The Charleston Tragedy And Media Manipulation

This was not something that I had planned to write about, being that I didn’t really see a need. We have yet another case of innocent people falling victim to America’s crazed gun culture. This crime perpetrated by an extremely racist young man attempting (apparently) to start a race war by opening fire in America’s oldest and most influential Black church.

A crime made all the more disturbing by the fact that the young man had been welcomed into the congregation by its members. Also notable is that next of kin of the victims (as well as survivors) seem to be forgiving of the assailant. That is very admirable (we could all take a page from that book).

But one thing that does bug me (and many others) is how the media is covering this. Well, right wing media anyway. Though this appears to be (and was seemingly confirmed to be by the assailant himself) a hate crime, many sources are spinning it as an attack on faith.

People have taken notice of this trend of the Faux news organizations (and certain politicians) of the right, but many seem in wonder as to why. I suppose that one reason may be that they do not want to have themselves aligned with what equates to a right wing racially driven terrorist.
Like the Las Vegas  rampage couple, accurate reporting of this story may make people question what would influence such grand delusion. Could it be, their chosen news media sources?

But I will not point the finger to the right. Though it may SEEM an obvious connection, I don’t know what his preferences were.  For all I know he may have just grow up in an extremely racially biased household.

However, its hard (at least for me) to miss a bit of a parallel to the coverage of another mass shotting not to long ago. This one involving Craig Hicks, the so called “Atheist Terrorist” . Though that just seems to be a parking dispute that escalated WAY  further then it should have, the media ran with the 2 scary labels that Americans don’t understand (Atheist and Muslim).
This time around, they are not directly reporting this as a secular originated crime, likely because no such claim can be backed up (thus making it a false claim). But the methodology of spinning the story into an “attack on faith” does basically the same thing. Even if these sources are not explicitly saying that Dylan Roof was a “Racist Atheist Terrorist”, the spin of the story inadvertently activates the same distrust of Atheists and Secularism in the minds of the ignorant. The kind of ignorance that thrives on social media memes such as “this is what you get when you take god out of schools!”.

It is another matter if Dylan turns out to be a subscriber of secular beliefs. But if not (and in the meantime), those of us on the side of secularism (or just on the side of honest media reporting!) should be fighting this right wing spin.

Idaho Women Shoot By Toddler Son (With Her Own Gun)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/idaho-woman-shot-dead-by-2-year-old-son-in-walmart-was-a-nuclear-research-scientist/

Yet another unfortunate story involving a gun accident and a minor out of the US. Very unfortunate.

When out on a shopping trip to a Walmart with her children as well as nieces and nephews (using up gift cards from Christmas), the mother Veronica apparently left her purse (containing a loaded gun) unattended. When the mother was not paying attention, her 2 year old son started going though the purse and found the gun. And it seems that he accidentally shot his mother.

Again, a very unfortunate accident. That 2 year old kid, a well as all those who were present that day, are going to have a lot to get over in the next few years. All because of yet ANOTHER irresponsible gun owner.

I don’t really care that the family (parents anyway) are gun enthusiasts. Its Idaho (big surprise!). And it does not matter that they are avid believers in concealed carry laws either. All that I expect of those that insist on those beliefs, is to practice them safely.

In the article, her husband was annoyed that this case has become a talking point for both sides of the gun control debate. Fair enough.

But he also takes offence to the notion being put fourth by many (including myself) claiming that his wife acted irresponsibly, and that part of the reason for her death.
I know your grieving, and its not easy to hear criticism against the dead (especially those close to you). But in this case, I see it as justified.

A purse containing a gun should NEVER EVER be left unattended for ANY length of time, let alone in the presence of a curious and mischievous 2 year old.
Shes not just at least partially responsible for for own death, but also for all the future anguish of her son.

I wish the family well.

And for everyone else, let this be not a talking point of gun control, but a lesson to learn from.

Forget Gun Control, Think Bullet Control

As most of us have heard by now, there was yet another instance of mass  gun violence to add to the ever growing list. This time at the Navy yard facility, in the US capital of Washington DC. The death toll this time, 12 or 13.

President Obama has wasted no time in using this as an opportunity to once again, call for more through background checks for purchasers of firearms. And though you will once again hear the same excuses coming from the “other” side of the room (“Now is not the time!”, “You are taking advantage of a terrible situation!”), I have to agree.

