I often write about PTSD, because I, like so many others am one of its victims. Many military now suffer from PTSD. I do not want to downplay rape victims or witnesses to tragedy and their problems with PTSD. They are just as likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and other problems. However, with recent announcements that those with PTSD and other disorders that might result in tragic gun shootings, I feel we need to speak to these issues and contemplate the slippery slide that Congresswoman Gifford is suggesting. Americans for Responsible Solutions as of August 31, 2013 boasts fund raising efforts have brought in $6.5M for the gun control lobby. They cite the power of the NRA and the massive funds they use to lobby Congress and other politicians as a need for this organization. Perhaps. I would argue that the far left has enough money coming in when they can push through Obamacare without a single right wing vote--but that's another blog. Because of her husband's military status, they have some major military retirees on board. It all sounds very legitimate. So, let's think about it and what it could mean as far as what the Giffords want and the White House proposal for mental health registration.
From their website on background checks: "Federal law requires that individuals seeking to buy a gun at a licensed dealer pass a background check to prevent criminals, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and other dangerous people from purchasing firearms. Since the NICS instant background check system was implemented in 1998, background checks have denied transfers to over 1.7 million prohibited purchasers." This is true. Criminals technically can buy weapons if they have had their rights restored by the court after completing their sentences and probation. Domestic violence doesn't ever really prevent anyone from being able to buy a weapon or not. Any idiot should realize that not all domestic violence gets reported. The "seriously mentally ill"? Well, the accepted point of view legally is someone under the care of a doctor, psychologist or counselor who deems them as a risk to do bodily harm to themselves or to others. The "other dangerous people" is kind of open ended. No one really defines that particular little group. It's potentially a catch all. They want to expand the law to all private sellers and gun shows. So if you own a gun and you want to sell it, you would have to conduct background checks on anyone that you wanted to sell it to and maintain those records. It's not cheap and it's not something the average person wants to have to do. It's a "loophole" that the Giffords want closed. Oddly enough though, only 0.7% of all guns used in crimes are bought at gun shows and 1% from private owners. In fact, 79% of all guns used in crimes are received from family members or obtained from illegal sources. I'd argue that it makes more sense to figure out how to close down the 40% that come from illegal sources and the 39% of family members providing the weapons. Note also that of that 39% approximately 40% of that is also obtained "illegally". So in reality, the percentage of weapons used in violent crimes obtained from illegal sources is over 56%. Expanding the federal law to cover gun shows and private owner sales is silly--1.7% is nominal, a joke, a small band-aid on a gaping wound. The illegal guns are the ones that we need to figure out how to catch--56%.
From their website on high capacity magazines: "High capacity magazines are a deadly factor in gun violence. According to the Department of Justice, they are used in between 14 and 26 percent of gun crimes and between 31 and 41 percent of fatal police shootings. And the data has shown that limiting such magazines helps save lives. According to the Washington Post, during the previous ban on high capacity magazines (which has since expired), there was a 60 percent decline in share of recovered crime guns with high capacity magazines. After the ban expired in 2004, that share increased from the 2004 low – more than doubling by 2010." It is true that high capacity magazines have higher risk factors. They cite that the Glock used in the Gifford shooting had a magazine with 33 rounds. The data they provide is one study conducted, and unfortunately or fortunately depending upon which side of the debate you sit on, there are equally compelling studies that state the opposite. Would limiting the capacity of the rounds truly limit a shooter? Someone that has trained at changing out the magazines on a range or in the field, truthfully, probably not. Changing the magazine out from one to another isn't that complicated as most video games and zombie apocalypse movies show. The size of the magazine probably isn't going to make a hill of beans difference in reality. They say that it might, might, give a couple seconds for someone to shoot the assailant in a mass shooting. The truth is that expert marksmen, our own police forces, cannot always hit their targets during a shootout. The real life stresses make it difficult under fire to aim and shoot and hit the target. We have a visual that it is simple to hit a moving target while bullets are coming at you from movies and television shows. The truth is far more complicated. (http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/) So while people insist that it might give a couple extra seconds, that couple extra seconds is more like a second and the response in that second isn't going to be as massively helpful as one might think. It will be highly dependent on if the officer is in the direct line or pseudo direct line of fire, their experience level, whether they have had previous shootout experience, and the magazine size for the criminal is not really going to come into play on how many rounds he gets off before the cop or other legally gun carrying citizen can maim or kill the assailant.
From their website on assault weapons: "Machine guns have been strictly limited in America since 1934, but a federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004." They also include that an assault weapon was used in the Sandy Hook shooting. One of the mass shootings in recent years actually used an assault weapon. It seems a little odd that we would jump all over that with such zealousness versus the handguns since almost all of the mass shootings in recent years have involve some version of handgun. And, yes, machine guns have been strictly limited in the USA. What's the difference and why do they not distinguish such on their website? A machine gun is larger, not typically small enough for the average person to tote around. Assault rifles are rifles capable of having magazines. The magazines for assault rifles are not usually to the capacity of a machine gun and machine guns are typically higher caliber (bullet size basically). Well, this all is very interesting, except they left out some details. The federal ban on assault weapons went into effect in 1994. Before 1994, there were no limits. The original (at least for our generations) mass shooting that no one understood because it simply hadn't happened in our lifetimes was the Columbine High School shooting. That was 1999. The law didn't prevent anything; in fact, the tighter you grip your fist, the more that seeps out between your fingers. Someone said to me the other night, an older gentleman in his late 60s, that drinking alcohol was more fun when it was illegal. There's a bit of truth to that for a lot of people, although I'll have to admit that I'm not one of them so I don't actually "understand" the statement. But I do understand that if you tell me I'm going to lose a right or privilege that I have right now, that I am probably not going to have a lot of respect of the law that took it away and possibly snub my middle finger at it and the people that passed the law in the first place. The truth is every single one of these mass shooters wanted to be famous. That's it. They leave manifestos stating it and we, our media, are more than happy to oblige. Start completely ignoring who they are. The problem isn't that they can get the guns. The problem is that they can get the fame that they crave.
