I'm almost done with this series. Already I've provided sound solutions to the problem of protecting our students in schools. This post will provide several more workable and practical ideas.
To begin, it can't be stressed enough that the number one easiest solution to employ is the rejection of the "gun free zone" policy in schools. This is without a doubt the most idiotic policy for protecting students in schools, or patrons in, say, theaters showing Batman movies. It is an invitation, not a prohibition. The vast majority of publicized mass shootings occurred in "gun free zones", and frankly, that should include towns and cities with the strictest gun control laws...which, by the way, are actually law-abiding people control laws. As most schools in the nation operate under this nonsensical policy, there is no one to defend students when the shooting starts.
Thus, to allow those school staff members who would be willing, particularly those who are already licensed gun owners with concealed carry permits (should be automatically every law-abiding American), armed personnel is logical, reasonable and common sense policy. There are schools in the country that have already adopted this policy. No problems reported so far.
There are two main objections to this idea which are easily resolved:
1. This would be on a volunteer basis, so no one would be forced to carry a weapon.
2. Law-abiding gun owners, most of whom already have some training and practice with some regularity, do not abuse their liberty to bear arms. Few who are convicted of crimes involving guns are NRA members.
Teachers are already concerned with the safety of their charges, with teachers among the dead often having given their lives protecting their students against attacks. For most of them, had they been armed and firing back rather than simply blocking bullets from hitting students, death tolls would have been drastically reduced. Indeed, it is likely that in most cases, merely aiming the gun at the attacker would have ended the assault.
If teachers and/or other staff members are covertly carrying firearms, it would not be necessary that all are carrying. It would take some great effort to determine which staff member is actually carrying and when as well as how many. But the policy being made known...and reiterated often...would make a given school less likely to be invaded by an armed thug intent on doing harm and whose purpose is generally the most newsworthy high body count.
"Gun free zone" policy must end if we're serious about protecting our kids.
In addition to having adults properly trained and outfitted to protect students often referred to more than rhetorically or metaphorically as "my kids" by teachers and administrators, there are numerous other ways to protect kids from armed assaults, which is actually the point. They range from expensive items such as metal detectors (already utilized in many schools simply because of gang-bangers among the student population), to reducing entry points which would be monitored by both adults and video cameras. There are also devices that are relatively inexpensive (some incredibly so) that would be far more effective than pretending assailants care about "gun free zones" or laws prohibiting types and quantities of firearms. Below are links I found to effective ideas for protecting students. Most people would even rightly refer to them as "common sense" (in no particular order):
---This link concerns campus and building design and contains links to other articles focusing on specific areas of concern.
---This link features something that is alluded to in the link above, and is one of the first things I saw (on Facebook, actually) that compelled my interest in real and effective solutions to the problem of protecting students, that don't include depriving the law-abiding of their God-given right to determine how best to protect themselves. It actually takes an existing product and finds that it works especially well for protecting students from active shooters, also.
---This link contains a general overview of identifying students who might be threats, as well as reducing their presence through education. It breaks it down between what schools, communities and parents can do.
---This link offers two very inexpensive and easy to use products to secure classrooms and prevent entry.
---This link is another product, notable for the inventor of it. It was a high school student who came up with this and outfitted his entire school with this device. It shows true ingenuity and a decided degree of intelligence not found in the typical "ban assault weapons" buffoon. The kid now has a patent on the device and is (or likely has by this point) making them for a second school. He's making money, too, which is capitalism at its finest...seeing a problem, creating a solution, providing it to all who have need for a reasonable price.
---Finally, this link speaks to things some parents have thought of doing to help keep their kids safe.
Quite frankly, each of the above are true examples of "common sense" solutions to the problem. While some might be expensive, adults must decide just how badly they want to protect kids, particularly when the next teacher contract expires and they choose to go on strike again. Or, if towns insist on raising property taxes with the excuse that money is needed for schools, school board meetings should be packed with parents who demand spending priorities be adjusted so as to include, at the very least, some of the less expensive options listed above. In addition, donating to the cause in one's own neighborhood, should be a no-brainer for anyone who expresses any concern at all with every publicized school shooting incident. You want solutions? How badly? They exist in a variety of forms, none of which require taking away the rights of the law-abiding.