The 2ed amendment is a handy argument for many. But its a thoughtless (imagine that!) and foolish one. Because background check regulations  ALONE do not involve REMOVING weapons from their owners, nor do they in any way regulate the use of said weapons (beyond what is currently allowed, anyway). It is simply a safety check, one more way to try and keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Bullet Control?

There is one methodology that I do not think I have heard discussed anywhere, that is the idea of bullet control.

Like a gasoline powered vehicle is useless without gas, a gun is useless without bullets. With this in mind, you can turn the whole idea of gun control on its head. If people want to purchase guns, then lets drop the regulations that we throw up, forget about them. Allow the purchase of any and every gun, to be as easy as buying a banana at the supermarket.

But, have VERY strict guidelines and regulations regarding the availability of bullets and ammunition.

For me, this seems a good happy medium. Its still easy to get a gun, and collectors wont have to worry about getting caught up in a mess of paperwork, just for adding a new piece  to their collection. But at the same time, it also gives a mechanism for mitigation of possible damage newly purchased weapons can do. And (depending on the sources of ammunition anyway), this could also apply to illegal weapons.

One of the arguments against gun control, is that it does nothing about the weapons ALREADY in circulation on the street. Which is a valid argument. But controlling the bullet supply, DOES tackle this problem.

And the best thing about this regulation, is it does not favor the MINORITY but overexposed plague of mass gun violence INCIDENTS, over the whole of the problem of gun violence itself. Because it does not matter if the  weapon is in the hands of a gang member, a contemplating mass murderer or an angry and/or depressed person, they ALL have to jump though the same hoops.

Gun control has earned a bad name lately, and though that is partially on the part of the oppositions thoughtless reactions to even the idea of it, it is also because some parts of it, just do not make sense. And if we keep pursuing it from the same angles that we have been, were bound to get the same results that we have been all along.

Which is why I think we need to rethink, and rewrite, our entire argument.

Lets drop the “gun” out of the equation entirely. Bullet Control.

A new term for a newly revamped argument.

Police Fatally Shoot Unarmed Former Football Player Who May Have Been Seeking Help After A Car Crash

Police Fatally Shoot Unarmed Former Football Player Who May Have Been Seeking Help After A Car Crash

Officer Randall Kerrick, 27, of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) in North Carolina is facing charges of voluntary manslaughter after fatally shooting Jonathan Ferrell, 24, a former Florida A&M football player who had apparently been seeking help after surviving a major car crash early Saturday morning.

CMPD officials called the shooting “excessive.” “Our investigation has shown that Officer Kerrick did not have a lawful right to discharge his weapon during this encounter,” said CMPD Chief Rodney Monroe in a statement. “It’s with heavy hearts and significant regrets it’s come to this… Our hearts go out to the Ferrell family and many members of the CMPD family. This is never something easy.”

The Charlotte Observer reports that the car crash was so severe that Ferrell likely had to “pull himself out” of the wreckage. He then walked to the nearest house, about a half mile away, to seek assistance. But the local resident whose home Ferrell arrived at was frightened that he was attempting to burglarize her after not recognizing him.

The resident then made a 911 call and three officers arrived at the scene. According to police accounts, Ferrell, who is African-American, acted “aggressively” and charged towards the officers. Officer Thornell Little of the Hickory Grove division of the CMPD responded with an unsuccessful attempt to fire his Taser at Ferrell. Police say that when Ferrell continued to charge toward the police, 27-year-old officer Randall Kerrick discharged his weapon several times, eventually killing Ferrell.

Monroe said that he did not believe Ferrell had threatened the woman who placed the 911 call, and that Kerrick’s use of excess force was unwarranted, according to the Charlotte Observer. No signs of alcohol were found at the scene of the wreckage, although officials said an official toxicology report will take weeks.

While the FBI keeps detailed information on the numbers and types of crimes that are committed throughout the United States, there is no comprehensive tracking mechanism for police shootings. FBI spokespeople have said there is no mandate for them to keep such statistics and that it would take an act of Congress in order to establish a database. Congress, so far, has refused to ask for one.

This story is unfortunate, and seems to illustrate 3 things about American society.

