My blog on the Uvalde shooting has generated more comments and email discussion than anything I've written. I appreciate all the replies; some are not posted here by the respondents' choice, as they have been talking amongst themselves, but they are all civil and interesting replies between people of divergent points of view, exactly the kind of discussion I always hope will evolve from my posts.
As one would expect, solutions diverge along political lines, but devolve to a few things. Liberals want gun control to one extent or another. Some want virtually all private gun ownership ended, even the abolishment of the second amendment.. Others want to curtail certain types of weapons. Yet others want increased waiting periods, more screening, training, or age limits on purchases. Conservatives want 'hardened' schools. They want all access locked except one front door, armed teachers, metal detectors, armed guards. One panel has recommended finding role models for teens, specifically mentioning teachers, coaches, directors, and other male figures in schools.
There is a surprising amount of common ground here, other than the predictable extremists on both sides. Between 70 and 88% of Americans want increased background checks and the closure of loopholes for gun show and private purchases. Almost everyone can agree on at least temporary changes in schools, limiting access and providing armed guards. What about the rest?
Despite repeated calls from conservatives for armed teachers, everyone else thinks it's a terrible idea. Arming teachers makes them responsible for student safety in ways for which they are not trained. It also exposes them to suit from parents should armed teachers fail in some way to prevent a shooting or death. Simply training teachers to shoot under pressure is a kind of near-military training that has nothing to do with teaching and exposes teachers to harm. States would have to pay for that training, indemnify the teachers with expensive liability insurance, and provide weapons.
There is also a major philosophical concern about armed teachers. Taking this path is a tacit acceptance of school violence. By arming and militarizing teachers we are admitting that school violence is the new norm. That is not a stance I ever want society to assume.
Limiting school access seems quite doable and reasonable to me. All doors should be locked except one access point. At that access point there should be a guard who screens everyone. Teachers and students should have ID that is bar-coded and scanned. This is simple and can be implemented quickly for little cost.
Rescinding the second amendment has little support, nor should it. Gun ownership is essential in parts of the country, and not just for hunting. Self-protection and home protection are important drivers of gun ownership, and not just in the South, or the Mountain West. Inner city populations have a need for protection as well.
If we would simply enforce our existing gun laws much of the increased screening that society wants would be achieved. It is reasonable to have universal background checks, including at gun shows and private sales. I would support checking mental health via examination of medical records. It is not a HIPPAA violation for records to be released to relevant medical and governmental organizations.. We should also require training and safe storage; half of school shooters got their guns from unsecured locations in their family home. We require licensing of drivers, and cars are not intrinsically lethal. Guns are, and should require serious licensing of owners. I have no objection to very serious screening, and neither does most of America.
Limitation of gun types makes no sense. The term 'assault weapon' has literally no meaning, and neither does the term AR15. When the two are combined in political speeches and the media I immediately know the speaker is either ignorant or using the term for manipulative effect. I have heard too many community groups and liberal politicians use the term 'military style assault weapons'. This is a gross distortion. The term AR 15 encompasses a very broad range of weapons. The AR15 is a weapon 'base', to which may be added all manner of elements- sites, magazines, stocks. Two totally different weapons may both be AR15s. It is like saying you want to ban SUVs. There are many types, of different capacity and function.
All civilian rifles derive from military models. These were at one time muzzle loading smoothbores. By WW1 they were bolt action, 5 shot magazine models. By WW2 military weapons were semi-automatic and automatic rifles. Our nation bans automatic weapons for civilian use. AR15s for private use lack the full auto function of the military M16, so there is no similarity between military and civilian weaponry now. Saying otherwise is an expression of ignorance. Having shot several AR15s I can say they are light, accurate rifles that are terrific for hunting, target practice, or home defense.
Some are calling for the age for gun purchase to be raised to 21. This is a remarkable philosophical inconsistency. The voting age was lowered to 18 in the midst of the Vietnam War, in 1971. The rationale was that if 18 was old enough to fight and die for America it was old enough to vote for the politicians who send those men to war. Commentators are now saying that 18 year olds are too impulsive to buy a weapon. Well, if that's the case then how do they have the judgment to be turned into soldiers or vote? Even worse, if 18 year olds do not have the judgment to buy a weapon then how can 15 year olds possibly have the jdugment to get gender altering medical therapy without parental consent, or grade schoolers decide their gender?
I would support raising the voting age back to 21 (a political impossibility I suspect) and making 21 the age at which you can buy any gun. Speaking of age, I would be willing to raise the age of gun purchase to 21 in return for ending all school teaching on gender, gender fluidity, and the normalizing of homosexuality.
The panel calling for role models made a staggering omission in the name of accepting all family units. It did not mention fathers, the single most important role model for all boys. My father died at 13, and perforce I found role models among teachers, fathers of friends, and others whom I knew. There is no question this can occur, but it ought not to be the default position of society in order to validate bad behavior and foolish decisions. Fathers are the primary masculine role model for all children, and part of gun violence control could be a public service campaign to avoid single motherhood.
While overt schizophrenia and bipolar disease are not major contributors to gun violence, rage and hopelessness are. Once upton a time our police and medical professional could order evaluative and/or protective custody for individuals at risk. De Becker notes that virtually all shooters have extensive pre-incident indicators. They are surprisingly easy to profile, but police are prevented from prophylactic detention. This is one more 1960s court decision that, in the name of freedom, limited the ability of society to protect and order itself. As noted by SCOTUS, freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and personal freedom does not include the right to threaten violence, torture animals, or terrorize children and relatives.
Both parties stake out extreme positions on this issue, preventing doing anything of what Americans want. I propose a trade in the interests of student safety-
-resume protective and evaluative custody for a three day period, during which police may examine your personal writings and internet postings, including an evaluation of your browsing history
-universal background checks, including gun shows and private sales
-universal gun registration
-2 hours of mandatory gun use and safety instruction for all owners every year, linked to gun registration. All registered owners must have continuing gun safety education
-required safe storage for all gun owners. If the owner has not secure location for guns then he becomes liable for their misuse
-lock all school access except for one door, and have an armed guard at that door
-raise the age for gun purchase to 21
-end transgender 'education' and medical care for everyone under 18.
Everyone gets something in this trade, and no one gets what the crazies on both sides of the aisle want.
Once upon a time government operated by compromise. Until we can do that again there will be nothing of substance achieved. Half a loaf is better than none.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment