Well, it seems that we have a blast from the past back on the scene. Samuel "Joe the Not-Licensed Non-plumber" Wurzelbacher has reared his Putin-like head into our national conversation once again, this time on this issue of Gun Rights, and how his Sacred and Special Gun Rights are certainly more important and more valuable than the life of those killed this past week by a "Men's Rights" Gun-Man in Santa Barbara by writing an open letter to one of the grieving parents which at least started out as somewhat polite and deferential.
Richard Martinez, whose son (Christopher) was among the murdered, choked back tears at a news conference, blaming politicians the next day: “The talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live?” Martinez said – and much more.
There are no critical words for a grieving father. He can say whatever he wants and blame whoever he’d like – it’s okay by me. You can’t take a step in his shoes – at least I can’t.
Here of course Sammy-Joe speaks the obvious, although I commend him for at least starting out with a bit of class, but I write now in response to the next bit - where rather than taking what would be the fairly common and standard path around these particular parts of the web of indulging in ridicule and snark - I will actually take the words of Mr. Wurzelbacher
seriously, and respond in kind with an equal level of seriousness. I will even broker some suggestions and solutions to the kinds of out-breaks of tragic gun violence that have so far eluded all sides of the debate as it has raged on thus far, year after year with partisan entrenchment, with little change to the death toll and few actual practical policy improvements being made on any level.
So, on to the next bit.
But the words and images of Mr. Martinez blaming “the proliferation of guns”, lobbyists, politicians, etc.; will be exploited by gun-grab extremists as are all tragedies involving gun violence and the mentally ill by the anti-Second Amendment Left.
As a father, husband and a man, it is my responsibility to protect my family. I will
stand up for that right vehemently. Please believe me, as a father I share your grief and I will pray for you and your family, as I do whenever I hear about senseless tragedies such as this.
Tragedies such as these, need more than prayers. But let me ask you Sam (I will not call you "Joe" because that's not your first name, and all of us know it) who exactly are these "Gun-Grab" extremists? Who are the "Anti-Second Amendment Left?" Not even Michael Moore suggested such a thing in his film "
Bowling for Columbine". You should try
talking to some of us, rather than just talking about us without knowing what you're saying. There are a great many people on the Left
who own guns and fully support the 2nd Amendment as written. I have guns in my home. I believe in what Madison wrote in
Federalist 46.
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Madison was talking about the citizen militia and it's ability to repel either an invading army, or a U.S. Army that had been turned against it's citizens in a time of emergency.
That's what the second amendment is about, not hunting, or fighting crime - but defending the nation.
However, none of that has anything to do with the point being made by Mr. Martinez which is perhaps better exemplified - in this case - by a comedian.
As Mr. Oliver points out we've been willing to accept some rather severe curtailing of our 4th Amendment Rights protecting us from
unreasonable search and seizure without hardly a squawk. Ok, well there was a little squawk, but still the nation has managed to survive the trade-off.
The point is that no Civil Right is absolute or inviolate. They each have to all be balanced against the other rights, and the Right To Life happens to be one that those on your team constantly tout when it's convenient, but then completely ignore when people with more than 9 months worth of gestation have to pay the price for it, particularly in blood. i would someday love to hear from the Right exactly why the vaunted "Right To Life" seems to only last from conception to birth and not a second further - but that would be an indulgent digression
And of course that's assuming anyone on the right cares about the Life of actual real, living, post-Birth people more than the care about yet another Issue they can attack the Left with, doesn't it?
We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it – even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual. I almost said “Obama Voter” but I’m waiting for it to be official.
Let's get real here. You're waiting for "Obama Voter" to be "Official"? That's almost like waiting for Donald Sterling to be confirmed a Democrat, when he's a
Registered Republican. The fact is that Pat Roberts saying "
a woman owes her husband sex for doing the dishes" or the Fox News Guest who said it was a "
mistake letting women have the right to vote" or the Fox News Host who said "
feminism is to blame for boys doing poorly in school", or the Fox News Host who said women are "
asking for sex if their dressed immodestly", or the Fox News Host who said that Obama beat Romney by "
lying about rape camps", or former Rep. Todd Akin and his "if it's a
legitimate rape the female body has ways to
shut that whole thing down" - all of which sounds much more like some of the things on Rodger's narcissistic woman-hating manifesto than it does anything being regularly or commonly argued by members of the Democratic party. But then again, it's probably not fair to generalize.
Right, Sam?
I noticed the mainstream media have stopped the practice of immediately reporting the psycho maniac is a conservative Tea Party Republican Christian. Guess they’re sick of having to hide being wrong every time when it comes out the whacko votes Democrat?