#1 Racism has NOT gone by the wayside.

Though it may seem premature to pull the race card here, this is one of those cases (alike in the Trayvon Martins case), where one has to consider the possibility. In a perfect world, the victims race will have had nothing to do with the reaction of the owner of the property, nor the course of action taken by the responding police officer.

But in reality, with the attitudes that tend to prevail in many areas of the southern states, I have to ask myself a question. That is, had the male victim been white, would the property owner have had a different reaction, upon seeing him walking up their drive way? And would the responding police officer have regarded him in the same way (apparently a threat), if he seen a white man approaching him?

#2 Gun culture

Though this case is a police shooting fatality, therefore not officially counted with the rest of the nations shootings, one still has to bring gun culture into the equation. Because, had the property owner owned a weapon of their own, its very likely they could have been the shooter.

If they were spooked enough by the man to call the police, chances are if a weapon was involved, the old adage of “shoot first, ask questions later” could very well, have prevailed.

#3 Fear Culture

Another aspect that affects a lot of people in the US, is the culture of fear. Perpetuated because it helps fuel a healthy amount of consumption, it also has its downsides. Which every once in awhile, culminate, as it seems happened, in this case. When the person was scared of someone walking up the drive.

I mention this, and make the connection here, because I have talked to a few people in these kind of situations (in various facebook forums, usually the pro gun and Christian ones ). People that do not realize it (being in the middle of it), but to my eye, are very few steps from being delusional (if not delusional). These are people, whom I would be afraid to walk in front of there homes in broad daylight, for fear that they would perceive me as a “threat”.

In most cases, these people are also proud owners of one or more guns.

Although its arguably to early to be speculative in this case, one can not help but see the simultaneities with hundreds (thousands?) of past cases, both high profile and not.

Muslims Aren’t Cornering The Terrorism Market

Muslims Aren’t Cornering The Terrorism market

When Rolling Stone ran a sexy photo of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev on its cover, it sparked backlash and boycotts. Countless magazine vendors, including 7-Eleven shops, refused to sell a product that seemed to make terrorism look hot.

This publicity wave may ultimately boost Rolling Stone‘s bottom line. Any news is good news when it comes to marketing, right? And it’s also obscuring a more important question than whether it’s OK to run flattering photos of terrorists: What exactly constitutes terrorism?

Too often, the term terrorism is preferred when the perpetrators are Muslim.

When the Newtown and Aurora shootings turned out to be the work of local, disturbed, young men who didn’t happen to be Muslims, they weren’t deemed terrorists. But the local, disturbed, young men almost certainly responsible for Boston’s carnage were Muslim. That qualified them as you-know-whats.

The Tsarnaev brothers instantly became an example of the links between terrorism and Islam. The ensuing media blitz of the cruel attack that killed three and injured more than 260 people stoked that stereotype.

Meanwhile, what about that deadly explosion at a West, Texas, fertilizer plant? It occurred just two days after the April 15 Boston Marathon attack, and got far less news coverage. The primary suspects for the blast that killed 15, injured 200, damaged or destroyed 360 homes, and flattened a public school are corporate negligence and under-regulation.

It’s a complicated story, but West Fertilizer, which belongs to Texan magnate Donald Adair, stored vast amounts of dangerous chemicals at a plant in the heart of a small community. It broke the law by failing to disclose this hazard. When the government did notice the company’s lack of a “security plan” and other signs of negligence, it imposed minor fines. Clearly, Adair required more than a few slaps on the wrist to stop endangering workers and residents in West Texas.

And what about that factory fire in Bangladesh? The owner of Rana Plaza, the building where 1,129 garment workers perished, is in jail.

But what about the people who ran the sweatshops that were torched? What about the US companies that sell the clothing manufactured there with exploited and cheap labor? What about the customers who snap up bargains when they go shopping — just about everyone in America? Who is responsible?

We could try looking in the mirror. Or take a trip to Bentonville.

Most of the companies selling the clothes that were made in the factories that burned down have promised to do something. The US government and European Union are taking some steps. But details, follow-up, and inspection remain someone else’s department.

And whether you’re talking about the disasters that befell those garment workers in a Dhaka suburb or the people of West, Texas, one thing’s for sure: The mainstream media definitely didn’t label any of the capitalists responsible as terrorists.

A week or so ago, I was talking to someone I know about the seemingly glaring hypocrisy of going after Rolling Stone for showing the Boston bomber, yet giving most other major news organizations a free pass for “glamorizing” such things as school shootings.

I now realize, that Rolling Stone was trying to communicate that the 2 brothers in question, were to the outside onlooker, just everyday american kids. I have not read the article in Rolling Stone in its entirety yet, but as far as I can see, its just saying, this surprised people close to the brothers as much as it did the rest of us. No one seen it coming.

If I focus on the Boston bombers first, this turn of events, is not really unusual. Anytime these type of situations happen, even those closest often do not see it coming. But every time, I always wonder, if its a genuine case of surprise . . . . . . . . . . . or a case of, seeing what one wants to see?

We all in our minds, whether we know it or not, develop internal images about people (even those closest to us!), how they must live, ect. I know I do, because I often times find myself surprised, to learn other aspects about people that you would never have guessed (my smarter best friend, has used hard (and I would label, dangerous) drugs?! My good looking old friend, has problems with talking to girls?!). These are just  2 recent personal examples, but I would bet it has happened to us all at one time or another.

But back to my previous train of thought . . . .

Rolling Stone threw a nice photo of the Boston Bomber on the cover, NOT to glorify or in any way condone the act, but more so, to send the message that this was a seemingly “normal” person (I hate the word, but it fits best here). This could be your classmate, neighbor, it could be YOU.

But, like the public does best lately in the age of social media and 30 second attention spans, they react before knowing all the facts. Rather then reading and getting the WHOLE story, they pick an angle and run with it until they find something else to be “offended” by (Memes and Misinformation).

I realized recently, that such events as Sandy Hook, Columbine, Newtown ect, are really terrorist acts. We may call them “shootings”, but really, what is the difference between Newtown and Boston? If terrorism is based on the number of people killed, then im pretty sure every school (and other mass) shooting in recent and past history, fits the definition.

Now if we consider these terrorist acts, and judge the media by there saturation coverage of such acts, then are they not more responsible for “glamorizing” terrorism then Rolling Stone is?

I can name several past gun “terrorists”, just off the top of my head.

– Eric Harris

– Dylan Klebold

– Adam Lanza

I can relay to you, in a fair bit of detail, there crimes. And even to a degree, there pasts. Just off the top of my head.
I will admit for full disclosure, I have researched all 3 of the above in a bit of detail for a past piece, but we all have a detail or 2 about these people tucked away somewhere.

But one thing I can not do off the top of my head, is name one victim of any of there crimes. And I don’t think it would be bold to say that only people who lived in Littleton or Newtown at the time, would  be able to name at least one victim of the respective shootings.  Some of you might even ask yourselves, where is Littleton? Its a Denver suburb, home to Columbine High School.

This alone, illustrates the damage caused by the saturating media coverage of these events. The victims are not the ones remembered years down the road, the assailants are. The fact that most of us even KNOW any of the above names off the top of our head, speaks volumes.
It is no wonder that Eric and Dylan have been referenced as “role models” in hundreds of published (and unpublished) later attempts at violence (including Virginia Tech). And I have no doubt that it will be no different for Lanza, in coming years.

So I again, find it interesting that the public are so angry about the Rolling Stone cover, yet are not angry at the activities of almost every other news organization, which have been doing the same thing, only on a MUCH bigger scale. Though the face did sell magazines, there was also a reason for the image placement. A message.

What was the reason for over-covering, any chosen school gun violence situation? To make a point? To inform to the best of there abilities? No, to keep you tuned in.

Ratings mean big money.

Moving on, the “Corporate Terrorism” reference of the article is interesting.  It is not the first time I have heard the term coined, as Micheal Moore referenced it in his book “Downsize This!”.

Micheal’s use of the term, was to showcase the effects of companies “downsizing” in communities all over the US. The intro of the book had a photo of the bombed Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, and a photo of a long abandoned auto factory in Detroit. Both looked pretty much in the same condition. And his question was “Whats the difference?”.

Though that question is not exactly clear cut on first glance, it is when you look at it with a little more depth.

