We live in a time where technology continues to astound and amaze us with constant advances. It seems there's nothing that can't be done. With this in mind, I would think it should be rather elementary (for those techies who do this sort of thing) to have a means by which background checks could be almost foolproof.
Now, there are already background checks for all licensed dealers to make sure potential customers aren't criminals or insane people. And from what I understand, it might not be the case that a customer's info is stored so that his purchases are recorded for future use...except, perhaps, by the actual dealer should he be questioned about whether or not Joe Blow bought a piece from him. That is, the dealer is protected in this way because it establishes as well that he followed the protocols.
I have to say that I am not very well educated on just what the procedures are to the extent that I could present them here. Should I decide I wish to purchase a piece, I'll find out at the time. I just know that procedures are in place.
But as control freaks demand "tighter" background checks...or whatever the heck it is they're demanding...I offer the following:
We know there is facial recognition software and for all who make their living selling firearms, access to a system that stores photos of criminals and the insane should be as immediate as possible. If the government is to be involved in deciding who should not have guns, the government should have a system in place for this purpose. It should be accessible by all branches of law enforcement, from the local cops up to the federal level, including Homeland Security, the FBI (of course), the CIA, the DOJ and any other law enforcement department.
The thought here is that should a person seek to purchase a firearm of any kind, a state issued picture ID (I know...an outrage, isn't it?) must be presented (which it is now) and the picture on it could be scanned at the dealership because the dealer has access to the system that collects the info. Should the person seeking a firearm turn out to be a criminal or an insane person, the dealer will know immediately and refuse the sale. At the same time, law enforcement is alerted that the criminal/loonie is attempting to purchase a firearm.
Conversely, if one has no criminal record or hasn't been certified as crazy, the sale can go through without anyone but the dealer knowing about the person's desire to purchase a gun. Because there is no reason why a law abiding citizen need inform anyone in government about his ownership of any weapon. It's a "none of your business" reality with regard to the government.
I also think they should be able to have on file fingerprints or possibly DNA samples (not that gun dealers would need to draw blood or anything, but simply to have all that info about a criminal readily available in the same place). There are fingerprint scanners in use in a variety of businesses and government facilities for security purposes, and I doubt it would too much trouble to adapt that tech for the purpose of screening out bad actors from purchasing weapons.
If those who should not possess firearms are prevented from buying from legitimate sources, there would only be the black market which is already problematic...as well as illegal. Of course, there's theft, too, but the point here is that the focus turns from scrutinizing the law-abiding to blocking the unsavory and the certifiable...which is where the focus should always have been in the first place.
As to exactly who should have their info stored for this purpose can be worked out. Naturally those convicted of violent crimes would be among them, as would those certified as dangerous due to their mental issues. Non-violent misdemeanors and non-violent psych patients might be excluded. The concern here is not to permanently deny those who won't forever be a threat, but again, that can be worked out. The point here is that this addresses the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them for ill. Any techies out there who see this as an impossible task?
Friday, April 20, 2018
Wednesday, April 04, 2018
Reality, Delusion, Opinion and Fact
In two separate posts at Dan's blog (here and here), each discussion disintegrated into the usual diversionary accusations by Dan regarding things like "reality", "delusion" and "opinion versus fact".
Beginning with the third diversion...opinion versus fact...Dan determines to avoid dealing with points raised about Scripture with this favorite tactic. If Dan disagrees with a point, regardless of how supported a point may be through citing Scripture, interpretations over the centuries by scholars, detailed studies of the original languages, etc...we mustn't regard our agreement with all of this as "fact". Without an actual visit by God, complete with state ID so we know it's really Him, wherein He testifies that, yes, He really did mean what all that thousands of years of translations, interpretations, tradition and understanding verifies for us, it simply isn't a fact, according to Dan, but only "human opinion". And to Dan, we've proven we can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.
But despite my asking, Dan has yet to explain why opinion is NEVER also fact. This is not to equate the two, as "opinion" and "fact" are clearly not synonymous. But Dan seems to believe that an opinion can never also be fact at the same time. Here's the problem: Dan dismisses, say, a young earth because according to Dan, the science has "proven" that the earth is very old. Actually, it does not. Scientific interpretation of available data, minus any consideration for the supernatural, only suggests an old earth. That is, Dan takes as fact that which is only truly opinion. It doesn't even matter that evidence may seem overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth. It is still only opinion as we cannot prove beyond any doubt that the earth is as old as Dan believes it is. As such, Dan is guilty of the very "sin" of which he accuses his debate opponents. (This particular issue...old earth, young earth...is one Dan likes to bring up to make his point. I've never taken a position on which I believe to be true because it can't be proved without going back in time. But he uses it to pretend his point is solid. Rarely are our differences on issues of this type.)
More importantly is that the question of opinion versus fact in Dan's argument depends upon one agreeing with Dan that what is seen as a fact is really an opinion, simply because Dan doesn't like the fact. That is, he insists it is only an opinion because he doesn't like the fact and he rejects all evidences submitted to support the point as fact. In doing so, he provides himself cover from the obligation to either defend his own position to the end, or demonstrate the other position is wrong. Indeed, he plays this card when he finds his position has been exposed as incredibly shaky. I would much prefer that Dan drop this diversionary tactic and put in the effort required to, not only make his case, but to defend it against all the objections, criticisms and questions his positions always provoke. He cannot, so he plays the "just your opinion" card and disparages his opponent should he not cave to Dan's insistence that it can be nothing more.
"Reality" and "delusion" are actually the same charge Dan levels at his opponents who will "not see reason" as Dan perceives it. And this is another diversionary tactic Dan employs to free him from responding to specific criticisms and questions, or when Dan's criticisms of opponent arguments fail. One is unable to grasp reality or is delusional if they disagree with Dan and refuse to abide Dan's rules for determining what is reality and delusion. It is notable that these rules favor Dan exclusively and are thus an insurmountable hurdle that protects him from accepting the errors in his own reasoning, or even facing the possibility that errors exist at all. He covers himself by "admitting" that he's only putting forth opinion, but he treats them as fact. His "opinion" defense also allows him to wallow in his own delusion about the strength of his position. What he fails to grasp is that reality and delusion are no more than opinion to him, but opinion he demands we accept as fact. This irony is totally lost on him, but again, it is his shield against the obvious criticisms of his positions. Only Dan is the authority on what is reality and what is delusion. Conveniently, as I stated, this always puts Dan in the driver's seat and he won't start the car until one agrees with the road upon which we will travel in our discourse. While we wish to take the road to truth, Dan insists we take the road to what he wants truth to look like.
Beginning with the third diversion...opinion versus fact...Dan determines to avoid dealing with points raised about Scripture with this favorite tactic. If Dan disagrees with a point, regardless of how supported a point may be through citing Scripture, interpretations over the centuries by scholars, detailed studies of the original languages, etc...we mustn't regard our agreement with all of this as "fact". Without an actual visit by God, complete with state ID so we know it's really Him, wherein He testifies that, yes, He really did mean what all that thousands of years of translations, interpretations, tradition and understanding verifies for us, it simply isn't a fact, according to Dan, but only "human opinion". And to Dan, we've proven we can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.
But despite my asking, Dan has yet to explain why opinion is NEVER also fact. This is not to equate the two, as "opinion" and "fact" are clearly not synonymous. But Dan seems to believe that an opinion can never also be fact at the same time. Here's the problem: Dan dismisses, say, a young earth because according to Dan, the science has "proven" that the earth is very old. Actually, it does not. Scientific interpretation of available data, minus any consideration for the supernatural, only suggests an old earth. That is, Dan takes as fact that which is only truly opinion. It doesn't even matter that evidence may seem overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth. It is still only opinion as we cannot prove beyond any doubt that the earth is as old as Dan believes it is. As such, Dan is guilty of the very "sin" of which he accuses his debate opponents. (This particular issue...old earth, young earth...is one Dan likes to bring up to make his point. I've never taken a position on which I believe to be true because it can't be proved without going back in time. But he uses it to pretend his point is solid. Rarely are our differences on issues of this type.)
More importantly is that the question of opinion versus fact in Dan's argument depends upon one agreeing with Dan that what is seen as a fact is really an opinion, simply because Dan doesn't like the fact. That is, he insists it is only an opinion because he doesn't like the fact and he rejects all evidences submitted to support the point as fact. In doing so, he provides himself cover from the obligation to either defend his own position to the end, or demonstrate the other position is wrong. Indeed, he plays this card when he finds his position has been exposed as incredibly shaky. I would much prefer that Dan drop this diversionary tactic and put in the effort required to, not only make his case, but to defend it against all the objections, criticisms and questions his positions always provoke. He cannot, so he plays the "just your opinion" card and disparages his opponent should he not cave to Dan's insistence that it can be nothing more.
"Reality" and "delusion" are actually the same charge Dan levels at his opponents who will "not see reason" as Dan perceives it. And this is another diversionary tactic Dan employs to free him from responding to specific criticisms and questions, or when Dan's criticisms of opponent arguments fail. One is unable to grasp reality or is delusional if they disagree with Dan and refuse to abide Dan's rules for determining what is reality and delusion. It is notable that these rules favor Dan exclusively and are thus an insurmountable hurdle that protects him from accepting the errors in his own reasoning, or even facing the possibility that errors exist at all. He covers himself by "admitting" that he's only putting forth opinion, but he treats them as fact. His "opinion" defense also allows him to wallow in his own delusion about the strength of his position. What he fails to grasp is that reality and delusion are no more than opinion to him, but opinion he demands we accept as fact. This irony is totally lost on him, but again, it is his shield against the obvious criticisms of his positions. Only Dan is the authority on what is reality and what is delusion. Conveniently, as I stated, this always puts Dan in the driver's seat and he won't start the car until one agrees with the road upon which we will travel in our discourse. While we wish to take the road to truth, Dan insists we take the road to what he wants truth to look like.
Sunday, April 01, 2018
The Great Debate: Solutions Part 1
So the debate centers around the question of what we can do to protect our kids from getting shot in schools. Of course, the reality is that we really want to prevent mass shootings of anybody regardless of where they take place, but most of what follows can be considered with schools in mind. It is my opinion that most of what can and likely should be implemented to achieve this goal does indeed include "common sense" solutions without resorting to any kind or level of "gun control"..."common sense" or otherwise. That's because not only is it unnecessary to enact more laws and regulations on the manufacture, sales and possession of firearms, but rather because guns aren't the problem. They never were.
So what is the problem? Bad people, either criminal or insane, getting their hands on weapons of one kind or another and using them to murder. The situation at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (henceforth referred to as "Parkland") points to the first point of emphasis: adults doing their jobs.
Due to the largest arrest numbers of juvenile offenders in the state, Broward County, FL. School Board implemented their "PROMISE" program (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education). This well-intentioned program sought to reduce the possibility of young people being burdened with a criminal record for what was often misdemeanors. The crime rate for teens did drop, and they report 70% of those in the program did not go on to commit other crimes (I would say "not yet" is the best that they can honestly say). But two major problems exist simply by a quick review: 1. Arrest numbers have to drop if fewer kids committing crimes aren't having their crime reported or recorded, and 2. The Parkland case is the second where the failures of this system led to a national news story, the first being the Trayvon Martin case. And as in the Martin case, Nikolas Cruz was a person who should have been arrested, and had that been the case, Martin would likely be still alive and Cruz would not have been able to purchase firearms.
As this story suggests, the program puts the schools over the cops in deciding whether or not an arrest is warranted. This is a problem if a school district is looking to improve their reputation as well as preserve their funding by keeping kids in school...maybe when a kid should instead be incarcerated.
In any case, Cruz stands as an example of the system failing in an epic manner. It is said that many people, from fellow classmates to federal law enforcement, were aware of this kid and no arrests ever took place, even after repeated visits by local police and numerous issues while he was a student at the Parkland school. Adults didn't do their jobs. Indeed, some of his actions constituted felonies which would not have fallen under the plan of the PROMISE program...he should have had a criminal record or some level of psychological record that would have denied him the liberty to purchase a firearm.
So when we really decide to dig deeply, we can see that before we talk about ANY regulations or laws, we must look first to enforcing what exists and doing those jobs as the seriousness of the ramifications dictates.
Naturally, the "adults must do their jobs" step must be a commitment of parents as well. This is much more difficult given how so many people reject traditional notions of right and wrong and also differing notions of what constitutes good parenting in the first place. But at its most basic level, good parenting demands close monitoring and guidance of one's children from their earliest years until they are legal adults. The idea of parents as "best friends" is a dismal failure and while in my case, the relationship between my kids and myself and the missus has been as friends to a great extent, there was always a distinct line drawn about who lays down the laws and who follows them. I've been blessed with great kids who, now as adults (with the youngest about to complete her senior year of college) though less than perfect as the best of us are, continue to make me both proud and humble with their fine, upright character. How typical is our case is another story.
But for some, the best efforts fail and the kids go bad, and can go bad early. It is then that other adults, teachers, counselors, law enforcement, must do their jobs as if lives depend upon them doing so...since we've seen that lives do indeed depend upon them.