Tuesday, July 03, 2018
Friday, June 29, 2018
Shameful Behavior Month
As June comes to a close, I am left feeling there is something seriously
wrong with a society that devotes a month, as well as parades, to
celebrating a sexual compulsion. Even for those who take delight in acting on that compulsion, how do they come to feel it appropriate to march around proclaiming their sexual compulsion as if it actually deserves public applause?
I get it. The idea is supposed to be that there's no reason to be ashamed (not true...there's plenty reason), that they should not be judged in a negative manner (though their compulsion is to act immorally). But to march around, designating a month of the year? That's just plain goofy, to say nothing of perverse.
When I see T-shirts that say something like, "Proud to be Irish", or I hear of "Black Pride", I think, "What did you do to become Irish or Black?" Did you work hard to be born Armenian? Was there a special test? Again, there's no reason to be ashamed of one's race or heritage, even if one's race or heritage has a bad rep. That is, Germans of today don't need to be ashamed because of all those nazis back during WWII. But to be proud to be a German?
Or one can be proud to be a part of a people that has done great things, more or less being proud of those members of one's people who actually did the great things, rather than being proud of having been born into that group. But either way, these things are just accidents of birth and are no reason to be "proud to be a...whatever". Did YOU do something great?
But this is different. This is being proud because one feels like doing something. Or worse in this case, actually having done it. A sex act. "I'm proud to have sex with my significant other! Let's have a parade!" Doesn't make sense. Are these thirteen-year-olds? "Check it out, dudes! Me and Ellen did it! I'm gonna celebrate it annually!"
Of course, the reality is that it is just another attempt to convince normal people that these particular celebrants are normal, too (though they most certainly aren't), that they're no more or less moral than normal people (though they most certainly are celebrating immorality). It is meant to enable the guilty and coerce everyone else into accepting the dysfunction. It is meant to ram their idea of morality and normalcy down the throats of the general population, without the consent of the general population.
Here's a really goofy aside: I turned on the radio as I was about to drive in to work and a sports talk show was ending. One of the two sports dudes was talking about how much fun he had at the city's "Pride" parade, and how his wife continued to hang out there while he had to go to the radio station for his show...and how the station needs a float or something in next year's parade...and how everyone at the station is down with the idea (or so he believes, anyway). Good gosh!
Hell in a handbag, my friends. Hell in a handbag.
I get it. The idea is supposed to be that there's no reason to be ashamed (not true...there's plenty reason), that they should not be judged in a negative manner (though their compulsion is to act immorally). But to march around, designating a month of the year? That's just plain goofy, to say nothing of perverse.
When I see T-shirts that say something like, "Proud to be Irish", or I hear of "Black Pride", I think, "What did you do to become Irish or Black?" Did you work hard to be born Armenian? Was there a special test? Again, there's no reason to be ashamed of one's race or heritage, even if one's race or heritage has a bad rep. That is, Germans of today don't need to be ashamed because of all those nazis back during WWII. But to be proud to be a German?
Or one can be proud to be a part of a people that has done great things, more or less being proud of those members of one's people who actually did the great things, rather than being proud of having been born into that group. But either way, these things are just accidents of birth and are no reason to be "proud to be a...whatever". Did YOU do something great?
But this is different. This is being proud because one feels like doing something. Or worse in this case, actually having done it. A sex act. "I'm proud to have sex with my significant other! Let's have a parade!" Doesn't make sense. Are these thirteen-year-olds? "Check it out, dudes! Me and Ellen did it! I'm gonna celebrate it annually!"
Of course, the reality is that it is just another attempt to convince normal people that these particular celebrants are normal, too (though they most certainly aren't), that they're no more or less moral than normal people (though they most certainly are celebrating immorality). It is meant to enable the guilty and coerce everyone else into accepting the dysfunction. It is meant to ram their idea of morality and normalcy down the throats of the general population, without the consent of the general population.
Here's a really goofy aside: I turned on the radio as I was about to drive in to work and a sports talk show was ending. One of the two sports dudes was talking about how much fun he had at the city's "Pride" parade, and how his wife continued to hang out there while he had to go to the radio station for his show...and how the station needs a float or something in next year's parade...and how everyone at the station is down with the idea (or so he believes, anyway). Good gosh!
