Another Shooting: Do we Ignore It? Part 2
Mass Shootings: What To Do?
by Kelvin Wade
I wrote a column following the Oregon mall shooting for iPinion and then the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting occurred. I wanted to expand upon my earlier column. I'm sick of feeling sick about the latest shooting in Connecticut. What is going to be done? Are we just going to express our sorrow and outrage and go back to business as usual until the next shooting? Then we'll wring our hands some more.
I'm sick of reading things like this shooting happened because God isn't allowed in the schools. That's asinine on so many levels. First, if you believe in God, do you really think there's a place in this world that God cannot go? Secondly, it's offensive to posit that if the Ten Commandments were hanging on the wall in a schoolhouse that it would act as some kind of anti-shooting talisman. Third, the same people who are so eager to violate the First Amendment by having state endorse religion are usually the first people to hold the Second Amendment sacrosanct.
I see there's a movement to wear Sandy Hook Elementary School colors on Monday. Knock yourselves out. Me wearing their school colors isn't going to solve anything. And as for raising awareness, you'd have to live in the boonies with no electricity, wiping your arse with leaves, not to be aware of this tragedy.
Don't just tell me you're for 'gun control.' Tell me what you want to do. I don't want to quickly pass laws that don't deal with the problem. On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy walked onto the Cleveland Elementary School campus in Stockton, California and opened fire with an AK47. He killed five children and wounded 29 others plus one teacher. An outraged California legislature responded by passing the assault weapons ban. The problem was Purdy purchased his rifle in Oregon. So the day after the ban passed, the same crime could've taken place.
I'm not arguing certain weapons bans are worthless. I'm saying that if we want to pass laws that deal with a problem, then they should deal with the problem. It's a waste of our time and resources and frankly dangerous to pass feel good legislation.
But as far as weapons bans go, the public needs to know that "assault weapons bans" have tended to ban military looking rifles, while rifles with the same capabilities continued to be sold. Manufacturers found a way around California's assault weapons ban and now the public believes we have a ban while gun owners know different.
Here's one suggestion. Shouldn't our gun laws be national and not left up to individual states? If it's the U.S. Constitution that lays out our right to bear arms, I think it's the Congress' responsibility to regulate guns nationally. Having gun laws that vary state to state, county to county and city to city doesn't understand the way Americans travel. They're worthless.
But if we're to try to prevent mass shootings, as I've written before, we have to approach the problem like it's terrorism because that's what it is. Domestic terrorism. If the two shooters in the last two mass shooters were Arabs named Muhammad, government would move heaven and earth making changes. I don't mean to be political…hell yes I do…but we've had the Republican Party up in arms over losing four Americans in Benghazi. How many hearings are they going to hold on mass shooting? What changes are we going to see in how we protect children and workers?
Attacking the problem like terrorism means we need more people turning deranged people into the authorities. On the same day as the Sandy Hook shootings, arresting the person who'd made threats averted a school shooting in Oklahoma. We need to fight this battle multi-pronged.
Perhaps we need to rethink school design. Perhaps windows need to be bulletproof. Doors need to be reinforced. Or maybe we need locking safe rooms/panic rooms built into schools with bulletproof walls.
Maybe we need more magnetometers at schools. Many inner city schools already have metal detectors. Maybe that needs to be expanded. Maybe schools need two officers at each school. If not police officers, then well-trained armed security. Or maybe one of the teachers at each school should double as an armed officer much like a sky marshal in an airplane.
Some laugh at the idea of having more guns on campuses as a deterrent but regulating guns, background checks, ammo restrictions, trigger locks, closing the gun show loophole, banning private gun sales and the like is not going to remove guns from the streets. When a nation has 200 million guns there's going to be a hell of a long-term problem even if we stopped selling guns tomorrow.
If it's true that in the Clackamas mall shooting and the Sandy Hook shootings that the perpetrators stole guns that were legally purchased then no new law would've prevented these shootings.
Some have suggested we need a national conversation about mental health and we do. Many of these shooters have had mental issues like the shooter at Virginia Tech and Aurora. But that won't solve the problem. Some shooters are lonely, angry dejected failures. They're not mentally ill. They're evil.
Our approach can't be one size fits all. And even if we attack the mentally ill part of the equation and the gun issue, what are we going to do about a rampage in progress? It takes seconds to take many lives. Even with the ten round clips mandated in California, one can create a lot of chaos. It's incredibly easy and speedy to change out magazines.
But we do need to look at Ground Marshals for schools, malls, sporting events etc.. How would we pay for it? By opening our wallets. How much are dead children worth?