So this is the first step of the solution, but only a first step. It is one that must be addressed before any other step is taken because without adults doing their job, no law, regulation, program or government theft of personal property (guns) or infringements upon liberties (possessing the weapons of one's choice) will make a difference. Where the criminal or insane have the will, there's a way. They'll find it.
Stayed tuned.
UPDATE!!
It occurred to me that I didn't mention a thing about what to do should adults continue to fail to do their jobs and future mass shootings occur as a result. Well, for those in positions of authority, such as law enforcement, at the very least, job loss is reasonable. In some cases, perhaps even charges of negligent homicide might be appropriate. There must be some threat hanging over the heads of those in whom we've put our trust...something that compels greater care in making sure the jobs are done properly given the possible tragic consequences of NOT reporting bad behaviors, or NOT transferring records of bad behaviors to others that might have need of them. I'll be thinking more about this as this series progresses.
So what is the problem? Bad people, either criminal or insane, getting their hands on weapons of one kind or another and using them to murder. The situation at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (henceforth referred to as "Parkland") points to the first point of emphasis: adults doing their jobs.
Due to the largest arrest numbers of juvenile offenders in the state, Broward County, FL. School Board implemented their "PROMISE" program (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education). This well-intentioned program sought to reduce the possibility of young people being burdened with a criminal record for what was often misdemeanors. The crime rate for teens did drop, and they report 70% of those in the program did not go on to commit other crimes (I would say "not yet" is the best that they can honestly say). But two major problems exist simply by a quick review: 1. Arrest numbers have to drop if fewer kids committing crimes aren't having their crime reported or recorded, and 2. The Parkland case is the second where the failures of this system led to a national news story, the first being the Trayvon Martin case. And as in the Martin case, Nikolas Cruz was a person who should have been arrested, and had that been the case, Martin would likely be still alive and Cruz would not have been able to purchase firearms.
As this story suggests, the program puts the schools over the cops in deciding whether or not an arrest is warranted. This is a problem if a school district is looking to improve their reputation as well as preserve their funding by keeping kids in school...maybe when a kid should instead be incarcerated.
In any case, Cruz stands as an example of the system failing in an epic manner. It is said that many people, from fellow classmates to federal law enforcement, were aware of this kid and no arrests ever took place, even after repeated visits by local police and numerous issues while he was a student at the Parkland school. Adults didn't do their jobs. Indeed, some of his actions constituted felonies which would not have fallen under the plan of the PROMISE program...he should have had a criminal record or some level of psychological record that would have denied him the liberty to purchase a firearm.
So when we really decide to dig deeply, we can see that before we talk about ANY regulations or laws, we must look first to enforcing what exists and doing those jobs as the seriousness of the ramifications dictates.
Naturally, the "adults must do their jobs" step must be a commitment of parents as well. This is much more difficult given how so many people reject traditional notions of right and wrong and also differing notions of what constitutes good parenting in the first place. But at its most basic level, good parenting demands close monitoring and guidance of one's children from their earliest years until they are legal adults. The idea of parents as "best friends" is a dismal failure and while in my case, the relationship between my kids and myself and the missus has been as friends to a great extent, there was always a distinct line drawn about who lays down the laws and who follows them. I've been blessed with great kids who, now as adults (with the youngest about to complete her senior year of college) though less than perfect as the best of us are, continue to make me both proud and humble with their fine, upright character. How typical is our case is another story.
But for some, the best efforts fail and the kids go bad, and can go bad early. It is then that other adults, teachers, counselors, law enforcement, must do their jobs as if lives depend upon them doing so...since we've seen that lives do indeed depend upon them.
So this is the first step of the solution, but only a first step. It is one that must be addressed before any other step is taken because without adults doing their job, no law, regulation, program or government theft of personal property (guns) or infringements upon liberties (possessing the weapons of one's choice) will make a difference. Where the criminal or insane have the will, there's a way. They'll find it.
Stayed tuned.
UPDATE!!
It occurred to me that I didn't mention a thing about what to do should adults continue to fail to do their jobs and future mass shootings occur as a result. Well, for those in positions of authority, such as law enforcement, at the very least, job loss is reasonable. In some cases, perhaps even charges of negligent homicide might be appropriate. There must be some threat hanging over the heads of those in whom we've put our trust...something that compels greater care in making sure the jobs are done properly given the possible tragic consequences of NOT reporting bad behaviors, or NOT transferring records of bad behaviors to others that might have need of them. I'll be thinking more about this as this series progresses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)