Hell in a handbag, my friends. Hell in a handbag.
Saturday, June 02, 2018
Poor LeBron!
I couldn't tell the proximity or distance of either ref, one calling a blocking foul on James and the other calling charging on Durant. But as I saw the play commence, there was no doubt in my mind that the blocking call was correct. I don't know about all the sports talk dudes who discussed the call the next day, but in real time it was quite clear to me that James was moving when contact was made. That makes it a blocking foul on him. The replay made it even more apparent. The sports talkers believed that at any other point in the game, or in any other game, Durant is called for charging. This is nonsense given at least one of the refs called blocking immediately.
So the refs pretend there is a question about the restricted area so the rules say they go to the tape. There was never any real question that James was outside the restricted area. It was just a ruse to settle the question since both refs were convinced of what they saw. Again, not really seeing where they were when they made their respective calls, who knows? But they abused a rule in order to see the tape and the tape showed James was moving.
I thought I heard someone, and it could have actually been while the play was being discussed by the announcers and analysts, that moving doesn't matter. But that's not true. And James was clearly moving, even without benefit of the replay to confirm.
Everybody is saying the Cleveland was robbed, because without the replay, the charge call, which I guess was the call on the floor, would have stood and should have. But here's the truth: if the roles were reversed, and it was James going to the rim and Durant defending, there is no way James would have been called for charging. This is a guy who routinely runs over defenders who are even moving away from him, trying to avoid contact. He could be called for charging two or three times per game on average, and when he is called for charging, he whines.
So for anyone who believes the game was stolen because of this call, go wet yourself. Try scoring more points next time or prevent being scored upon, then these calls won't matter.
As for replays, I hate 'em. Never wanted them to be employed in any sport I watch. That is to say, not for the purpose of correcting or confirming calls. Whiners whine about not wanting a game decided by a bad call. Again, play better. Score more. Ensure that the other team scores less. No one likes a call to go against them whether the call is right or wrong. To blame a loss on the refs is wussy stuff. Suck it up. You weren't good enough. The refs had nothing to do with it.
So the refs pretend there is a question about the restricted area so the rules say they go to the tape. There was never any real question that James was outside the restricted area. It was just a ruse to settle the question since both refs were convinced of what they saw. Again, not really seeing where they were when they made their respective calls, who knows? But they abused a rule in order to see the tape and the tape showed James was moving.
I thought I heard someone, and it could have actually been while the play was being discussed by the announcers and analysts, that moving doesn't matter. But that's not true. And James was clearly moving, even without benefit of the replay to confirm.
Everybody is saying the Cleveland was robbed, because without the replay, the charge call, which I guess was the call on the floor, would have stood and should have. But here's the truth: if the roles were reversed, and it was James going to the rim and Durant defending, there is no way James would have been called for charging. This is a guy who routinely runs over defenders who are even moving away from him, trying to avoid contact. He could be called for charging two or three times per game on average, and when he is called for charging, he whines.
So for anyone who believes the game was stolen because of this call, go wet yourself. Try scoring more points next time or prevent being scored upon, then these calls won't matter.
As for replays, I hate 'em. Never wanted them to be employed in any sport I watch. That is to say, not for the purpose of correcting or confirming calls. Whiners whine about not wanting a game decided by a bad call. Again, play better. Score more. Ensure that the other team scores less. No one likes a call to go against them whether the call is right or wrong. To blame a loss on the refs is wussy stuff. Suck it up. You weren't good enough. The refs had nothing to do with it.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
The Great Debate: Solutions Part 3
Before getting into other suggestions for solutions to the issue of school shootings, I would be remiss if I did not point out how the most recent incident at the Sante Fe, Texas happens to show the stupidity of the gun-control narrative. No semi-automatic rifle was used. The punk used a sawed-off shotgun (as I understand it) and a revolver. Now the gun-control buffoons must admit they want to ban all firearms, because neither of these can be classified as military grade weapons. They are not semi-automatic, don't have large magazines and don't look like M-16s. The weapons were stolen from the punk's parents. They were not purchased from a gun show, or through a straw purchase. As such, no background checks were possible.
And again, adults failed to see the warning signs, but thankfully, school resource officers were there to confront the punk and limit the carnage. A teacher with a concealed carry permit might have done better were one on sight. Thus, we again see that a punk felt relatively safe attacking people in a school with little fear of return fire.
We also see that when we consider the weapons used, the means by which such a punk might achieve his goals is dictated by circumstance. He didn't need an AR15 because he could get his hands on a shotgun and revolver. With those, twenty took hits with half of them dying. This means that banning rifles like AR15s is a worthless move and meaningless if other forms of firearms are accessible. What's more, the reports stated that explosive devices were part of the plan as well, so no firearms wouldn't have mattered anyway, were his lethal intentions intense. So still, guns aren't the problem.
So what other solutions might have made prevented this incident? One that I encountered in a previous job that brought me to a number of schools is limited entry. The fewer doors through which people can enter, the easier it is to monitor who comes in. In several schools I had to regularly visit, I had to get buzzed in. I'd ring a bell, a person from the office would speak to me over an intercom and, as I was expected, I was allowed entry. More often than not, my entry was directly through the main office before I could access any other part of the school. Some schools also had cameras at the main entrance so that a visitor was seen as well as heard. (Other co-workers visited city schools --Chicago-- were there were security people who not only watched out for you, but for your vehicle as well, while protecting the school, too.) Anybody that looked the least bit suspicious would not be granted entry. This doesn't even require armed guards.
This one simple strategy acknowledges something that feo-for-brains gun control people don't: the issue is protecting students from attacks by those who will find a way to do harm no matter what weapons are denied the law-abiding public. By monitoring who comes in (listen up defenders of illegal immigrants), those in charge can regulate entry to those deemed safe for admittance. Thus, the means by which an assailant intends to do harm...what tool chosen for the task...doesn't matter. One who has no legitimate reason for being there isn't allowed entry in the first place.
I recall back in the early 70's, a friend and I drove another friend for his last day of summer school. We sought to wait the four hours until school was out and drive the dude home. We attempted to plant ourselves in the cafeteria where vending machines and a jukebox would make our wait enjoyable. The administration denied us, simply because we had no legitimate business being in the building...waiting for our friend not considered legitimate business. I have no doubt that the thought that we might be armed and intending to shoot up the place never crossed their mind. It was simply a natural and reasonable attitude that those with no legitimate business could not remain in the building, particularly when classes were in session. We were escorted out.
But let's get back to the Sante Fe shooting. Would this suggestion have made a difference? No. The shooter was a student in the school. But limited entry would help make this trench coat wearing kid stand out. A hot day and one kid is overdressed. Might that not be a good reason to approach the kid? It was his practice and while I don't know if he was so attired on the day in question, had he been then perhaps he was planning this, or something like this, by setting the precedent of always wearing the coat. How much intelligence is required to suppose that such fashion statements might be used for ill and thus it might be best to dissuade the kid from so dressing? In another flashback to my yoot, a group of us was attending a school dance (live music from local bands populated with other friends was common back then). Entry was limited through one doorway. At the post was a couple of school staff, including the school cop, with whom we were each personally acquainted for one reason or another. The officer had no moral issue with plunging his hand in the coat pocket of my buddy, wrapping his hand around an ounce of weed. Knowing we were more rascal than criminal, he released his grip and warned us to stay out of trouble. It would have been an easy bust, and had we been more than mischievous a ride to the station would have been in my buddy's immediate future. The point here is that true monitoring was common then and that single point of entry resulted in an awareness the authorities couldn't have had with multiple avenues of access.
This school security thing isn't complicated. Some of it, like single point of entry, has been implemented in many schools for some time. Why it isn't universal is a failure of the adults who aren't using their heads. It doesn't require denying weapons to the law abiding to implement in order to make schools that much safer. It can be enhanced with metal detectors for those schools who want to go that far, as one school I visited now and then had upon passing through their single point of entry. It can be enhanced by a cop, a volunteer or any member of the school staff with a concealed carry permit. And it stands as one more point on a larger list of solutions that would actually reduce the ability of assailants to achieve their fatal goals, and which gun-grabbers with their heads up their feo's lack the intelligence to recognize is reasonable, practical and easily doable.
And again, adults failed to see the warning signs, but thankfully, school resource officers were there to confront the punk and limit the carnage. A teacher with a concealed carry permit might have done better were one on sight. Thus, we again see that a punk felt relatively safe attacking people in a school with little fear of return fire.
We also see that when we consider the weapons used, the means by which such a punk might achieve his goals is dictated by circumstance. He didn't need an AR15 because he could get his hands on a shotgun and revolver. With those, twenty took hits with half of them dying. This means that banning rifles like AR15s is a worthless move and meaningless if other forms of firearms are accessible. What's more, the reports stated that explosive devices were part of the plan as well, so no firearms wouldn't have mattered anyway, were his lethal intentions intense. So still, guns aren't the problem.
So what other solutions might have made prevented this incident? One that I encountered in a previous job that brought me to a number of schools is limited entry. The fewer doors through which people can enter, the easier it is to monitor who comes in. In several schools I had to regularly visit, I had to get buzzed in. I'd ring a bell, a person from the office would speak to me over an intercom and, as I was expected, I was allowed entry. More often than not, my entry was directly through the main office before I could access any other part of the school. Some schools also had cameras at the main entrance so that a visitor was seen as well as heard. (Other co-workers visited city schools --Chicago-- were there were security people who not only watched out for you, but for your vehicle as well, while protecting the school, too.) Anybody that looked the least bit suspicious would not be granted entry. This doesn't even require armed guards.
This one simple strategy acknowledges something that feo-for-brains gun control people don't: the issue is protecting students from attacks by those who will find a way to do harm no matter what weapons are denied the law-abiding public. By monitoring who comes in (listen up defenders of illegal immigrants), those in charge can regulate entry to those deemed safe for admittance. Thus, the means by which an assailant intends to do harm...what tool chosen for the task...doesn't matter. One who has no legitimate reason for being there isn't allowed entry in the first place.
I recall back in the early 70's, a friend and I drove another friend for his last day of summer school. We sought to wait the four hours until school was out and drive the dude home. We attempted to plant ourselves in the cafeteria where vending machines and a jukebox would make our wait enjoyable. The administration denied us, simply because we had no legitimate business being in the building...waiting for our friend not considered legitimate business. I have no doubt that the thought that we might be armed and intending to shoot up the place never crossed their mind. It was simply a natural and reasonable attitude that those with no legitimate business could not remain in the building, particularly when classes were in session. We were escorted out.
But let's get back to the Sante Fe shooting. Would this suggestion have made a difference? No. The shooter was a student in the school. But limited entry would help make this trench coat wearing kid stand out. A hot day and one kid is overdressed. Might that not be a good reason to approach the kid? It was his practice and while I don't know if he was so attired on the day in question, had he been then perhaps he was planning this, or something like this, by setting the precedent of always wearing the coat. How much intelligence is required to suppose that such fashion statements might be used for ill and thus it might be best to dissuade the kid from so dressing? In another flashback to my yoot, a group of us was attending a school dance (live music from local bands populated with other friends was common back then). Entry was limited through one doorway. At the post was a couple of school staff, including the school cop, with whom we were each personally acquainted for one reason or another. The officer had no moral issue with plunging his hand in the coat pocket of my buddy, wrapping his hand around an ounce of weed. Knowing we were more rascal than criminal, he released his grip and warned us to stay out of trouble. It would have been an easy bust, and had we been more than mischievous a ride to the station would have been in my buddy's immediate future. The point here is that true monitoring was common then and that single point of entry resulted in an awareness the authorities couldn't have had with multiple avenues of access.
This school security thing isn't complicated. Some of it, like single point of entry, has been implemented in many schools for some time. Why it isn't universal is a failure of the adults who aren't using their heads. It doesn't require denying weapons to the law abiding to implement in order to make schools that much safer. It can be enhanced with metal detectors for those schools who want to go that far, as one school I visited now and then had upon passing through their single point of entry. It can be enhanced by a cop, a volunteer or any member of the school staff with a concealed carry permit. And it stands as one more point on a larger list of solutions that would actually reduce the ability of assailants to achieve their fatal goals, and which gun-grabbers with their heads up their feo's lack the intelligence to recognize is reasonable, practical and easily doable.
Friday, April 20, 2018
The Great Debate: Solutions Part 2
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?
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?
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)