Even with a huge effort we have to understand that we can't prevent ever shooting. They can simply happen too fast. A loner who tells no one of his plans, who steals weapons and deliberately chooses a vulnerable place is difficult to stop. It's frightening but it's no less true.
by Kelvin Wade
I wrote a column following the Oregon mall shooting for iPinion and then the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting occurred. I wanted to expand upon my earlier column. I'm sick of feeling sick about the latest shooting in Connecticut. What is going to be done? Are we just going to express our sorrow and outrage and go back to business as usual until the next shooting? Then we'll wring our hands some more.
I'm sick of reading things like this shooting happened because God isn't allowed in the schools. That's asinine on so many levels. First, if you believe in God, do you really think there's a place in this world that God cannot go? Secondly, it's offensive to posit that if the Ten Commandments were hanging on the wall in a schoolhouse that it would act as some kind of anti-shooting talisman. Third, the same people who are so eager to violate the First Amendment by having state endorse religion are usually the first people to hold the Second Amendment sacrosanct.
I see there's a movement to wear Sandy Hook Elementary School colors on Monday. Knock yourselves out. Me wearing their school colors isn't going to solve anything. And as for raising awareness, you'd have to live in the boonies with no electricity, wiping your arse with leaves, not to be aware of this tragedy.
Don't just tell me you're for 'gun control.' Tell me what you want to do. I don't want to quickly pass laws that don't deal with the problem. On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy walked onto the Cleveland Elementary School campus in Stockton, California and opened fire with an AK47. He killed five children and wounded 29 others plus one teacher. An outraged California legislature responded by passing the assault weapons ban. The problem was Purdy purchased his rifle in Oregon. So the day after the ban passed, the same crime could've taken place.
I'm not arguing certain weapons bans are worthless. I'm saying that if we want to pass laws that deal with a problem, then they should deal with the problem. It's a waste of our time and resources and frankly dangerous to pass feel good legislation.
But as far as weapons bans go, the public needs to know that "assault weapons bans" have tended to ban military looking rifles, while rifles with the same capabilities continued to be sold. Manufacturers found a way around California's assault weapons ban and now the public believes we have a ban while gun owners know different.
Here's one suggestion. Shouldn't our gun laws be national and not left up to individual states? If it's the U.S. Constitution that lays out our right to bear arms, I think it's the Congress' responsibility to regulate guns nationally. Having gun laws that vary state to state, county to county and city to city doesn't understand the way Americans travel. They're worthless.
But if we're to try to prevent mass shootings, as I've written before, we have to approach the problem like it's terrorism because that's what it is. Domestic terrorism. If the two shooters in the last two mass shooters were Arabs named Muhammad, government would move heaven and earth making changes. I don't mean to be political…hell yes I do…but we've had the Republican Party up in arms over losing four Americans in Benghazi. How many hearings are they going to hold on mass shooting? What changes are we going to see in how we protect children and workers?
Attacking the problem like terrorism means we need more people turning deranged people into the authorities. On the same day as the Sandy Hook shootings, arresting the person who'd made threats averted a school shooting in Oklahoma. We need to fight this battle multi-pronged.
Perhaps we need to rethink school design. Perhaps windows need to be bulletproof. Doors need to be reinforced. Or maybe we need locking safe rooms/panic rooms built into schools with bulletproof walls.
Maybe we need more magnetometers at schools. Many inner city schools already have metal detectors. Maybe that needs to be expanded. Maybe schools need two officers at each school. If not police officers, then well-trained armed security. Or maybe one of the teachers at each school should double as an armed officer much like a sky marshal in an airplane.
Some laugh at the idea of having more guns on campuses as a deterrent but regulating guns, background checks, ammo restrictions, trigger locks, closing the gun show loophole, banning private gun sales and the like is not going to remove guns from the streets. When a nation has 200 million guns there's going to be a hell of a long-term problem even if we stopped selling guns tomorrow.
If it's true that in the Clackamas mall shooting and the Sandy Hook shootings that the perpetrators stole guns that were legally purchased then no new law would've prevented these shootings.
Some have suggested we need a national conversation about mental health and we do. Many of these shooters have had mental issues like the shooter at Virginia Tech and Aurora. But that won't solve the problem. Some shooters are lonely, angry dejected failures. They're not mentally ill. They're evil.
Our approach can't be one size fits all. And even if we attack the mentally ill part of the equation and the gun issue, what are we going to do about a rampage in progress? It takes seconds to take many lives. Even with the ten round clips mandated in California, one can create a lot of chaos. It's incredibly easy and speedy to change out magazines.
But we do need to look at Ground Marshals for schools, malls, sporting events etc.. How would we pay for it? By opening our wallets. How much are dead children worth?
Even with a huge effort we have to understand that we can't prevent ever shooting. They can simply happen too fast. A loner who tells no one of his plans, who steals weapons and deliberately chooses a vulnerable place is difficult to stop. It's frightening but it's no less true.
Comments