Another School Shooting: What--If Anything---Can We Do?

Here we go again. Another school shooting. That the 27th time so far this year. This time 19 students and two adults dead with just days to go before the end of the school year. Many, no doubt, looking forward to carefree summer vacation with trips to Big Bend National Park, one of the many beach on the Gulf Coast, or just staying home and playing with neighborhood friends and help out around the house.

But that's not to be. Not just for those murdered, but for all the students, their parents, their families, and their friends. That Tuesday will forever be seared in their individual and collective memories. It was the day...the moment they had their childhood innocence stolen from them.

That Tuesday, which should have been an ordinary school day like any other, the children of Robb Elementary School in the small town of Uvalde Texas joined an exclusive but growing club of victims of school violence. 

There's nothing special about Robb Elementary or Uvalde Texas. Perhaps it was its very ordinariness which stands out.  Uvalde has a population of just over 15,000. The town (it hardly qualifies to be called a "city") occupies just 7.6 square miles.  It's closer to Mexico, which is just 53 miles away, than to just about anywhere. The closest actual city is San Antonio, which is 80 miles away.

The largest demographic is Hispanic, which make up just over 78% of the population. Whites comprise 19% while Native Americans make up 11%. Blacks or other races barely show up on census record statistics. Voting records shows Uvalde has consistently voted for a Republican president since 1952. The only exception was 1964, when it voted for Democrat and fellow Texan, Lyndon Baines Johnson. 

It's claim to fame are a couple of Old West gunslingers, a few sports personalities, celebrities Dale Evans (wife of Roy Rogers) and Mathew McConaughey, Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad, and former Speaker of House and Vice President under FDR, John Nance Garner.  It's also, according to the magazine, Outdoor Life,  one of the best places in the world to hunt whitetail deer.  

Now it will be remembered alongside Sandy Hook (2012), Virginia Tech (2007), Stoneman Douglas High School (2018), Columbine High School (1999), and some ten other schools known for being the deadliest school shooting in the United States. But, it appears no place is truly safe, not even in locations not known for violence (and especially gun violence).

In 2002, Erfurt Germany, a former student targeted his former teachers among others and murdered 17 before committing suicide. In 1996, a 43 year old man in Dunblane Scotland killed 17 children and one adult, while wounding 15 others before killing himself.

Between 2008 and 2009, 37 students, teachers, and adults were killed in school related shootings (two in Finland, one in German, and one in Greece. In Kerch Crimea Ukraine, in 2018, 20 college students were murdered while 50 were injured. From 2004 and 2020, 15 individuals died in 20 attacks on schools in Mexico. In South America, between 2001 and 2013, six school attacks resulting in approximately 20 deaths.

 In most cases, the perpetrators used handguns. A few used homemade explosives, crossbows, knives, and hatchets. A handful used semi-automatic rifles (which typically get misidentified by the media as "assault rifles") or pump action shotguns. The assailants typically chose self inflicted death or "suicide by cop" rather than surrendering to law enforcement. Only a few were captured by the police.

Excluding incidents which involved former students or adults who had no connection to the school, most of the students involved in the shootings ranged in age from 12 to 16. The majority were male. They tended to be loners, non-physical, or were subject to constant bullying.  Psychologists reported that many were more immature than most of the same age group. They often acted out of emotion, tending to be more impulsive and aggressive.

In 1994, Congress passed the "Gun Free Schools Act" which called for greater school safety plans and adoption of a zero tolerance gun policy, which was generally expanded to include weapons of any sort including knives.

The act was part of the "Improving America's Schools Act", signed by President Bill Clinton, and required school districts to adopt a gun-free policy in exchange for federal funds. A similar law was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 called the "Gun Free Zones Act of 1990" as part of the "Crime Control Act of 1990". 

The purpose of both acts was to create a gun (and weapon) free area in and around schools in order to provide for a safer learning environment. This included hiring full or part-time security guard, prohibiting admission during school hours (except through a specially designated entrance), adding metal detectors, security cameras, and a mandatory one year suspensions of any student caught with a weapon on school property. In some cases, school districts also included mandatory home visits and/or counseling of the students in order to head off any potential issues.

Some school districts went further and included additional training for teachers which included methods to prevent forced entry into classrooms, extra locks on doors and windows, methods for contacting authorities, and even allowing some teachers or administrative personnel to covertly carry firearms (with proper training and appropriate licenses). The identity of these individuals was restricted to a few administrative personnel to ensure security.

Politically, the topic of classroom safety became the hot topic de jure, usually following some tragic incident, making gun control efforts more successful given the public's mood at the moment. Those on the Left typically call for total banning of certain types of firearms while increasing restrictions on the purchase of firearms along with limiting the sale and type of ammunition.  

Specifically, the Left wants to limit or (ideally) prohibit the sale of semi-automatic rifles (which, based on the design of the stock, are incorrectly labeled "assault" weapons). The availability of actual military grade weapons are already regulated.

The sale of specific types of ammunition such as those designed to penetrate body armor or metal (except to law enforcement and military personnel) which were restricted in 1995. Calibers in excess of .50 are in most cases also prohibited. "Dragons Breath" or "Hell Fire" incendiary shotgun shells (which shoot 200+ yards), hollowpoints, flechette darts, elephant slugs, "flash bang" shotgun shells, or anything containing depleted uranium, radioactive, or poisoned shells are illegal too in many states. 

Following the mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas in 2017 in which the alleged shooter, Steve Paddock, used a "bump stock" which in effect, converted a semi-automatic rifle into a de facto full automatic, were banned for general sale and reclassified as a "machine gun", which requires the appropriate licensing. The way the bump stock worked was by using the natural recoil of the weapon to eject, reload, and fire as long as the trigger remained suppressed.

After a series of court hearings, the Department of Justice was successful in getting "bump stocks" re-categorized and banned as of March 19, 2019. It should be noted that in 2017, following the Mandalay Bay shooting, 72% of voters agreed with the decision, of which 79% were Democrats and 62% were Republicans. In 2018, that number increased to 81% of registered voters. The shooting left 60 individuals were killed with another 867 wounded. No motive was publicly disclosed.

While the Left has been pretty unanimous in their call to prohibit or at least restrict many types of gun or ammo, the Right has been a little less unified. Many conservatives are generally in agreement that certain restrictions are necessary, such as prohibiting the sale of armor piercing ammo or availability of certain types of guns and accessories such as the "bump stocks", "sawed off" shotguns (under 18"), or 10+ magazines.  