From their website on gun trafficking: "One percent of licensed firearm dealers account for 57 percent of guns recovered in crimes. Law enforcement can put such offenders out of business, but the police and prosecutors need the tools to do so." Basically, I had to read this twice. It's a bit of double talk sounding at first just because of the way it's worded. Re-wording what they state: Almost 60% of guns used in crimes are provided by a single percent of legal gun dealers. Thing is that licensed firearm dealers actually only account for 8% of the guns used in violent crimes. So this statistic is missing information. I'm not sure what it is missing. It sounds heinous, but with all the other facts, this statistic doesn't add up. Is it 57% of the 8% which actually would be 5%? Or is it that 39% that are sold to family members who are legal, but giving it to known criminals in their families? Is it a gang violence statistic? Is it a statistic that is based on the illegally obtained 40%? I mean look at the number I calculated from the actual statistics: 56%. I'm thinking what they mean here is that 56-57% that are technically obtained illegally but sold legally by less than legitimate gun dealers. I think if that is the statistic that they are representing here then I'm all for it. Figure out how to get those less than legitimate organizations shutdown.
The White House plan pretty much mimics everything above, but it also includes mental health provisions. One is directed towards schools for administrators and teachers to be "trained" in recognizing mental health issues and advise parents to seek mental health help for their children. As a mother who's child's teacher wanted him on Ritalin and who had to have the doctor he was going to state in a written letter to the school that my child was a normal healthy boy that simply was finishing his work faster than other children (correctly) and that Ritalin would likely result in grades dropped because it was meant for less than 2% of the children that could not pay attention and get good grades. The teacher and the principal were supposedly "trained" in my son's case and that particular school was investigated and had almost 40% of their student body on Ritalin on the word of the teachers and principal telling the parents to do so. So, I bet the so-called training will be at best laughable. What gives me the most pause is the 750,000 children that they estimate will be registered with mental health issues through this directive on the say so of so-called "trained" school administrators and teachers. We have reached an age where kids out passed curfew are arrested, finger printed and sometimes even fines levied against the parents. We find out once they are adults that those finger printings are permanent. Nothing is expunged anymore at 18. Now, the White House would have our children registered and tracked for mental health issues? That could be a lifelong scar, much like we register sex offenders. They already are tracking Gulf War veterans via the VA if we register with the VA. How quickly do you think they could add all of us to the register with the convicted criminals so that we are not able to legally own a firearm? I mean, just in case, after all. The do-good mentality is that an ounce of prevention is worth a whole lot of cleaning up afterwards, but we are a country built on innocent until proven guilty--not the other way around. We have started taking people's rights and bypassing the 5th Amendment by claiming they aren't rights but "privileges". So owning a gun if you have PTSD could be a "privilege" you'd no longer be afforded because less than 1/2 a percent of us might commit suicide and less than 1/10th of a percent might commit a heinous crime (with or without a gun)...It's a slippery slope that even the Giffords haven't officially attached their names to. Do you know another country that began in the 1920s changing rights to privileges? Nazi Germany. Within 10 short years, there were concentration camps for those without privileges.
I'm in a unique position. I lost a good friend, like a baby brother, to PTSD. He committed suicide. It was months after before I knew it. He had called me within days before he committed suicide, and I hadn't called him back. I had told him if he ever needed to talk I'd be there, but you can never always be there for everyone. I've taken calls from brothers and sisters now at all hours of the night because they might be at risk. But even knowing the brothers and sisters that have been at risk, the couple of them that have gone, I don't ever want to see those that are simply having a rough time that find the strength to pull themselves out to be on some list that takes a right away because we've defined it as a privilege and deemed that certain people are not entitled to that privilege. The idea that the magazine size has anything to do with it, that it is a particular weapon's fault (especially when it's not that particular style weapon used in 99% of the "crimes" they supposedly want to stop), or that we should tighten the grip on at risk minors by the say so of amateurs or on veterans that have honorably served this country is nauseating. I'm not happy that I lost a little brother. I'm not happy if I lose anyone. However, I'm not willing to lose our rights for it. It's the coward's way out. We'll take the guns. It sounds good but doesn't address the real problem. The real problem is there are very real mental health issues that need to be addressed. The real problem is some people would rather have their 10 minutes of fame no matter what the consequences. The real problem is that we as a society would rather band-aid an issue than ask the question why, find the real root cause, and remedy the real issues. The quick fixes won't work but we are so lazy we grasped on to whatever sounds good and then make up the numbers to make it happen. Congratulations to the Giffords. I double checked their statistics and that's exactly what they did. Jump on board the easy train folks. It's not going to change anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment