world and we need weapons to defend ourselves.   

So the gun control debate rages on, with ordinary people the target of restrictions on firearm possession and ammunition access at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous. 

The mental health aspect is being discussed, but in a peripheral manner.  In several cases, schools had data that would indicate that the shooter was deranged in some dangerous way, but this information was withheld.  Do privacy laws still hold when the information being concealed could lead to dangerous crimes?  Schools hold much information about students, but where to draw the line?  Should law enforcement notification and edification be required for expulsions from schools? 

I would like to see published the drug histories of the shooters, including blood tests.  Is there a common link or links to prescription drug use or illegal drug use? I read about a huge meth bust in Connecticut and that makes me wonder if the shooter had been using.  Why should I give up my gun rights because some drugged out mental case becomes murderous?  Why is this drug information being kept secret?

Another aspect of the gun control debate that is mostly ignored is the role and involvement of the legal system:  prosecution, sentencing and parole.  Lawyers are currently milking the system and the judges are allowing the delay and extension of cases that could be handled more expeditiously, while lawyers skim the cream off greatly extended cases.  Just say no might be a good idea for the judges who grant all that.  I think that punishments should be more direct and clear cut:  a crime using a gun is automatic x years imprisonment.  If the gun was fired, then x years more.  If somebody was killed or wounded, automatic execution.  No pleas of insanity:  you did that you get x.   No more living a lifetime on death row.  Remember McVeigh?  

Part of the problem is a lack of follow through after criminals are apprehended.  New York City has an excellent follow through rate, while Chicago does not and is now suffering violence.  Not to mention the open door policy, gangs and all the mayhem moving north.  Evidently taking away gun rights did not contain violent crime, but following up on punishments for crimes with guns is effective.  So they want to dilute my gun rights because they are not following up on punishments for violent crime?  No justice there.

It's interesting how many of the wealthy are for gun control, personified by Mayor Bloomberg.  The one percenters are not happy with just most of the wealth:  they want the masses to be relieved of their firearms as well.  It has been pointed out that none of the new legislation would have prevented those past tragedies.  Why not deal with the reality of what is provoking violence in our society?  What about bombs?   What is provoking violence?  One poor schmo went crazy because his home was foreclosed on and his utilities turned off.  He's dead now so he won't be telling his desperate story.  Why is flunking out of graduate school such a personal tragedy that somebody else needed to suffer?  What values are our young being taught?  School pressure is implicated in violence.  Is there a movement on to study school pressure as related to student debt?  Moneylenders who profited take heed!  The social results of some money making tactics are not worth the ultimate cost.  Schools will ultimately lose prestige over this debacle because they no longer provide a way to learn to earn a living and idealism does not pay debt.   I read that student debt is 30% in default and over 60% of college graduates are underemployed and most of the rest don't have a job.  If the wealthy have their way, they won't have a firearm either.      

Other recent murderers' families are being protected from scrutiny, which also avoids a public study of disfunctionality within the families of the shooters.  Other questions need to be answered, like were they on drugs and if so, then what were they on?  Why did the schools conceal information about the shooters?  Did local law enforcement conceal information about the shooters?  What is the track record of the prosecutor, judge and parole system as far as follow up on violent offenders?  Do the punishments fit the crimes on the books, or are the jails packed with minor offenders while the violent get lighter sentences or early release due to overcrowding?  In New York state, they let a murderer out of jail and he killed three more people.  Why was he let out?  In Texas, a killer gets out four years early and kills the chief warden in Colorado.  A clerical error!   Limiting possession of guns isn't going to address these questions and nor would it have prevented them.  Should a recent stabbing spree result in banning knives?  Banning the instrument of death will not fix the social problems exemplified by the senseless slayings.  Other means of death will be found. Look what happened in Boston.   

I feel for the grieving families that are allowing themselves to be trotted out by the politicians as a reason for gun control, believing they are in the right by wanting to curb gun rights in the aftermath of the mother who enabled the madman Lanza.  Mark Kelly is using Gabby Giffords as his poster woman for gun control and she truly is a courageous figure, but Laughner was a known mental case and had been expelled probably for threatening other students.  Why wasn't that reported?  Or was it reported and forgotten about?  Somebody didn't follow procedure.  Throughout history, there have been madmen and the larger the population, the more of them there are at any given time.  These are the people who should be identified and prevented from owning a gun, not the gigantic majority of normal people.  I deplore the politicians who use human distress for political purposes.     

The removal of effective weapon's rights from the possession of the common man has not been a harbinger of joy in the history of our known world.  We know our history and that will not happen here.