When the places that have the vast majority of the jobs within these community’s close there doors, the local negative affects (aka fatalities) are not as immediate as a bomb blast, but they eventually play out. Suicides, domestic violence and addiction  are just 3 of the consequences of “downsizing”. It is in understanding this, that you will gain clarity into his question that is “What is the difference?”.

The argument of the above article on the other hand, is more with the immediate destruction caused by corporate  entities. A good example used, is the explosion in West, Texas. The affects due to the negligence in this incident, were immediate.

Both uses of the term “Corporate Terrorism” I would argue, are good and accurate.

But it is interesting, how our use of the term “terrorism”, is so seemingly restrictive. The article portrays it as a possible issue of racial and religious background of the perpetrators. Which is entirely possible, and probable.

Is it possible, that we just have not thought of expanding our use of the term?

And if we did expand our usage of the term to include such incidents as School shootings and disasters of corporate negligence, would the way we treat such events change?

Self Defence VS. Murder – Where Is The Line

Here I am, once again taking on a topic that is huge in the US, gun politics.

The above, is a perfect example of why many people argue that carrying (and owning) a gun is a necessity. In a world full of bad people, one needs to be able to defend themselves. And there is nothing wrong with that, if they feel its a necessity. But there is one question I have.

That question is, where is the line between self defense and murder? At what point does one cross from being a victim to being a criminal?

I have been in many online discussions with fire arms owners I would describe as CrAzY (people who I would be afraid to even deliver mail to there house, for fear that they would shoot me!). These are people whom I often suspected to be so full of fear, that they are either borderline ( or totally) delusional.
Part of the reason for this assumption, was there inability to picture life WITHOUT a gun. Many seemed unable to even comprehend the possibility, that some places in the world would not REQUIRE a concealed weapon at all times. They ask me what I will do if someone invades my home with a gun, I tell them its hardly a worry because for the most part, such stuff does not happen where I live.

Sometimes I tell my story, the story of when a knife was pulled on me.

One night (around 12 or 1am) on the way home from work, I picked up some chicken from 7/11 and decided to sit on a bench in front of a building and rest (and snack lol). I heard a group of kids walking up the street, didn’t initially pay a whole lot of attention. Then I heard ” . . . what about this bitch”, and thought “oh fuck”.

One of them came up to me, a knife showing out of  his sleeve, and paced in front of me, just asking if I had anything for him. Though I was completely freaked out, I said nothing, hoping with all my might that my blackberry would not receive an email or text, therefore making its presence known.

I don’t know how long I stalled the guy, but as luck would have it, a car was headed towards us on the otherwise deserted street. When it got near, I got up and waved my arms, getting the drivers attention and causing him to pull over. This drove my attacker back a ways.

After a few moments, the car just drove away, causing my attacker to find a pair and head my way again. So I yelled as loud as i could.

HEY! HE HAS A KNIFE!

And so the guy finally gave up and backed off, while I got out the BB and dialed the police. I had initially used the emergency (911) button, but hung up and dialed the regular police line, thinking that this incident was not an incident important enough to warrant calling 911  (the full scale of what happened had not yet sunk in).

It wasn’t until 2 squad cars arrived at my location, that realization of what happened sank in. I know people with far better fighting and conflict skills then I, who have gotten stabbed in such situations before. But I had somehow talked my way out of it.

I tell this story to some who use the self defense argument, as a situation that proves a gun is not always necessary. Sometimes they mock me, laugh at the story (because apparently the idea of shooting another human being is funny).

Another situation (just happened last night) where a potentially bad situation was resolved without a gun being involved, is THIS ONE out of Tulsa Oklahoma. Though I don’t think the burglar was armed, it still applies here, because in many states, just breaking and entering is grounds enough to shoot.

One thing that has become apparent about many of the gun owners I have talked to that I would call “delusional”, is there strict methodologies of separating people into black and white groups. You are either good, or you are bad, there is no middle ground. Your either a threat, or your not.

And when I said “Black and White” groups, though I was trying to convey a strict contrast, I suspect that it may translate in a literal sense as well.

In any case, this post is about self defense. And in the gun control debate, it seems that there are at least 2 definitions.

My personal definition of self defense, is using the minimalist amount of force necessary to neutralize a hostile situation. This does not necessarily mean the attacker has to die, you (and others present in the location) just need to be able to get to safety (keep in mind, self defense is only warranted in Canada for protection of a person, NOT property).