Not that the party affiliation of a mass shooter is any indication of the legitimacy of the party, as if there was such as thing as
reverse guilt by association but exactly which crazed "whackos" have turned out to "vote Democrat'? Could it be the crazed whacko White Supremacist
who killed a guard at the holocaust museum on his way to shoot down David Axelrod? Or could it be the Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh who killed three police officers in a
panicked rage that Obama was gonna take away his guns? Or could it be the Oakland Shooter Byron Williams who wounded several cops as they intercepted him on his way to
stage an assault on the ACLU and Tides Foundation because Glenn Beck said they were "Evil", or the Knoxville shooter who attacked the Unitarian Church, killing two and wounding 7, because he said "
All Liberals Need to be Killed."? You really think any of these people were "Obama Voters" because I really truly, don't. Not to say that all these samples are conclusive, I'm only giving examples of the rather obvious fact that gun criminals aren't all members of the same party, with the same motivation, or the same age or the same race.
Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American’s rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends.
Capitalizing on these horrific events for "political ends" by say for example, whining that many mass killers are assumed to be Tea Party Republicans and claiming that their really "Obama Voters" - when neither may be the case?
They don’t care about your family or your dead children at all. They sound like they do, whereas I sound uncaring and like I say, harsh. Don’t be fooled – I care about your family and mine. The future of our very liberty lies in the balance of this fight.
Yes, people who say they care about your loss, but rather only care about the potential for their own
political loss are rather annoying. What was that bit about telling a grieving father he needs to "back off" again?
But here's the thing, the legislation that Mr. Martinez is calling for doesn't currently have any "Gun Grabbing" in it. It's a call to limit magazine capacity and to close the background check loopholes. As it turns out because California has already had an assault weapons ban ever since the deadly Cleveland Elementary School Shooting 25 Years ago in Stockton that killed 5 students and wounded 29 the fact is that Rodger's own spree could have been far worse if he hadn't been limited to using a handgun, and a knife and his car.
Honestly, if we were to talk about this issue in serious terms I would probably agree with the NRA and gun enthusiasts that the current post Sandy Hook legislation is inadequate to truly address this type of situation. Magazine capacity limits are designed to open a window of opportunity to fight back and disarm an offender - as was the case with the attack on Gabriel Giffords by Jared Loughner - after the shooting has already started. I would argue that's a little bit late. Closing the Background Check loophole, which currently lets straw purchasers or unlicensed sellers at gun shows slide weapons through the side door without any restriction - even if they are Violent Felons - is something we should all support, but still in cases like those I listed above or Loughner, or Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, Kleibold and Harris at Columbine, both of the Ft Hood Shooters, Aaron Alexis the Naval Yards Shooter, the D.C. Snipers, Christopher Dorner the California Cop Killer, James Eagan Holmes the Aurora Theater Shooter or even Seung-Hui Cho the Virginia Tech shooter - all of whom gained their guns legally and would have either passed a background check or could easily avoid it like Lanza who used guns that were legally purchased by his parents - these proposed laws wouldn't have stopped any of them.
So does that mean that there's nothing that can be done without resorting to the type of mass gun-grab that 2nd Amendment advocates fear? Well, I think yes. Something can be done.
First I think we need to look at some of actual common denominators in these various cases and look at where the system broke down at preventing and flagging them. Although they are not all the same, there are commonalities. For example, warning signs had been raised in the case of Loughner who had been highlighted as potentially "dangerous" by his college counselor who had him reported to campus police and banned from the school until he went into treatment, his concerned parents had taken his shotgun away from him and restricted his access to his car. Cho had been referred to a counselor due to statements which had concerned his teachers but he told 3 separate counselors that he didn't have any "suicidal or homicidal" tendencies. There were various indicators and concerns by Maj Hasan's coworkers that he was "stressed" with his upcoming deployment and his internal conflict with going to war against fellow muslims. Christopher Dorner's own emotional instability is what led to his firing by the LAPD. There were indications that Aaron Alexis the Navy Shipyard shooter was suffering from depression, post-traumatic stress and paranoid delusions, he attempted to gain treatment though the VA for sleep related issues, but was not evaluated for emotional or mental health issues. Adam Lanza clearly had a variety of emotional issues for which his mother attempted to use guns as a form of "therapy". James Holmes had attempted suicide several times, but still was allowed access to firearms.
