Guns
Each time there is any mass murder, the national debate
about gun control and school security starts up again. It is a natural and logical consequence of a
tragedy like the recent atrocity at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in
Parkland, Florida. There is no way to
make sense of the brutality and inhumanity involved in that incident. We all want to do what we can to try to
prevent another school shooting.
Unfortunately, that maybe an unrealistic expectation.
My position has always been that I would support any gun
law, short of registration or confiscation, that would have a significant effect
on preventing gun violence. However,
without revision, the proposed gun laws and executive orders I know of would
only limit the ability of honest, law abiding citizens to defend themselves.
I support President Trump’s move to ban bump stocks for his
stated reason; which is that they convert legal weapons into illegal weapons by
enabling them to simulate fully automatic fire.
However, he (and others) are talking about prohibiting mentally ill
persons from obtaining guns by including mental illness in background checks in
some way. That is easier said than done.
First, the basic supposition that people with some degree
of mental or emotional disturbance are somehow automatically disposed to be dangerous
is erroneous. Most are not. In fact, very large numbers of American
adults and children are taking medication for things like Anxiety, Depression,
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and so
on Are we going to say that people are
dangerous because they are getting help from their doctor, and/or have
participated in counseling, to assist them cope with the problems of daily
living in a society that has become difficult to live in? Are they dangerous to self and/or
others? Not in most cases.
What is “normal” … or “abnormal?” Sit and think about that. We tend to call behavior normal if most
people do it. For example, if most
people work, working is considered normal.
Not working is frowned on. Gauging
normalcy by what everybody in a society does is a useful tool. However, in some cases calling a person’s
behavior “abnormal” or “deviant” by comparing it to social norms and values involves
a couple of logical fallacies.
If almost all children like peanut butter, can we say that
the child who does not is abnormal? If
most Belgians like beer, is the Belgian who doesn’t drink beer any less a Belgian?
Reasoning from the many to one individual can be, and often is wrong. If an entire society practices cannibalism,
and a single person objects to it, which is deviant … and on whose values do we
base that judgement? Sometimes social
norms and mores are not only wrong, they are immoral. Can someone then be called abnormal for
deviating from them?
So, who is going to be appointed to put you on a database
maintained by the government that
says you are too dangerous to own a gun because you are mentally ill. What criteria will “they” use to put you on
the list, and what evidence is there that those criteria are predictive with any
acceptable degree of scientific certainty?
Will you have due process of law before they put you on
the list … or after? Will there be a way
to appeal if you find yourself labeled mentally or emotionally disturbed? How much would this kind of system cost? In Canada, an effort to create a data base of
long gun owners was abandoned because it cost too much.
There have been cases already in which some veterans and social
security recipients have been prevented from buying guns simply because they
have their disability checks managed by a representative payee. Is having help with your finances proof that you’re
a danger to society?
If there is a way to identify, at say a 90% level of
certainty, that a person is dangerous, I would probably agree to prohibiting
persons so labeled from owning firearms. The
problem is that, in a mass society like ours, there isn’t a way to identify
everyone in the population who is dangerous without mislabeling many others! We even seem to have problems with
identifying people who really are dangerous.
Federal and local law enforcement failed to identify the shooter in
Parkland as dangerous, even after concerned citizens reported it and after
multiple prior police contacts. The
University of Colorado ignored the professional who was treating the man who
killed and wounded people at the Century 16 theater in Aurora, Colorado. The FBI ignored reports from Russia that the
Boston Marathon bombers were dangerous.
Another anti-gun proposal is that “universal” background
checks be done. What does that mean?
In the 2012 elections, the Democrats gained control of
both houses the Colorado legislature.
They already had a governor who was a Democrat. The first thing that they did after they got
sworn in was to pass anti-gun laws; one of which required that all transactions
where guns changed hands required a background check. To be charitable, the law may have been
intended to require background checks on the sale of guns between private
individuals, and to put the squeeze on gun shows. It was so poorly written, however, that it
could have been construed to require a background check any time that guns
changed hands. For instance, if a friend
and I were hunting, and I dropped my rifle breaking the scope, it could be a
violation for him to lend me his spare rifle to continue hunting, without first
obtaining a background check. It also
called into question whether guns could be inherited without a background
check. Laws written by anti-gun nuts
never make any sense.
Some have proposed a universal background check that requires
the state or federal bureaucracy keep a record of all background checks. That would be de facto gun registration. If guns were ever confiscated, the government
would know where to start looking. As
the saying goes, “You aren’t paranoid. They
really are out to get you.” Hey, will
paranoia get you on the list of people who are too crazy to own guns? Oops!
When you retire, money is tight for a while. It takes a while to reconcile your income
with your bills. I took a part-time job in a retail sporting goods store selling
guns after I retired. It didn’t pay
much, but the money helped. We ran
background checks by computer on each gun sale, and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) approved or denied the sale based on whether the buyer had an arrest
record. During the time I worked there, it
was not unusual for a sale to be denied.