However, others are of the opinion that the Second Amendment is not open to judicial or political interpretation. The Founding Fathers wrote it with the intention of providing a means for citizens to protect themselves and others from a government bent on overreach and ultimately tyranny.  Therefore, the citizenry should have every means of defense available to them bar none.

They interpret that to mean no registration of guns, ammo, or other weapons, which they see as a thinly disguised attempt at restricting ownership through both intimidation and as providing a handy readymade list of everyone who might resist.

Of course, the primary reason for owning guns is self-protection. Few can argue that crime isn't a persistent and growing problem, and the chief source for school children intent on causing harm. Security locks for most firearms are available for free from various law enforcement agencies or even some pro Second Amendment groups.

It's worth noting that some of the Left would like to see firearms either voluntarily or mandatorily surrendered to the government and destroyed. Their position is that if there are no guns, there will be no shootings. However, that would be equivalent to the position taken by some during Prohibition; if there's no booze, there will be no drinking.

Reality was differently. Liquor became illegal and criminals became rich. If gun ownership was illegal, criminals would still acquire them. Those without guns would simply become potential victims. As the expression goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

We need to accept the fact that we can't prevent violent crime, and that includes school shootings despite our best of intentions. All we can do is mitigate the likelihood of them happening. That means schools need to step up with additional preventative measures.

Metal detectors, security cameras, additional or reinforced locks are good. So are discreetly armed security guards (no one, especially kids, want to feel they are in prison instead of school). So is the barring entry points (save one primary entrance) during school hours. But these only protect those inside of the school, and to a limited measure.

They don't protect from homemade bombs, poisons (which have been used in several instances), or from physical assaults. They don't help on the playground or going to or from the school bus. Nothing will protect everyone from a determined individual, especially if they feel they have nothing to lose.

Therefore more attention needs to be given to students displaying any of the key warning signs like subtle destructive behavior such as "cutting" or are withdrawn (or students who act out through bullying, gang activity, or are persistently disruptive). They could be potential perpetrators of school violence, however, they are just as likely to be victim of someone they routinely pick on.

More parent/school contact is needed. Parents can't just assume that schools are "dealing with the problem". Typically schools aren't aware of the home situation, which are often a contributing factor.  That means everyone, from the bus driver to the principal, needs to make an personal investment in the wellbeing of the students.

Discipline too is often lacking, with the extremes of abuse (including over-prescribed medication in lieu of firm guidance) and total neglect on the other end, as well as physical, emotional, and psychological abuse must be avoided. Children, and especially teenagers, require a balance of support, encouragement, and a gradual loosing of guidance as they age. The "anything goes" attitude does more harm than good.   

Non-abusive ways of securing parent or regular adult involvement are critical. I think the return of art and music classes could help as a way for kids to express they're feelings. Not everyone plays sports. Encouraging academic success shouldn't be viewed as a "white thing" by minorities, who often ridicule "smart" kids who are minorities, resulting in frustration, depression, and acting up in order to fit in.

Households with guns need to ensure their weapons are secure (including periodic checking). They need to pay attention to the video games and sites their child have access to. Personally, I think video games which glorify violence (including killing zombies) are a key factor in youth violence in and out of school. They desensitize killing and accustom the individual to violence and gore. But in real life, once you pull the trigger, there's no "reset button".  No one comes back to life. Saying you're sorry counts for nothing.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

Do countries with stricter gun laws really have less crimeor homicides?

 

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

 

How gun control works in America, compared with 4 other richcompanies

27 school shootings have taken place so far this year

Gun Control: Getting History Right

 I recently saw a post on one of my social media feeds which, frankly, annoyed me. The post read "In the 20th Century, China, Russia, and Germany killed over 125,000,000 of their own citizens! All three were Socialist Governments. All three disarmed their citizens FIRST!  Now, considering the Liberal goals of Socialism and Disarmament in the U.S. remember this: "Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it".  The backdrop contained a grinning skull aside the Capitol building, which, I'm sure, was to reinforce the ominous nature of the message.

The obvious intent of the post was to inspire fear that the Left would strip everyone of their guns and usurp the 2nd Amendment, which has long been use by the Far Right to motivate firearm enthusiasts and those interested in self-protection for decades now, as well as push their fundraising drives.

I have no issue with the general nature of the message itself. I'm a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment, and I have no qualms when it comes to self-defense or protecting my family, friends, or possessions. If someone values my stuff more than their own life or want to inflict harm on someone I care about, they might want to reevaluate their life choices first.

However, as a amateur historian, I do have an issue with the part of the message concerning China, Russia and Germany. First, let's make it crystal clear, I'm no apologist for Communism, Marxism, Socialism, or Nazism. I am, nevertheless, a stickler for getting facts straight and not trying to bend or twist facts to fit a political message (especially one which tells me about not learning from history).

As I said, I am a published amateur historian (and political economist) with many decades of research under my belt. I regularly contribute to popular Q&A website, with emphasis on the two world wars where I've earned "Top Writer" status multiple times with tens of millions of views worldwide. I think that gives me some credibility. So, let's delve into this claim about China, Russia, and Germany being "Socialist" nations and disarming their populations.   

Between China and Russia, only China remains a Communist country. However, from 1917 until 1991, Russia was epicenter of global Communism. Revolution came to Tsarist Russia in February 1917 when a coalition of Left leaning factions forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate, leading to the formation of the Provincial Government led by Alexander Kerensky, a moderate Socialist and member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (aka the "SRs").

Kerensky helped form the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was the first democratic government body in Russian history. It's worth noting that the Assembly consisted of numerous political parties, of which the most radical, the Bolsheviks, were a bit player at this point. However, due to various internal and external events (including continued military defeats), Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks were able to successfully mount a putsch or coup (often called the "October Revolution"), which overthrew the Provincial Government and forever dissolved the democratic Assembly.

Previously, Kerensky had ordered all citizens (but not military) to turn in their guns out of fear of a counter revolution, but the possibility of a military led coup by pro-Monarchists and Far Right groups forced him to partially rescinded that order, returning them to the masses. However, those weapons mostly ended up in the hands of Lenin's Bolsheviks who lead an assault on the Winter Palace, thus overthrowing the Kerensky Government and ending Russia's experiment in democracy.  But it wasn't an end of the violence.

After Lenin's seizure of power, a bloody civil war (1917 -1923) ensued between the Bolsheviks and the pro-democracy and pro-Monarchists forces, as well as army units from Japan, Poland, China, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, England, France, and the U.S. In addition, there were the "Separatists" of the three Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. As a result, weapons were disseminated to anyone willing and able to fight. The result was the death of some 10 million people.  