So as you can see, there is a relatively common thread of emotional distress if not full blown mental illness in several of these cases which has either gone undiagnosed or untreated. It may not be an either/or hobson's choice of mental illness vs guns, but one of the dangerous combustible mix of emotional distress/mental illness PLUS access to guns.
Perhaps our focus in addressing the issue of the mass shooter, should be specifically temporarily severing the link between those individuals who have shown signs of extreme emotional distress and mental illness combined with credible threats of violence or suicide from the weapons that can be used to help them carry out those threats.
That happens to be the subject of this L.A. Times Op-Ed.
Significant room for improvement exists in terms of prohibiting individuals who are at an increased risk of harming themselves and others from buying or possessing firearms. California law goes beyond the federal standard to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. For example, the state temporarily prohibits individuals from having a gun following an involuntary hospitalization for psychiatric treatment. California also prohibits those convicted of a violent misdemeanor from having a gun for five to 10 years. Individuals subject to temporary domestic-violence restraining orders are prohibited for the length of the order.
These are important policies, but more can be done at the state level to ensure that individuals who are temporarily dangerous do not have immediate access to firearms. Specifically, California can create a Gun Violence Restraining Order, a mechanism that would allow those closest to a troubled individual to act when there are warning signs or indications that that person is at risk for violence.
This Op-Ed happens to exactly echo my own thoughts. What we don't have, but desperately need, is a mechanism to
break the connection between those who are suffering from an emotional breaking point and high powered weapons. This may not prevent them acting out violently, or even in a deadly manner, but it's likely to greatly limit the amount of damage they can do to others or themselves. This wouldn't affect
Your Guns or
Your Rights unless
YOU happen to have a habit of going around threatening to kill people, kill yourself or post
Manifesto Videos on Youtube.
If that doesn't describe you, then you have nothing to worry about.
Jared Loughner's school kicked him out and his parents took his shotgun away because they thought he might be dangerous, but that clearly didn't go far enough. Cho was required to seek counseling for his violent outbursts at school, but nothing was done to prevent his access and use of weapons until it was clear that he was no longer a threat. Elliot Rodger's video manifesto set his parents on a mad-dash to Santa Barbara to help or to prevent him from carrying out his deadly threats - clearly they were too late. They had already sent police to interview him, but just like Cho did with his therapists, he manage to deny that he was having violent impulses as if you're likely to get a honest answer when you ask a bomb "What's that ticking sound?" - so they did nothing. Just like other types of restraining orders that can be filed by spouses who are concerned that they may be in danger, what we may need is a Weapons Restraining Order that can be filed by someone who is concerned that someone they know may be a danger to everyone else.
Past violence is the best predictor of future violence. We also know that alcohol and drug abuse may lead to reckless and potentially violent behavior, and policy in this area could be much more effective at both the state and federal levels if those who have been convicted of two or more DWIs or DUIs in a period of five years and those who have been convicted of two or more misdemeanor crimes involving a controlled substance in a period of five years were disqualified from accessing guns.
But there are select times when serious mental illness does increase the risk that an individual may be dangerous. Evidence demonstrates that people who have a serious mental illness in an acute stage and are not engaging in necessary treatment may be at an elevated risk of violence, especially if they have a history of violence and are abusing drugs or alcohol. Moreover, mental illnesses such as depression significantly increase the risk of suicide, which accounts for more than half of firearm deaths each year.
It's important to highlight this number.
More than half of all gun deaths are Suicides. And that's not a few.
http://smartgunlaws.org/...
Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10
Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.11
...
A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.
And we should keep this in proportion with the number of Gang Shootings, which we seem to be willing to Stop-Frisk-Question and move heaven and earth to prevent.
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/...
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged more than 1,900 annually from 2007 to 2011
19,000 Suicides vs 1,900 Gang gun deaths. We can regularly toss the 4th Amendment Rights of every Black and Brown male in New York
out the window, repeatedly - over less than 2,000 annual gun deaths, but we can't do a thing, not a single thing, about
20,000 yearly gun suicides? I think our priorities here don't match up to the realities.
Compare that with the number of accidental gun deaths which occur with lawful gun owners every year.
In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
The numbers for mass shootings tend to fluctuate, but I would suggest that they are far less than all the above even in the worst cases, but since these shootings are the
least justified and most shocking it happens to be where our emotional center of gravity on gun issues reside, and is where we're most likely to spur some constructive progress.
This suggestion is not Gun-Grabbing. The Police took away George Zimmerman's Guns after his girlfriend complained that he had threatened her with them. They later returned them after she rescinded the complaint. This is temporary limited measure in response to a credible threat to the public or themselves until the level of threat posed by the individual can be confirmed and the person completes treatment or counseling [just as Loughner's school required of him] or else is proven invalid. Would we expect a lesser response than this for someone who had put forth a terrorist threat? [And arguably based on his videos, postings and manifesto Rodger was a terrorist trying to implement political payback!] This is a safety valve that doesn't let a bad situation turn into a tragedy where our only recourse is to wait for this person to reload, be taken out by "a good guy" with a another gun, by law enforcement or as so many of them have done including Cho, Lanza, Dorner, Kleibold, Harris and Rodger, ultimately commit suicide, which IMO may be their original goal all along. They just wanted to take as many people with them on their way out as they could because they were all narcissistic vindictive punks like that.
That doesn't mean we need to sit back and helplessly let them. Even you and the NRA should be willing to support a reasonable limited measure like this which would have no effect what-so-ever on legal, safe, sane and responsible gun owners - which we both are.
Vyan
12:09 PM PT: I'm not trying to single out suicides, only pointing at that they are the numerically most common fatal use of a gun. A more comprehensive look at non-suicide gun deaths via the FBI shows the following.
http://www.fbi.gov/... (This does not include suicides)
Total Homicides using Firearms 8,583
including Handguns 6,220. Rifles 323 Shotguns 356 Other Guns 1,684.
Felony Type: 1,271.
Including Robbery 553, Other Not Specific 324, Narcotics 318.
Non Felony 3,684.
Including Other Arguments 1,844, Other Not Specific 925, Juvenile Gang Killings 476, Gang Killings 143. Arguments over money or property 104.
As shown most gun killings besides suicides are non-felonies (3,684) and not related to otherwise criminal behavior (robbery [553], or other felonies such as rape [324], etc). A rather large number are arguments (1,844) which again far outdistances the number of adult [143] and juvenile [476] gang killings by gun. Taking all this in perspective I came up with the idea of a Weapons Restraining Order because a) guns alone aren't the only way people can hurt each other and b) domestic violence and threats are exactly what my mother went through with my dad, and my wife went through with her first husband, before she had him slapped with a restraining order and divorced him. Mass Shootings and Spree Killings are rare, but Domestic Violence Murder-Suicides with or without using firearms are pretty common. Too common.
Several weeks ago looking further at the PDF from the VPC on Murder-Suicides I discovered this. http://www.vpc.org/....
Medical studies estimate that between 1,000 and 1,500 deaths per year in the United States are the result of murder-suicide.3 This VPC analysis reveals that, in the first half of 2005, there were 591 murder-suicide deaths, of which 264 were suicides and 327 were homicides. Using these figures, more than 10 murder-suicide events occur in the United States each week. Of the 264 suicides, 248 were male and 16 were female. Of the 327 homicides, 255 victims were female and 72 victims were male. Included in the homicide victims were 47 children and teens less than 18 years of age. By doubling the total number of fatalities during the six-month period for a yearly estimate, there were an estimated 1,182 murder-suicide deaths in 2005.
...
The most common type of murder-suicide was between two intimate partners, with the man killing his wife or girlfriend because of a breakdown in their relationship.
In this study, 74 percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner. Of these, 96 percent were females killed by their intimate partners. In comparison, in 2003—the most recent data available—for all murders (where the relationship could be determined) 17 percent of murder victims were killed by an intimate partner.10 Of these, 78 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.11
This type of murder-suicide typically involves a man between the ages of 18 and 60 years old who develops suspicions of his girlfriend’s or wife’s infidelity, becomes enraged, murders her, and then commits suicide—usually using a firearm.12
Often, he will also kill the children of himself and the intimate partner.
Sam may have guns in his home to protect his family, but what happens far more often than some outsider or stranger attacking and harming an innocent family with a firearm are members within that family
getting into a dispute that turns deadly because of their own guns. So I have to ask, who exactly will protect families like Sam's
from people like him if and when the relationship goes sour and the people in the literal cross-fire, are the children?
The fact is that kind of domestic tragedy happens far more often than a "good guy" stopping a "bad guy" with a gun, and usually the only thing preventing the escalation of violence - is a Restraining Order.
1:13 PM PT: Per thereisnospoon two California Legislators are already taking this on.
Das Williams and Hannah-Beth Jackson are taking action to help keep guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals by giving family members and friends more power in preventing problem individuals from obtaining firearms:
[...]
The proposed legislation would create a gun violence restraining order, establishing a system where concerned family members, intimate partners or friends can notify law enforcement of someone who is demonstrating a propensity to commit violence toward themselves or others.