Lets use the meme above as an example, as its a quite common argument, the home invasion. The attacker is wielding a knife, and the defense is a gun. But do you REALLY need a gun to neutralize that threat? Use your imagination as to household items that could in an emergency, double as weapons.

Imagine the knife wielding robber bursts into your room, and gets whacked in the head by a lamp that you threw at him. In an ideal situation, he will be thrown off enough to drop the knife, but most likley he will be disoriented, giving you time to get the fuck out and call the police (or if you have the balls, hogtie his ass like the Tulsa man did).

Now, bring a gun into the picture.

Sure, assuming you can get it out on time, and do not fumble and drop it as your waking yourself up, it is indeed, a good way to easily neutralize the situation. Shooting an arm or leg, will have the desired affect of throwing the guy off, most likley causing him to drop whatever weapon he has, and giving you a chance to leave or otherwise neutralize the situation.

But many that I spoke to, do not own a weapon, just to injure a a would be burglar entering there home. Which is where the second definition of self defense comes in. Which is, deadly force is always allowable and/or warranted in the name of self defense.

By this definition, self defense does not just mean protection of self, but also protection of ones property. And some states even have “Stand Your Ground” laws in place, warranting this.

I do not like the idea of self protection with a firearm to begin with, because of the number of things that could go wrong. One could miss the targeted “threat” and hit who knows what (or who). One could fumble and potentially drop the gun, thereby turning the tables on themselves. And of course there is the risk of panicking and shooting someone innocent.
About a week before the now infamous Sandy Hook massacre, someone in (I think) Rochester MN accidentally shoot there grand daughter. There had been a rash of break ins around the area, and her “silhouette” though the glass door “panicked” him.

If there is a danger that your (or anyone else’s) life may be in immediate danger, then yes, deadly force is not unreasonable. But when someone comes at you with a knife, and you blow them away with a gun, who was REALLY in more danger?

Time for me to show my “bleeding heart” liberal side.

One of the risks I see in labeling people as either good or bad, is when one views those on the side that they consider “bad”, they no longer have to view them as people. Rather then a person, they just become a threat to be neutralized.

I bring this up, because the vast majority of the time, I suspect that these crimes are out of desperation (drugs and money are my 2 biggest guesses). With the completely fucked state of the American (and most other economies in the world), it is no wonder that some may resort to such lengths, just for ends meat. It is never warranted, don’t get me wrong.

Plus, I am inclined to think the best of people. Maybe that’s just a product of being brought up in such an nonvolatile area. But people can often times make VERY bad judgements whilst in the clutches of addiction, or just may find themselves in a hole dug by there bad choices.

Though the only rock bottom that some will reach is the grave, there is a good chance that many can be helped, and can better themselves. I have met with many people over the years who have transitioned from all sorts of backgrounds, and became good citizens. And with most, the bottom came whilst in a jail cell, a few cases, after being caught robbing a home.

But if someone shoots the person dead, then they are done. No second chances.

Every situation is different, I get that. Sometimes the only way to neutralize the threat, is to use deadly force. But I encourage all to use good judgement in making that decision.

Property and materialistic items are replaceable. Some people can change. But most importantly, one must decide, who is the bigger asshole?

The man standing in the doorway yielding the knife menacingly? Or the man who blows his brains out with the gun?

How Chicago is “Proof” That Gun Control Does Not Work

This is something I ran across somewhere. And by rights, its true. Chicago does have VERY strict gun laws, but still has a gun huge crime rate. Hence the dubbing “Chiraq” by some locals.

End of story? I would have thought so to.

I encourage all to watch the episode of Vice that visits Chicago. You will learn there, that though the city of Chicago has strict controls on weapons sold within it, THE LAWS DO NOT APPLY IN ITS SUBURBS. Nor does any law cover guns purchased in southern states (or anywhere else) and distributed in cities as far North as Toronto.

The message here is, what you see on the surface, is not always the WHOLE picture.

The 2ed Amendment

Of all the 27 constitutional amendments, #2 is the one that we hear about the most often. Not surprising, because it is the core argument of the American gun control debate. Because we all know, American’s love there guns as much as we Canadians love our hockey.