Following Lenin's death in January 1924, the "Man of Steel", Joseph Stalin began a brutal reign which lasted until his death in 1953. When we think of Communism, what we envision is Stalinism, which was not the same as Lenin's Communism which itself was even further from Marx's and Engel's vision.

Lenin had introduced "NEP" (New Economic Program), a type of limited free enterprise. Stalin eliminated it, along with private ownership of land and replacing it with "Collectivization".  It was disastrous for the Russian People; creating the largest man-made famine up to that point and the deaths of at least seven million people in an attempt to jump start the modernization of the economy and bring it on par with the West.

Simultaneously, Stalin instituted systematic statewide terrorism to "encourage" compliance.  Starting in December 1924, one of its first acts was, naturally, seizing all weapons (most were from the world war, and subsequent civil war). Only those authorized---the military and state security apparatus (like the NKVD---predecessor to the KGB) were permitted weapons. Those caught were sentenced up five years in prison per offense and/or fined.

There were a few exceptions, such as licensed ownership of smooth bore hunting rifles. In 1935, similar restrictions were applied to knives.  Beginning in 1941, citizens were encouraged to turn over all weapons (without question) to the Soviet military to aid in their war against Nazi and Axis forces.

Following Stalin's death in 1953, Soviet authorities began slowly loosening restrictions on firearms, including smooth bore shotguns, although registration was still required. To discourage illegal ownership, prison sentences were lengthened to 14 years. However, voluntary surrender of unregistered weapons carried no fines or punishment.

Communist China, founded in 1949 under Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Zedong), was based on the Stalinist model. Like Soviet Russia, it consisted of a all powerful central government under the direction of the Politburo with an elected chairman, who serves as a virtual dictator.  The system itself was intended to be repressive from the start.

When it came to gun control in China, one has to remember that China had been a autocratic monarchy for centuries until 1912 when the Qing dynasty was overthrown during the Xinhai Revolution. Private ownership was highly restricted. After China became a Republic, albeit a highly corrupt one, interrupted by a period small civil wars led by petty warlords (1916 -1928). It also endured invasion by the Japanese, marking the start of World War II and included a semi-covert civil war with Communist forces led by Mao, which ended in 1949 with Mao's victory. All of which made gun acquisition easier.

Nevertheless, gun ownership has always been restricted regardless of who was in power. There were a few exceptions, such as gamekeepers and licensed hunters. During the various wars and social upheavals, guns did occasionally fall into the hands of the masses, however, due to the strict punishment, most were eventually turned into the government voluntarily.   

Again, there were exceptions, such as Hong Kong, which was under British rule from 1841 until 1997. The same applied to Macau, which fell under Portuguese rule. The Miao people are allowed to own smooth bore muskets, though gunpowder is strictly controlled. Today, China remains highly repressive when it comes to guns---even toy guns---with very few exceptions.

Do you remember "Which of these is not like the other?" children's game? Well, in this case, it would be Nazi Germany. First, despite the official name of the ruling party, the National Socialist German Workers Party, Germany under Hitler wasn't "socialist" per se. Hitler's definition of "socialism" was actually "community". Thus, "National Socialism" actually meant a society or community of Germans by and for Germans.

It's true that under Hitler, Germany implemented a wide range of "social" (not "socialist") programs similar to what Britain, France, the United States and other Western nations did such as unemployment benefits, healthcare, mandated vacations, work safety laws, etc. He also legalized unions, albeit under a state union called "DAF" which stood for German Workers Front. Nevertheless, pre-war German workers did at least as well as their Western counterparts.

Also, unlike Russia and China (and Communist countries ever since) private enterprises remained private and thrived. During the war years, those key to the war effort received preference in terms of resources, contracts, and so forth. The Nazi Government did not, however, eliminate capitalism or seize control of private corporations as happens under Communism or Socialism.

As an aside, actual Socialists, as well as Communists, anarchists, and Social Democrats, were typically sent to detention camps for "reeducation" to use the political euphemism of the time. I suspect they wouldn't have been real fond of libertarians either.

As a point of historical reference, there was a "Left Wing" faction within the National Socialist movement, nominally led by brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser and SA Chief, Ernest Rohm. They wanted the concept of "socialism" to be much more literal than Hitler intended despite repeated warnings. 

However, that came to a quick end late June and early July 1934 during a purge known as "The Night of the Long Knives" in which Hitler and leading Nazis eliminated all non-Right Wing hardliners and political enemies. An estimated 150-200 individuals were murdered and hundreds more arrested; some were tortured and others imprisoned. Thus, ending any Left leaning tendencies within the Nazi Party.

When it came to gun control, one has to remember that following the carnage of WWI, there emerged a global pacifist movement. Everyone was sick and tired of death, bloodshed, and war. As a result, the new Weimar Republic's government, led by the Left Wing Social Democrat Party, instituted a policy of restricted gun ownership (the Weimar Republic was a democratic republic formed in 1919 followed the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II at the end of WWI). It was intended to be a literal attempt to turn "swords into plowshares", and was generally popular with the public.

As with Russia and China, there were exceptions for hunters, gamekeepers, and others with a demonstrable need. However, for the average citizen, gun ownership was curtailed through restrictions, aided by the creation of a gun registry. However, the Weimar Government wasn't long for this world.

 In 1919, Germany was hit with a period of hyperinflation. Unemployment and inflation hit record levels. One person in three was unemployed. In December 1922, a loaf of bread was 160 Marks. By December 1923, it was 20,000,000,000 Marks!  In November 1923, one U.S. Dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 Marks. Some used what money they had to stoke fires to keep warm or cook...or as toilet paper. The Depression of 1929 hit Germany the hardest of all industrialized nations, making the situation dire.

Crime, alcoholism, and drug use was rampant. Germany was forced to pay huge reparations despite the loss of its industrial heart--the Ruhr, and most of its commercial shipping and fishing fleet (thanks to the Versailles Treaty). The country survived mainly on borrowed money and in-kind trade. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 as part of a coalition of conservative parties, Hitler repudiated the Versailles Treaty and its reparations, retook the Ruhr, and began a massive rebuilding of the economy. 

When it came to gun control, the Nazis actually removed restrictions with several exceptions. Those exceptions included Communists, Socialists, anarchists, non-citizens, and Jews. Criminals were also forbidden from possessing weapons as well as those of "questionable character", which included prostitutes, drug addicts or dealers, and alcoholics. Later, it applied to anyone deemed "unreliable" by the State.

As for the average German citizen, gun ownership was generally open, provided the guns were registered (preference went to those who were Nazi Party members). The notion that the Nazis took guns away from all its citizens is not entirely accurate (neither is the notion that the Nazis were "socialist" or "Left Wing"). So, the next time you see someone post something like I mentioned earlier or bring it up in conversation, you'll know better. Want to know more? Check out the links below. 

