Sunday, October 4, 2015

Gun Control and Violence in our Society - Solutions for the problem?


Before I proceed, I want to state I own guns. Almost all are from where people died and left them to me. None are suitable for self defense in my opinion. 12 gauge shotguns are too unwieldy in a home and the two pistols I have are either too small a caliber (25) or too large (44 that would blow holes though my house and the one next door). That said, I would like to comment on the current debate. I will say up front, I do not have the solution (does anybody?) but instead I offer points to seriously consider if one is truly intent on solving the problem and not just spewing emotional rhetoric as so many do.


For as long as anybody can remember, there have been debates about gun control and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. With the ever increasing violence in our society and the looming presidential elections, the debate has intensified.


But the question to be resolved is not about how to interpret the 2nd Amendment. (The latest debate seems to focus on the comma and the definition of militia and how far in scope it goes. But that is not the primary issue, here or in our society.)


First we must decide on what is the problem


The problem is not guns in themselves. As many gun advocates point out, people can also use knives, explosives, bats, and a variety of other weapons to inflict their goals. Guns are simply a popular choice as they are easy to carry and conceal and are capable of inflict great harm easily.


The real issue today is how do we eliminate the violence that has become more and more prevalent throughout our society these days (This morning's news has a report about 4 teens in Calif plotting to go in and shot people). If we took away all the guns, there would still be violence, simply in a different form. So far there have been two primary schools of thought.


1. Eliminate the guns or 

2. Do something about the people plotting the violence. 

Concerning option 1, I will not drag up surveys and data and as everybody knows, "Figures lie and liars figure". I will not enter the 2nd Amendment debate except to say I don't think too many sane people would have everybody walking the streets with a pistol on their belt and a rifle slung over their shoulder. How many would truly feel safe in that environment. 


On the other hand, this country has always allowed private citizens to own guns for recreation (hunting and practice shooting among other things) and for self defense.


Ownership of a gun or any other weapon requires the person be trained and skilled in its use and ready and willing to use it for its intended purpose. If you want to shoot skeet or hunt deer, you need to know how to use your weapon, including being aware of what lies beyond the tree line and not shooting and striking things out of sight. A friend of my step-fther was shot on the same day President Kennedy was killed because as the friend moved through the brush with his rifle out in front of him, somebody else saw the brush move and opened fire. Lots of surgery with rods and screws to replace the damage to his arms.


If one has a weapon for self-defense, they must not only know how to operate it but they must be willing to use it without hesitation once the intruder is confirmed as a threat. To stand there trembling and saying I have a gun will not do it.


Concerning option 2, this is the more challenging task as in my opinion, it tackles the real problem but poses a significant risk to the rights of any and all citizens as much as much if not more than option 1 of gun control.


When we see guns or any other weapon misused for violence, it generally takes one of two forms. One form is personal violence against an individual. Two people get into a fight and one pulls out a gun and fires. It is it not a pre-planned action but rather a spur of the moment action. There is also the planned action such as a crime (bank robbery for example) or the murder of somebody for various reasons. But these are still not acts of mass violence or terrorism.


The second form of weapon misuse is when it is a well thought out plan (OK, a well thought out plan wouldn't do it at all but you know what I mean I hope) to inflict pain, suffering, and death or a large group of people. In some cases the perpetrator believes they have been slighted or offended by the group while in other cases, the perpetrator has reasons that nobody will every understand or grasp.


Most people will agree that those who go into public places are to put it colloquially, not playing with a full deck. The problem is the person, not the tool they choose to implement their plans. So the solution is simple, let's either lock up all mentally unstable people or at the minimum, ban them from owning weapons of any kind.


How to prevent people from owning weapons of any kind would be a challenge, again probably met strongly by 2nd Amendment supports who are always on the alert for any perceived threat. (not all are) But if we could have a way to prevent mentally unstable people from having weapons of any kind, the question become how do we identify them?


Notice I use the term mentally unstable. I chose that term as some people are mentally challenged due to a wide variety of reasons and I do not want them included in this. Instead I use the term mentally unstable to denote people who are perhaps delusional, perhaps temporarily or maybe permanently. And that in itself leads us directly to the heart of the matter, How Do We Identify These People and What do We do While Preserving Their Rights?


A quick personal story illustrating yesterday and today. Back before I was born (perhaps shortly after) people could be placed in mental institutions for unethical, immoral, and illegal reasons. With enough money and lies, anybody could be placed in a mental institution. I tell the following because everybody connected is long gone. My Great-grandmother had two daughters. The one that was not my grandmother place my great-granmother in a mental institution (Milledgeville,Ga) to gain access to her assets. I met her once when I was young and to be honest I don't remember anything kooky about her. Most in the family felt it was done for the money involved. And sadly that was not an isolated case. Many were placed in institutions either to gain control of their finances or to get them out of the way as they were an inconvenience.


Today, there are safeguards to prevent this. (but not fool-proof). When my mother developed Alzheimers, I eventually had to make myself her legal guardian to manage her affairs. (Powers of attourneys are a weak document). With the history of my great-grandmother and the fact fact it was my mother, I was very reluctant to take that step but ultimately it became necessary. Under Georgia law, I had to account for literally every penny I spent. I had to turn in reports periodically. The sad thing was I could not give my children a Christmas or birthday gift from Nana as everything had to go for her care, as it should have. Someday I may tell of my story of dealing with my mother's Alzheimers but that is for another day. My point here is that today, people 's right to due process in determining if they are mentally competent to make their own decisions is an arduous process that is set up to ensure people's rights are not taken away. 


And that is that the heart of the problem. One part is how do we identify people who should not have weapons and the second part is what do we do about it?


How do we as a society distinguish between somebody who is temporarily upset over the events of life verses those who are seriously disturbed and need help. How often have each of us said something similar to, "I could just kill that so and so"? 


How do we distinguish between the temporarily moderately upset "normal" person and the truly disturbed? For that matter , how do we identify those who are short term in need of assistance and not qualified to be in control of a weapon and those who are upset but pose no threat to others?


For all those who stand so staunchly in support of the individual's rights but be a part of the solution that protects the rights of all.


Should we take guns away from everybody? No. Should we temporarily take them away from some? Perhaps but under what conditions and terms. Should be take weapons away from some permanently? Perhaps.


But the question is not what to do with guns. Guns are not the problem. A broken glass bottle can easily become a weapon. The question is how do we protect the general population form the actions of a minority without depriving people of their rights and affording everybody due process?


In the back of my mind is the warning concerning terrorists, "Be observant and call somebody if you suspect something." I am a photographer and quite a few photographers have been harassed because they took a photograph of something that an over zealous security guard thought was a violation of the Homeland Dense Act. Be alert, report anything suspicious. Well, a couple of you look a little suspicious and there are days my wife looks at me!! Seriously, we cannot afford to turn our nation into a paranoid group of people always looking at the other as in "What's wrong with you? Should I report you today?" If that is the eventual outcome, then the terrorists have won.


So what is the answer? I honestly don't know but I will stand firm to protect the rights of everybody and will say we cannot throw a few under the bus and sacrifice their rights. I would hope somebody will come up with a third way to tackle the problem besides the gun or restraining the individual. Perhaps the long term solution is education. The same way we need to tackle the problem of gang violence and other social ills, we need to address the issues are an early age (very early but again that's for another day). Parents, schools, churches, and all others that impact young people's lives need to become involved.


I hope in this blog, I have at least encouraged people to take a moment and seriously step away from the political rhetoric and liberal vs conservative debate and to ponder the best course of action for all people to ensure the safety of all while protecting the rights of all.