Lets take a look at the actual amendment itself.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

This indeed, gives American’s the right to “bear arms”. But what about the part about the “well regulated militia? Seems completely dated, to the times were in today.  It seems that way, because it is.

Back when America was a young and emerging nation, one can see why such an amendment would be needed. In the event of a hostile or tyrannical government takeover, the nations militias would serve as a fail safe. Another barrier for a possible dictator to overcome. And seeing as America is still around today, some 200 or so years later, it seems the amendment worked.

Fast forward to today, 2013. The entire landscape and culture has changed radically from day 1. And like everything else, the weapons have changed with the times. Arms then could have meant a musket, now it could mean an AR 15 assault riffle.

When it comes to the argument of gun control, one of the BIGGEST thoughtless arguments is that, the law says I can own them.  If  I want 1 gun or a million, im allowed. If I want a handgun, or an assault riffle, the law of the land seemingly allows this. Those people are right (no matter what one may think about the OTHER factors at play, that they don’t consider).

Another argument that is quite popular on the right these days (and one ive heard from someone closer to home, in real life), is the need for weapons to protect us from a “tyrannical” government (otherwise known as, the correct interpretation of the amendment). Though in this day and age, there is almost certainly an ulterior motive for such a “patriotic” stance (which has NOTHING to do with the color of the president, we ALL know that), they are indeed correct in there argument.

But lets consider this argument a little bit.

The main premise of the argument here, is that one day, they may be needed as keepers of America the great. Force may eventually be necessary to take out the government, and so the guns are there not only for THERE protection, but also for the protection of all American citizens.

Again, this may have flown in the early days of America. But military technology has advanced A LOT since then. And all the guns on the continent won’t protect you from a tank or a drone.

And say, by some narrow sliver of chance, the gun toutin patriots DO manage to kick the ass of the military industrial complex and take over the nation. The common man is still not safe, because he who has the most guns, has the most power. And seeing who has the most guns these days, the thought of them in control is FUCKING scary, even from the prospective of the North side of the Canadian boarder.

Having looked at the amendment, and at its true purpose, it seems that its not just outdated, its also causing more harm then good. Though you as a civilian may think you have a “duty” to play the part of protector of the nation, your fooling yourself if you think your “arsenal” will even make the government bat an eyelash. Im not saying that this is necessarily a GOOD thing, im just stating the facts.

Because of the seemingly open-ended nature of the amendment in today’s society, the country is practically bathing in guns, and in turn, gun violence. And not just the well known  mass shootings that most base there opinions on (I was previously guilty of this, I admit), but also the  thousands of deaths and injuries that are under reported. Take the plight of Chicago, a place where the epidemic of gun crime is so prevalent, that some locals have taken to calling there home “Chiraq”.

Looking at the evidence, it would seem that its high time to change this amendment, and bring it into the modern age with the rest of the country. Its not the first time that the constitution has had to be “updated” in the past, and it won’t be the last.

There is a happy medium that can be found between “No guns” and “Chiraq”. Like a real disease, the longer that the majority dithers in finding a solution to the problem, the worse that the epidemic will become.

Terrorism VS Gun Violence – Have You Considered The Numbers?

We all by now, likley know about the recent news out about the NSA. They have their eye on you. Well, maybe not YOU per-say (me? defiantly lol). My last 2 entry’s were on this subject, as is this one, only im going in a new direction.

I found this meme whilst surfing facebook, which I shared. If you read my 2 previous entry’s here on the subject, you will know why. But it also gave me another thought process.

As the meme illustrates, back in October 2001 (just after the attacks of September 11th), no one batted an eyelash when the Bush administration signed the Patriot Act. An act that almost eliminated the possibility of “private” communication between 2 parties. All in the name of fighting terrorism. With the attacks of the 11th still fresh in peoples minds, the trade off didn’t seem unreasonable.

Now I am going to switch directions.

Many instances of mass gun violence have occurred all over the US in the last while. Despite being rare in the grand scheme of things (the numbers of dead are tiny compared to the TOTAL amount of gun deaths that are unspoken), they have been happening more and more often. The most recent of these instances being Sandy Hook Elementary. At 27 dead, it was not the deadliest  of them all by numbers. But it struck a chord with many people, just because of the age of the majority of the victims (20 were children).