 

Gun Control in the Soviet Union

Gun Control in China

How the Nazis Used Gun Control

The Nazi gun control argument

German Economy in the 1920s

The Shootings: What Can We Do?

Two shooting within hours of each other. The first, on August 8th, took place in El Paso Texas. An individual murdered 22 seemingly random individuals and wounded 24 other (the police identified one shooter while many of the witnesses said there were as many four. The next day, another individual, this time in Dayton Ohio, killed ten people while wounding 37. The tragedy, as with most, is almost beyond words.

We've already heard stories about some of those who died, acts of bravery, sheer fear, anger, pain, and I'm sure we'll heard hear many more such stories over the weeks and months to come, especially how those who survived attempt to cope with the senseless acts of violence and begin the slow arduous road to at least some form of recovery, although their lives will never be "normal" again.

But the dual tragedies didn't end there. Almost immediately, there were other reports of similar acts of attempted violence. On the same day as the Dayton shooting, there were four other shootings. Two took place in Chicago. One involved a single death with seven being wounded while the second had seven wounded and no reported deaths. In Memphis Tennessee one person was killed and three were wounded.

On August 5th, in Suitland Maryland, there was five shootings, resulting in one death and four injuries. On the 6th, we had four wounded in Detroit and the following day, in St Louis, two people were killed and two others were wounded. Of course, I want to mention the mass shooting which occurred in Gilroy California, at a Garlic festival on July 28. Four were killed while 15 were injured.

Thus far, based on what law enforcement classifies as "mass shootings", there has been 248 incidents. There has been 246 deaths and 979 injured. Of these, two deaths occurred in a school and one at a place of worship. Sadly, August has just begun and we have four more months to the year left.

Granted, the majority of these "mass shootings" were gang and/or drug related. Nevertheless, within a matter of hours following the El Paso shooting, there was a carefully orchestrated effort to somehow blame the shootings on President Donald Trump, complete with scripted press releases (written, taped, and live interviews) and even paid commercials calling for the banning of guns, ammo, and so forth.

Even Hollywood got in on it by going not just after President Trump, but especially Trump supporters (an obviously attempt as isolation and intimidation). Some as gone as far as to encourage people to attack or even kill Trump supporters (a couple have actually called for Trump's assassination. Once upon a time that would earn you a visit from the Secret Service or FBI). Obviously the "managed media" does its best to reinforce this anti-Trump rhetoric as well.

The overwhelming majority of these individuals and lobbyist groups responsible for the ads all blame a so-called "climate" of "hate" and "anger" promoted by the President and/or his supporters; often cherry picking Tweets, comments at events, and so forth. Lastly, they claim that Trump caters to "White Supremacy" and promotes "White privilege".

As usual, they all call for an immediate ban on guns of all sorts, but particularly "assault" rifles, which are simple semi-automatic rifles with military looking stocks, along with various add-on features. There is also a new call for so-called "Red Flag" laws.

Red Flag laws allow an individual or member of law enforcement to petition the local court to issue an order to "temporarily" remove all firearms from an individual and/or prohibit their ability to purchase any guns on the basis that the person in question is a danger to himself or others. The order remains in effect until the individual is evaluated by authorities (including a psychologist) and determined to be otherwise. Failure to comply is considered a criminal offense subject to jail time and/or a hefty fine.

At present 17 states, mostly the West Coast and New England have some version of the Red Flag law currently in effect. Many of those who are demanding greater restrictions on gun purchases and ownership are calling for a national version of the Red Flag law. While the overwhelming majority is coming from the Left, many Republicans are also warming to the idea, especially as the 2020 election cycle approaches (imagine that).

Of course, the Right isn't quite ready to throw in the towel by a long shot. Many point out the need for gun ownership not just as a means to protect family, friends, or self, but as a "inalienable" right bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers; a means to defend ourselves from a corrupt government intent on enslaving its citizens. The Founding Fathers, who had just finished a bloody and costly revolution with Great Britain as well as watched several failed revolutions throughout Europe, felt so strongly about this that it was the second right bestowed on the citizens of this new nation just behind freedom of speech and expression.

They also like to point out how totalitarian regimes love to confiscate guns in the early stages of their authoritarian takeover. Specifically they like to point to Soviet Russia, Communist China and Cuba, Fascist Italy, and of course Nazi Germany (as an aside, some are wacky enough to claim that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are actually "Leftist" forms of government, or even types of Communism). In short, both sides demonize the other. So what are the facts and what is the usual partisan rhetoric aka "propaganda"?

At least two and possibly as many as four of the recent events (including an attack by a machete and gun toting individual just recently) were either mass murders or attempts at mass murder. Is this Trump's fault or that of his supporters? No. Yes, Trump has made some comments and Tweets that makes one cringe, but none of them encourage violence or racism in any way (and by the way, while there are likely bonafide racist on the Right, there are also bonafide racist on the Left too).

In fact, those on the Right have been remarkably civil (and certainly non-violent) overall when compared to Antifa which looks more like Hitler's Brownshirts than anything on the Right. We also have college student demanding that individuals be denied the opportunity to speak (even after being invited to do so by the university), and have even stormed the stage, pushing the speaker either aside or off the stage! Where has that occurred on at conservative schools? The answer is nowhere.

The claim that these attacks are Trump's fault is simply without merit. Under President Obama there were 32 officially declared mass shootings, but no one seemed to think Obama was somehow responsible. Perhaps the most infamous of which was the Mass shooting at the Mandalay Casino in Las Vegas which resulted in 59 deaths and 851 injuries, including 422 by gunfire. We could consider San Bernardino in 2015 for instance. 14 people were murdered and 21 injured. How about Orlando Florida in 2016? 49 died while 53 were wounded or injured. Want more?

In Binghamton New York, 13 were killed and four were wounded. In 2010, eight were killed in Manchester Connecticut and two were wounded. In 2012, a total of 67 were killed and 68 were wounded. In 2016, 71 were murdered while 83 were wounded (Orlando Florida saw the worse of it). We can't forget the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in 2017. That's where an individual targeted Republican members of Congress during a practice game. Fortunately, only six were wounded (two critically), the only death was the shooter. I could easily go on, but I think you get the point.