On a couple of occasions, the police responded to the store to question
the buyer, or take them into custody, regarding an active warrant. If a sale was denied, there was a form the
buyer could mail to the CBI appealing the denial.
People try to circumvent background checks. From time to time customers would attempt “straw
sales.” It is illegal for a person who
can buy guns legally to purchase a gun for someone who cannot. (A parent purchasing a gun intended for supervised
use by their minor child is not a straw sale.)
Deciding that a sale is a straw sale, and refusing it, is a judgement
call by the seller. The store where I
worked was ethical. However, it is not
always an easy call to make. Some
sellers are more scrupulous than others.
Provided no government records are generated, I support
background checks on retail gun sales and on private sales as well. To thwart straw sales, I support background
checks for gifting guns. I do not
support singling out gun shows to run them out of business. I do not support interference with
inheritance. I do not support making it
difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns.
Current law allows the sale of guns to non-citizens who
are residing in the United States legally.
When I was selling guns, I complied with the law. However, I am against selling guns to persons
who are not citizens.
School Safety
There are also several proposals being discussed (besides
gun control) to improve school safety. Staff
oversight of security was part of my duties for eight months in the
military. I have supervised programs for
the supervision of adult legal offenders in community-based programs for about
a year and a half, and I worked in a prison for 20 years. I know some things about security.
I believe that installing metal detectors at all points
of entry, with trained staff to monitor the detectors whenever a point of entry
is used, would be the best way to use our limited financial resources. These should be supplemented by monitored
surveillance cameras throughout the school.
Students should be required to show picture ID cards when entering the
school, and these should be temporarily revoked if a student is suspended or
expelled. Students should be given
assigned entry points and their report times should be staggered to prevent
bunching up outside the entry points, while they wait to be admitted.
Arming teachers is unwise. Think back on all the teachers you had in
school. God bless them. I support the difficult work that they
do. Which ones, however, would you want
packing heat in your kids’ schools? For
me, that is not a pretty picture.
Further, many teachers would not be comfortable with handling guns, let
alone with shooting somebody. Generally,
teachers must give their full attention to teaching. There are conflicting demands that they must
deal with all the time. If a teacher is
armed, their first responsibility would be to keep track of their gun, and that
is not where their attention belongs.
Placing armed, commissioned, certified law officers in
the schools is a good idea, with a few qualifiers. However, it would be expensive. Over a 20-year career, a full-time employee
will cost around a million dollars in pay and benefits. Naturally, a police officer’s duties would
include dealing with crime as well as security, but it would be a temptation to
involve the officer with school disciplinary activities. That would be a misuse of the resource.
Some have advocated for using retired police officers for
school security. While I was still
working, I tried teaching a night class in Criminology at a “career college.” There was a substantial age difference
between myself and my students. I
expected more from them than some of the other instructors, and the students
used the age difference as an excuse for not wanting to work that hard. They felt I “forgot what it was like,” “didn’t
understand,” and was “out of touch.” It
was partly my fault, too. I expected too much of them. I had become too hardened by working in a
prison. Older cops can be tough
customers. Also, some might slip into a “Grandpa”
role, which would be inappropriate. The
school security officer should not be looking for popularity or acceptance.
It seems that some of the TV network talking heads think
all veterans are some sort of ninjas. In
truth, far more military personnel are involved in support activities on active
duty, than in combat. Even in basic
training, not all military are required to qualify with firearms. In times when budgets are tight, many are “familiarized”
on the firing range. For my step-son
(Navy), this meant firing one round from an M-16.
I think veterans should get a hiring preference. However,
if veterans are utilized as school security officers, they should go through
the same training and weapons qualification that any other civilian candidate
receives.
Given the time that it takes community law enforcement to
respond and deploy, I would like to see armed regular police officers stationed
in our schools; public and private. Again, I feel that available funds should
be spent on metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and picture ID’s first.
The Problem
The Bible tells us that violence has always been a part
of human behavior. One of the first
things that happened after we got kicked out of the Garden of Eden was that a
man killed his brother. Prior to the
great flood, people became so violent that God said He wished He had never created
us. The Bible says that the heart of
mankind is wicked beyond measure.
The Solution
Violence will continue, and it will keep getting worse …
until Jesus Christ establishes His kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven. The only thing that can be done to mitigate sin
until then is to bring as many people to the Lord as will come. When you repent of all sin, including hate
and violence, believe that Jesus has saved you, and take up your cross and
follow Him in the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit; you will be made a new
creature. You will no longer want to
please your sinful nature. You will live
to please the Holy Spirit instead. What
would the world be like if everybody did that?
Give yourself to Jesus, right now.