This, like all the other acts of violence in the past, provoked a call for gun control legislation. This time though, the age of the victims drove the issue to a feverish pitch, right up to the president.

One of the common responses to this was, you can not legislate with emotions. Basically, its a bad idea to enact a law banning an item (in this case, assault riffles and other such weapons in the catagory) just because of emotions. Basically, just because your pissed and upset that this guy did this, it is not a good reason to outlaw the gun.

But in October 20o1, people everywhere didn’t hesitate to drop there right to privacy, in the name of fighting terrorism. This HUGE change came in a time that was very much emotionally charged and uncertain. And this change affected all Americans.

Back in December 2012/January 2013, the call for gun control was feverish, warranted, with the events of Sandy Hook on the minds of all (me included). But again, the common thread of the debate from the opposition, is that NOW is not the time.

Both terrorism and gun violence affect the public, often random targets. The only difference is that the death counts are very different for the 2.

For terrorism, the most recent incident was the Boston Marathon bombing, which killed 3 and injured 264. Next in line is September 11th, with 2,977 fatalities in total, followed by the Oklahoma City bombing back in 1995 (165 dead).

For famous instances of mass gun violence, we have Virginia Tech with 32 dead, followed by Sandy Hook’s 27.

At first glance, the numbers seem to say a lot. Terrorism would seem to be the bigger threat, in terms of the number of victims. But is this the whole picture?

Lets play with the numbers a little.

Terrorism

Using http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html as a reference, starting with Oklahoma City, I find that  3149 have perished by terrorism in the US since 1995.

OKC Bombing = 168

9/11 = 2977

Little Rock = 1

Boston Marathon = 3

Now lets look at gun violence.

Keep in mind, im not counting attacks OUTSIDE of the continental US (embassies etc).

Gun violence

Though this chart is a bit out of our timeline (it begins back in 1980 and ends in 2006), it still tells us A LOT.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf

If we start in 1995, the start of my timeline, we see that in that year ALONE, almost 40,000 people died due to gun violence.

Like any other post alike this that I write, I encourage all to it look up for yourselves, never take what you read on a blog at face value.

But consider that just a little over 3000 deaths attributed to terrorism have occurred, and the reaction was to pretty much eliminate what privacy the majority of Americans did have.

Now Gun violence in 1995 ALONE caused almost 40,00 deaths. Gun control would affect only a small percentage of all americans. But the ramifications of NOT having it, is affecting ALL americans.

Eliminating a constitutional right for just over 3000 deaths, is fine. But inconveniencing a small percentage of people, because of 40,000 + deaths, is far to much.

Who is over reacting?

A Bold Proposal

You may wonder about the above photographs. Where is he going with this?

Well, im going back to the gun control debate. Back to the argument that is “When people drink and drive (or otherwise drive stupid), we don’t blame the car. So why do we blame the gun?”. And it got me thinking (or as some would say, wow. He can think?).

What would the world be like, if we treated automobiles in the same way the gun proponents treat guns.

The first thing that comes to mind, is to drop driver licensing. As a resident of (*insert nationality*), I deem it my right to transport myself anywhere, without having to ask the government permission.

And mandatory driving lessons and testing? Dump all that. My parents and relatives have been using automobiles all there lives, they can teach me just as well as any tax payer funded teacher can.

We do not need the government to be in our cars. It is both invasive to our privacy, and an inefficient use of tax payer dollars.

And, we should not be just limited to the typical passenger car or truck.

If we want to own something bigger,such as a bus, semi, limo or even a tank, there should be no restrictions.

If I want to be the office carpool guy with my bus (think of the cash per head) or the party limo driver, I should be allowed.

What about those extended shopping trips with the wife? Sometimes a little 1 ton truck won’t cut the mustard that a semi will.

Ever struggle to find a spot whilst Christmas shopping at your chosen box store? With a tank, parking near the door will never be a stroke of luck again.

Will there be potential problems to this plan? Possibly. People will be people. They will do stupid things, such as drive under the influence of any number of substances, drive distracted, or attempt to skillfully operate vehicles they are unfamilier with . . . . . . . . but that is not a reason to change the system.

Machines simply do what the operator tells them to do. Nothing more, nothing less.