Was any of these the result of President Obama or his followers? Was the result of the atmosphere he created through his comments? I certainly recall a lot of hostility during his two terms. Was this it then the result of "black supremacy" or "black privilege"? In my opinion, no to all of the aforementioned. It was the result of some very twisted minds just as it is now. They were able to take advantage of our existing freedoms such as gun ownership or the ability to freely by fertilizer or other supplies which could be used to make explosives or rent trucks capable of delivering their deadly cargo.

By the way, regarding claims of "racism", let's remember that blacks, not whites, Asians, or Hispanics, are the ones responsible--- by far--- the killing of fellow blacks; about 92% according to the FBI. In fact, blacks as whole are actually responsible for violent crimes against other races than any other group (likely the result of economics and social pressure such as gang influence). Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum, Asians have the lowest crime rate of any race. Perhaps, again, the result of economics and social norms, but also due to culture which places a high value of conformity.

Now, let's take that same fact and reinterpret it another way, we find that those of a particular race are much more likely to murdered by someone of the same race simply due to association (ie: about 84% of whites in 2016 were murdered other whites, etc). See how that changes our perception of the same information? Yes, in the case of mass shootings, many of the perpetrator(s) are usually white or Hispanic. Why? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with their race. It could the result of specific social norms which affect one group over another just like overwhelmingly mass murderers are male rather than female.

The fact is that evil will always find away. In the UK, which has extremely restrictive laws pertaining to gun ownership, extremist Muslims use machetes and butcher knives to commit their mass murders. Should we outlaws those? What about clubs, bats, slingshots, bows and arrows? Perhaps we could restrict boards, pipes, sticks, and maybe rocks while we're at it. Bad guys don't care about your laws. They will find a way to get their hands on one. Then, faced with an unarmed public, it will be like a pack of hungry wolves on sheep backed against a cliff.

Some of these mass murderers were/are mentally ill. Better access to mental care could have prevented a few killings. More aggressive enforcement of existing laws pertaining to gun purchases would have also cut down on the number of incidents. I agree that some form of "Red Flag" law would have also helped. I would also like to see mandatory gun safety training with periodic updates. As for restricting certain types of weapons based simply on how they look, that's ridiculous. Any gun, regardless of what it looks like or its caliber can kill in the wrong hands.

Lastly, we have to look at the media and current climate of hate and anger, not caused by President Trump per se, but the result of the virulent partisanship in Washington where rarely a civil word is exchanged between parties is ever hear. Part of this is the result of the Left not being able to get over the fact that Hillary Clinton failed to get her coronation. That seems to be what stunned the Left and the win by an outsider like Trump is what pushed them over the edge and into a never-ending vendetta.

The media, which, along with the government, is controlled by the ruling Oligarchy (90+% of all media, including entertainment, videos, radio, newspapers, magazines, TV, and internet content are controlled by just six corporations), has played a large part in contributing to the atmosphere is hatred. When was the last time you watched the "news" (perhaps excluding Fox) in which something was directly or indirectly derogatory toward Trump or his supporters? Even our nightly lineup of TV shows often include some sort of negative comment about Trump. Gone are the days when we got non-partisan reporting. We miss you Art, Walt, Chet, David, Howard, John, Frank, and Harry.

So, what can we do? The first thing, perhaps the most important thing, is to at least agree to disagree; to accept our differences along with our commonality. We won't agree on everything, or even most things as a country. Heck, we don't even do that within a family unit most times. We don't always get our way either. But we can respect each other's opinion and right to voice them, whether we agree or not. We each have that right.

We also need to consign the notion of race hatred, supremacy, privilege, or whatever, regardless of where it comes, to the proverbial "dustbin of history" where it needs to be. That means removing quotas, restrictions (including association), and so forth. It also means treating and respecting each person for who they are individually, not the color of their skin or any other manufactured differences.

We need to step up and enforce existing laws pertaining to background checks. Too often that's the first real break in the chain of responsibility. We do need to enact some form of "Red Flag" law, as well as impose mandatory gun safety training with periodic updates. We must do more---much more---to identify and treat those with mental disorders. Those are the most likely to be our serial killers and mass murderers.

Trying to remove certain guns based on their appearance makes absolutely no sense. Outlawing guns in general make zero sense. As I said, evil will always find a way around any law or restriction. Criminals are, in general, cowards. They tend to hide behind violence and prey on the weak. Someone who is properly trained to use a gun is much less likely not to become a victim than someone who is unarmed. We need to remember that in going forward.

Finally, we need to recognize that the ruling Oligarchy is all about control, be it assets, resources, or us. To do that, they will wage wars using us as their pawns. They will buy and toss politicians like yesterday's fruit. They literally own both parties and the government's bureaucratic infrastructure. Their interests are well protected through their well paid lobbyists and palms are always greased. But to completely control us, they must divide us, and they try in as many ways as possible.

They formulate hatred, division, envy, jealousy, and most of all, anger until we beg for their intervention. As long as we're fighting each other, we're ignoring them and that's the way they want it. We must fully understand this and approach it with eyes wide open. We must accept our few differences while embracing our much larger commonalities. Once we stop playing their games, then we can focus on what really matter to us. Then, and only then, can we truly become a "United" States of America.

Finally, as a side note, I intentionally did not mention the names of any of the mass shooters, past or present. I also chose not to use any of their pictures or descriptions. I decided that I would not give any of these individuals free publicity on this site.


37 Years of Mass Shooting in the US in One Chart

Red Flag Laws

Race and Crime in the United States

Why We never Talk About Black on Black Crime: An Answer to White America's Most Pressing Question

The Las Vegas Massacre: A New Argument for Gun Control?

Well, it didn't take long for the anti-gun group start baying at the moon following the recent gun attack at a outside concert, the Route 91 Harvest Festival, in Las Vegas. Before we get into that, let's recap what we know thus far. The shooter, a 64 year old real estate investor and high stakes gambler by the name of Stephan Paddock opened fire from two adjoining rooms that he rented at the Mandalay Bay Casino and Hotel a few days before the attack. The lethal episode played out over approximately horrific ten minutes, with Paddock using two semi automatic rifles which had been converted using a simple-to-use "bump stock" conversion kit, which can be bought almost anywhere guns and/or gun supplies are sold. In addition, the shooter had set up several surveillance cameras and a monitor in order to watch for anyone approaching his rooms. When it was over, some 59 individuals were dead and 527 were wounded, making this the deadliest mass shooting since Wounded Knee in December of 1890.

Paddock had been staying at the hotel for several days prior, while the three day long concert, which covered a 15 acre concrete lot, took place almost directly across from his rooms. During that time, Paddock lugged some ten suitcases full of guns into each room, along the hundreds of rounds of ammo and two shooter platforms. Despite this, no one associated with the hotel noticed anything suspicious: not the cleaning crew who came in to changes sheets or tidy up the room. Not room service which bought up meals. Not other guests. No one apparently saw anything out of the ordinary.

It appears that just moments before the shooting started, Paddock knocked out a window in each room (presumably using a hammer), and from a nearly perfect advantage point, positioned himself on the shooter platform set up in each room and opened fire on the unsuspecting crowd below which was enjoying the last set of the event. In video recordings, you can clearly hear the rattling of the converted rifles with several quick bursts in rapid succession. As people began to be hit, the crowd, which seemed momentarily dumbfounded, realized what was happening and began to disperse. Ironically, while most of the spectators simply dropped their chairs, coolers, blankets and whatever else they brought and ran while others either just stood there and others walked away as bullets sprayed all around them.

Many in the crowd immediately called 911 to report an active shooter (and in several cases, reports of a second shooter came in): some even providing details such as floor location. These individuals maintain that there was shots coming from the second window and they could see two sets of muzzle flashes; they also claim that there was a distinct difference in sound between the guns. One had a duller sound while the other was higher pitched as if it was a different caliber. When the police arrived, their primary attention was moving spectators to safety as quickly as possible (as hard as it is to believe, many were standing completely upright and casually walking away while a few stopped to watch). Some individuals came forward to report that just prior to the concert starting, a female, accompanied by a male, confronted several of the attendees and told them that they were going to die that night. Both individuals were escorted away by security and released.

Nevertheless, officers made their way as cautiously as possible to the 32nd floor. When they reached Paddock's room, they used a standard ram to force entry. However, when they were able to finally burst in, they found Paddock already dead on the floor; the result of an apparent suicide, with a pistol laying just above the right side of his head. A canvas of the room revealed 18 guns, ample ammunition, and two shooter platforms. In addition, they found where Paddock had set up surveillance cameras inside and outside of his rooms, along with monitor so that he could monitor the entire situation. At Paddock's home, which he shared with his live-in girlfriend, authorities found additional firearms---approximately 23---plus explosives. As for his girlfriend, Marilou Danley, she had taken a flight back home to the Philippines. Paddock had also wire transferred over $100,000.00 to her just days before and paid cash (just over $14,000) for a new car for her.

Now, as if this wasn't bad enough, what has happened since is even more intriguing. The terrorist group ISIS, posted on their website that they were responsible for the attack. They added that Paddock had been converted to their brand of extremist Islam. However, Paddock's family and friends refuted that. They said that aside from gambling, Paddock was a quiet unassuming individual with no vices. He wasn't much of a drinker and didn't do drugs. They added that he was unpolitical and didn't even own or like guns. In addition, he didn't have the interest or technical wherewithal to do any type of gun conversation, set up surveillance equipment or knew how to make bombs. Finally, according to family and friends, this type of behavior was completely out of character of the person they knew, and added that he was basically a "boring guy" with a knack for numbers.

In response to their denial of any political leanings, ISIS took the rare step of reposting their claim on their website and added that Paddock had been to the Middle East several times over the last years, where his indoctrination and training was completed (there is some indication that Paddock and possibly his girlfriend took a cruise a year ago which included a port of call in the region). Meanwhile, Paddock's girlfriend has returned to the US for questioning. As an aside, the Philippines have a large, mostly rural, Muslim population are currently engaged in a guerilla war with the government in addition to a long standing Maoist insurgency. Of late, ISIS has become involved in the conflict. I suspect that police, FBI, and ATF officials are going to be very interested in her responses, especially with respect to any changes in his personality, his recent purchases and trips, new acquaintances, unaccounted for absences, and any large money transfers. After all, for someone who didn't like guns, he managed to acquire quite a collection, not to mention rounds of ammo. Plus, one would expect that there some basic arms training as well.

However, at this point, authorities haven't been able to identify any motivation for the shooting, or account for Paddock's ability to haul all these weapons, ammo to his rooms, in ten suitcases, all the way up the 32nd floor (no easy task given the weight) and avoid detection for days, as well as being able to set up surveillance cameras and a monitor. Heck, I can't even seem to take the soap without housekeeping knowing. I suppose that over the next days and perhaps even weeks or months, new information will become available. Of course, given the spin that the corporate controlled media puts on news coverage, we need to take what they spin...err...report with a generous helping of salt.

Meanwhile, as I alluded to at the beginning, gun control advocates haven't missed a beat in pointing out how we need greater gun control, up to and including prohibiting gun ownership (or requiring guns be stored at the police department and checked in and out like you would do books at a library. In addition, there are demands to require that all gun purchases or acquisitions (such as inheritances or bought at yard sales, gun shows or flea markets) regardless of being new or used. Perhaps not unexpectedly, these same individuals are also calling for prohibiting "bumper stocks" and all other gun modification devices, along with kits to build "silencers" or mufflers, along with restricting magazine capacities as well as certain types of ammo. From their perspective, taking away guns are the only way to prevent gun violence. The police have, for years, offered special events to either turn in guns in exchange for coupons or some other prize, as well as occasionally buying the guns back. After the guns are surrendered, they are checked to see if they're stolen or used in a crime, they are destroyed. Of course, common sense will tell you that the bad guys aren't likely to be standing in line to sell back their guns. The end result will be unarmed and mostly defenseless citizens facing off against armed thugs. Sorry, that's not the type of situation I want to be in, nor for any of my family or friends.

Now, while I'm a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment, which was intended to protect us from the government in the event it become tyrannical, corrupt and/or fails to adhere to the Will of the People (you know, kinda like nowadays). The 2nd Amendment was meant to be our "stay free" card and legal means to remove a corrupt government by force if necessary in the event it tries to ignore or usurp the Constitution or Bill of Rights (again, ditto). Meanwhile, in addition to preserving our nation and self-defense, many people use guns for hunting or target practicing, which is a good thing I think.

However, I do see a possible problem with conversion kits which turn semi-automatics (which are completely legal) to essentially the equivalent to machine guns (which are legal, but very restricted). I mean, do you really need a "machine gun" to shoot rabbits or quail? Ok, perhaps a bad example. But seriously, is that what you need to hunt deer or elk? Maybe you just want it to target practice or simply to have. It might make for a great weapon for home defense, but I'll take a pump shotgun any day. There's nothing like the sound of that slide to change a person's mind. What about "silencers" or mufflers? Is there a reason you don't want the other squirrels not to hear? Maybe it's to help protect you from the gun's noise, but you can buy ear plugs for that. Maybe you fantasize about being an secret agent or double naught assassin cum international person-of-mystery (hey, I'm not judging). Frankly though, I don't know what you'd want a "silencer" or muffler for. Maybe some of you can let me know.

In addition, some of the individuals who are pushing for revised gun control laws are arguing for a cap on the number of guns and amount of ammunition individuals should be able to own, including registering the type and quantity of ammo purchased similar to how guns are bought and registered. Paddock reportedly purchased "thousands" of rounds of ammunition, mostly .308 and .223 calibers, going back to 1982, in addition to the small arsenal he had with him at the hotel and at home. While reports differ, most seem to indicate that Paddock owned between 47 and 53 guns. He brought 23 weapons with him to the hotel. In addition, he had purchased 33 guns over the last 12 months. So, obviously this begs the question---should there be a limit on the number of guns and ammo that an ordinary citizen can own? Or perhaps instead, should there be a cap as to the type of guns or ammunition someone can own? What do you think?

So, again America struggles to understand what drove an otherwise average older rich white guy to want to commit mass murder. Perhaps we'll have a clearer idea as to what motivated Paddock in the days and weeks to come, but it's just as likely that we'll never really know and may be left with suppositions and theories from so-called "experts" (his girlfriend, Marilou Danley, has told authorities that over the past few months, he seemed like he was mentally and physically "deteriorating"). Certainly, despite the tragedies and losses of life, there were many examples of courage too from police officers and ordinary people who were either attending the concert like everyone else or just simply nearby and decided to act. For now though, we just have to become more vigilant of our surroundings, while remembering to scope out possible exit routes wherever we will be spending any length of time, be it a movie, restaurant, a mall, or public event.


How the police zeroed in on the Las Vegas gunman



Who Was Stephen Paddock? The Mystery Of A nondescript 'Numbers Guy'



What guns were used in the Las Vegas shooting?

Gun Control

Obama must be a heck of a chess player. At the moment, I would say his strategy seems superb. Coming off the victory over "out-of-touch-rich-White-guy", that is, the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney (I say that that because that was the tag the Democrats successfully hung on Romney), Obama and his team hit the GOP hard; right in its conservative gut---guns and illegal immigration.
Taking advantage of recent tragedies involving mostly the ordinary street variety types of guns, Obama formed a "task force" headed by Vice President Joe Biden to "study" the issue of gun violence and make recommendations to get the guns...err...situation under control. After making up their minds, they then interviewed the 2nd Amendment groups, which they termed as the "pro-gun lobby" to hear the other side's point of view (never let facts in the way of a good political opportunity).

All in all, some good points have come forward from the Obama team such as reducing clip capacities from 30 shells to a maximum of 10. Seems reasonable. There's really no call for 30 shot clips in hunting, and perhaps aside for target shooting, it's not all that practical. However, they are wanting to ban so-called "assault guns" (though most of the recent incidents were ordinary hunting caliber albeit in modified stocks just for appearance sake). They are wanting to prevent or at least greatly curtail private sales between individuals and through gun shows by requiring additional background checks (including psychological analysis. I wonder if criminals will have to do this to? Sure would have been helpful for programs like AG Eric Holden's botched "Fast and Furious" gun sale to drug lords which have resulted in several murders of US agents. Come to think of it, perhaps Holden needs to take a psychological test).

Of course, many on the Right are having hissy fits and claiming that "Obama is coming after your guns" and is planning of destroying the Constitution, starting with the 2nd Amendment. I see literally dozens of emails every day detailing some nefarious plot attributed to the "Socialist Left". Frankly, it makes true Conservatives look, well, stupid. Neither Obama or some ultra secret Leftwing black shirted jackboots are "coming for your guns". It ain't happening. Not because they wouldn't love to do it. I'm sure some on the Left have wet dreams about seizing every gun in America, but like Prohibition, it won't work.

First of all, there would be an all out revolution and civil war with tens if not hundreds of thousands dead. The political and perhaps social structure of this country would implode. Secondly, guns are easily made...at home...in your garage or basement. At least, certain types of guns are. The same goes with ammunition. Besides, various types of homemade munitions can be made many of the same material and parts. Third, guns can be disassembled and concealed just about anywhere. Forth, in this global economy, guns, ammo, parts, and supplies can easily be smuggled into this country. Think about it. We have over 11 million illegal aliens in this country and tons of illegal drugs crossing the borders weekly. Do you think smuggling guns would be all that difficult? Lastly, as say expression goes, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Yeah, kinda trite I know, but accurate. The bad guys will continue to have guns. More and better than the cops. Only law abiding citizens will be trapped in the middle...unarmed and vulnerable. Snot nosed John Dillinger wannabes on one side and Johnny "Come Lately" Law on the other.

There's something to be said about reducing clip capacity, and certainly there's no need for the average gun owner to have amour piercing bullets. For that matter, do hunters, sportsmen and women really need body amour? Are elks and moose starting to shoot back? The next thing you know, ducks will be dropping napalm (well, I guess they do if you think about it). As for so-called "assault guns", most are really ordinary semi-automatic hunting caliber weapons in fancy stocks to give that "Rambo" look.

As for restricting ownership, that's going to be next to impossible to enforce. As it is, felons aren't supposed to have guns. Do you think any have any trouble getting them? Do you think they're going to put them back? Gangs seem to have no problem either. Guns have always been swapped and sold privately and will always be...with or without regulation. Yes, people who are or have been under psychological treatment should not have guns. That's common sense. Not just criminals, but drug addicts, alcoholics, child or spousal abusers shouldn't have access to guns either (but that doesn't eliminate their access to weapons of some sort). But what about people who are slightly but not clinically paranoid? What about people with hot tempers? The same with people taking certain forms of medication.

The only way that's going to happen is if this very personal and private information is entered into some type of public or quasi-public (law enforcement) data base, and if that should happen, you now have a privacy issue (not to mention a breach of the doctor-patient confidentiality). Of course, that opens the door to what other medical or personal issues could find their way into a public domain. Perhaps an individual could sign a waiver to release the information, but what happens when they become well? How is that information corrected or expunged? And then there's the fact that some gun (and other forms) of violence are committed by people who show no outward signs or have any obvious history at all.

As for putting guns in schools, the cold hard fact is that potential violence can happen anywhere and seems to be happening more and more all the time. So, do you arm the teachers? Probably not. Most would shoot themselves or lock the gun in drawer. How about malls? Theaters? Stores? Apartment complexes? Nightclubs? Certainly, competent security could be placed in all those places...at a cost, which begs the question as to who ultimately picks up the tab? But, do we really want to live in country reminiscent of the Wild West or Europe or the Middle East? If guns and the ability for self defense are removed, it will become more not less dangerous.

We need to re-evaluate violence and how its treated in this country. That means examining the electronic games our children (and adults) play. There's no reset button on a tombstone. It means making Hollywood accountable for the types of movies they put out. It means examining and reforming our criminal justice system from a focus on punishment to rehabilitation for non-violent crimes; separating non-violent offenders from violent offenders; to immediate death sentences for certain violent crimes; to decriminalizing certain drugs. It means re-examining how we deal with certain social issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, not to mention spousal and child abuse. It means a shift in our socio-economic system to provide more opportunities. It also means reintroducing a standard of norms...morals if you will...back into society. None of this is either quick or cheap. The costs are high, but so is the loss of a loved one.

Tragedy in Newtown

Much has been said and written about the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Much more is yet to be written and said before we collectively put this horror behind us. Since the Columbine murders, there has been some 43 similar incidents, though a better word than "incident", which sounds almost clinical can surely be found. Only a few weeks ago, on December 14, we had another individual walk through a parking lot at the Clackamas Town Center in Portland Oregon, crowded with holiday shoppers, wearing cameo, body armor, a hockey mask, and armed with pistols, and a rifle (the type really does matter) essentially unnoticed. Somehow he walks the length of a crowded store and into the food court before he unleashes his deadly holiday greeting. Did no one stop to notice this guy? Did anyone think, "gee, that looks out of character"? Did no one think to act? Before that, we had some guy, armed to the teeth, simply walk into a movie multiplex in Aurora, Colorado and open fire in July. We had the shooting at the Sikh Temple, in Oak Creek, Wisconsin in August. There was the mass shooting at the Cafe Racer in Seattle, Washington in May. All this year alone. Today, December 15, some guy walked into a hospital in Birmingham Alabama and kills three before the police finally kill him.

Countless similar scenarios have previously played out; all with the same bloody result and the same befuddled question, "how could this have happened"? People talk about "being prepared" and how could this couldn't happen in their "quiet communities". I'm sorry to break this to you, but there is no "being prepared" or "quite communities". You can never be fully prepared for insanity when it strikes. Just ask the Israelis. There are no more "quite communities". Look at Southeast Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, and damn near any place in the Middle East. Sure, you can add cameras, extra lighting, traffic barriers, and all the mall cops you want. But you can't stop a determined individual intent on causing mayhem. Ask the Secret Service. They have state of art protection; outstanding men and women who are well trained; and a nearly unlimited budget. But the big "secret" they do their best in keep is that they cannot stop someone willing to die from delivering their deadly message. Agencies like the Secret Service and FBI can only hope that their presence somehow discourages the less determined or, if they're lucky, stop the tragedy before it occurs through surveillance, intelligence gathering, and luck. If this is the reality at the national and international level, what hope is there for under budgeted police departments and rent-a-cop security guards working for minimum wage to supplementing their retirement income?

You're going to hear from individuals calling to "outlaw" guns of a particular type or caliber. Only then will you and I be safe they'll claim. Really? Are the bad guys and lunatics going to hand in their guns or will we be merely newly fleeced lambs be readied for the slaughter? I can understand the need to restrict or ban certain types of ammo like incendiary or armor piercing. Not really much call for that since I've not heard of deers or elk wearing body armor or bears with fire retardant fur. And what's with the body armor anyway? Are ducks now flying in Stuka formations and diving bombing unsuspecting hunters? Are there 50 cals now mounted on the backs of moose with squirrels acting as the triggermen? Certainly common sense needs to come into play here. I'm sure our Founding Father's would have long before drawn the line at owning grenade launchers and bazookas. The intent in the 2nd Amendment was to provide a means for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government (actually, they should have given more thought to limiting the power of taxation).

The simple fact here is that removing guns would have not changed anything. Someone like this would have found a way. In Israel, which knows more about terrorism than I pray we will ever need to know, allows teachers and other trained individuals to be armed. They have people on beaches, public areas, and other areas who are armed. It may not stop a tragedy from occurring, but it certainly deters all but the most determined, and it goes a long way to limiting its consequences. Perhaps there may have been more lives saved in Newtown. And like it or not, we are now "Israel" ever since 9/11 and the cowardly attacks by Muslim terrorists. We must accept the fact that America isn't "Mayberry" anymore. Wally and "the Beaver" have long moved away. This is a much more violent and unpredictable world.

What can we do? Actually, a lot. First, we don't all need to run out and buy guns and/or get carry and conceal permits. If you're going to, think about it long and hard first. Intellectually and emotionally understand why you're doing it. Think it out to its logical conclusion. Secondly, consider possibly some form of martial training. Not the fluffy formal kind, but street practical self protection. This can be simple training tips provided by your local police department (including uses of mace or tasers) to all out Krav Maga, Keysi, Aikido, Jujitsu, or simple boxing. But the most important thing to do is simply be aware of your surroundings. Know where the exits are, be it a store, flea market or restaurant.

When you're walking down the street, notice who is standing where. Be aware of who is behind you. Pay attention to who's around you and what they're doing. Get your nose out of that game or text message! React and alert others! Not only do we need to watch our surroundings, we need to watch out for each other. It's better to call security or the police and it be a false alarm than ignore it and get carried out in a body bag. Teach your children what to do in an emergency. Rehearse it until it becomes second nature. Take the usual precautions when it comes to lighting, locked doors, etc.

As a society, we need to reexamine how we treat mental illness. We need to take another look at the violence our children have become desensitized to through their video games. We need to look at the graphic nature of some of our movie and ask ourselves how much of that it really necessary. We need to have a public discussion about how we deal with violent criminals and how we mix non-violent offenders and violent offenders in the same prison population. Should more emphasis be placed in rehabilitation for non-violent offenders? Should swifter conclusions be brought to bear for those on death row with less concern about how they "feel" about their pending deaths?

The Founding Father's certainly supported a death penalty, and used it. Their understanding of "cruel and unusual" meant torture. Should we eliminate air conditioning, state of the art gyms, cable, video games, and health care from prison? Should inmates be required to grow their own food or do free public work? Should their families be required to help with their upkeep like in other countries? How should we deal with sex offenders? Should certain minor crimes be dropped off the books like prostitution, marijuana, or gambling? What about overcrowding? What about the gangs running the prisons? And, who pays for all this?

Don't let any of this craziness make you become paranoid. The purpose of terrorism, be it the lone shooter who thinks he's the "Joker" or religious extremist kook, the goal is to make you afraid enough to change your behavior. It's a form of control. Don't let them control you. Finally, remember to let your friends and loved one know how much you care. Don't wait for that, "if only" moment.