Gun Violence in America

            "It’s Not The Guns. It’s The Criminals Stupid"   

03/08/18

When the first settlers arrived here firearms were tools of existence. They were used for the basic needs of protection and hunting. It’s only been in the last hundred years or so that the legal and necessary use of guns has been overshadowed by the nefarious use of the criminal element in this country. This criminal element is made up of organized crime, drug dealers, small time petty hoodlums and those individuals who commit crimes of passion.

         There were roughly 38,000 gun deaths in the US in 2016. Of those, 22,000 were suicides and 11,000 were murders. The balance was split between self defence killings and accidental deaths. A very small amount, around 1%, were classified as mass shootings. Most of the 11,000 murders (I’m going to get grief for this) were what I refer to as the everyday, run of the mill, saturday night special, black on black, inner city murders.

          I have divided the 11,000 or so murders into two categories. These are mass shootings and the ordinary, run of the mill murders which happen everyday. There are several different definitions for determining whether an incident is classified as a mass shooting or not. Basically, it comes downs to the number of casualties.                                                        

           In 2016 Chicago held the record, with 762 murders which was the most murders for a major city in a single year. The city officials were thrilled in 2017 when the number dropped to 650. As bad as that was, Chicago did not have the record for the highest per capita murder rate. That title went to the city of Baltimore. Other cities of honorable mention include New Orleans, ST. Louis, LA, New York, Atlanta, Washington DC and Detroit. Is this just a coincidence or are most, if not all, of these cities run by Democrats, who are historically soft on crime. These murders have been going on for years, And year after year the elected officials of these cities have done little or nothing to solve the problem or even reduce the number of murders being committed in their cities.

          While researching this post, I came across some really interesting statistics about the murder epidemic in the city of Baltimore. According to Mother Jones, eighty six percent of the victims of gun violence have criminal records. Forty six percent of those suspected of committing gun violence also have criminal records. Finally, forty four per cent of those suspected of gun violence have prior records for either gun possession or gun violence. I don’t have data for the other major cities, but I would bet the farm that the statistics in many of the other cities are quite similar.

          When I first read these statistics the solution became immediately apparent. That is, it is apparent to me that the elected officials of these cities are more concerned with the rights of criminals than with the rights of crime victims.. The solution is simply this. Anyone who has two convictions for a gun crime or using a gun during the commission of a crime would receive a minimum sentence of twenty five years in prison. There would be no plea bargain, no leniency and no parole. In addition, one other measure I would take is that any one convicted of selling illegal firearms, here again more than once, should receive a minimum sentence of twenty years. Again there would be no plea bargain, no leniency, and no parole.

           These measures are not one hundred percent effective, but what is? They will take repeat offenders and a good quantity of illegal firearms, as well, off the street.There are those of you who are going to say my proposals are unfair and that the sentences are far too harsh. My response is, tell it to the families of the dead victims. I’m not a law enforcement professional and I thought of these measures in about ten seconds. I’m sure that if law enforcement was able to sit down and discuss ways to deal with these types of issues, and their hands were not tied behind their backs by politicians, they would be able to devise and initiate policies that would have a significant effect on cleaning up our major cities. The fact that this hasn’t been done is not the fault of law enforcement, but of the politicians they work for.

           During the last presidential campaign, candidate Trump made some remarks that were aimed at the African American community as a whole. Basically what Donald Trump said was that African Americans have been voting Democratic for fifty years. During that fifty years the black community as a whole has benefited very little or not at all. He then said, and I’m paraphrasing; “ Maybe you should vote Republican”?  “What have you got to lose?”

           African Americans in these large cities are dropping like flies. This might be a good time for the black community to think about changing your voting habits and give Republicans a shot. Have you seen what a cesspool New York City has become? It wasn’t like that when Rudy Giuliani was mayor.

           The other type of gun violence I want to write about is mass shootings. These attacks have taken place in movie theaters, shopping malls, hotels and most recently a school. In this latest case the shooter walked into the school unchallenged, pulled the fire alarm and when the students came out of their classrooms to evacuate the building they were gunned down.

           School shootings are like 9/11. You really don’t see them coming. In this particular case  warning signs were missed at both the federal and the local level. On the federal level the FBI received two calls to their tip line. The last one was only six weeks before the incident occurred and was very specific in nature. The caller to the FBI tip line said that Mr Cruz wanted to be a school shooter. This tip was never forwarded to the FBI office in Miami where it could have been acted upon. The local police department, which I believe is the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, responded to no less than forty calls to Mr. Cruz’s residence in the eight months previous to the shooting. To my knowledge not one police report was ever filed. The mere fact that there were at least forty calls to the same household should set off an alarm in somebody’s head. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that this shooting could have been prevented.

             Before we start talking about taking away people’s rights we should do what can be done to harden these ‘soft” targets. The president suggested that a percentage of teachers who are willing to carry a weapon be trained and be given extra compensation. I would not be in favor of this. It’s one thing to undergo training and become proficient in the safe use of firearms. It’s quite another to pull your weapon and confront an active shooter, especially if he is shooting at you. This is not to say that all teachers wouldn’t have the fortitude to stand their ground and shoot back, but I think professional armed guards would be a better choice.

              In my opinion it would be better for all concerned parties to have people who are experienced in this line of work. I would suggest ex-army, retired police officers or even active duty police who want to pick up a couple of extra shifts. These type of people would be far superior to armed teachers,who in spite of being trained, may not have the mental toughness to take out an armed assailant.

              Another reason for armed security on premises would be a quicker response time. According to news sources, it took between five and eight minutes for police to arrive on the scene. This shooting was over in four minutes. Based on this information alone, the number of casualties would have been greatly reduced or completely eliminated if an armed professional would have been on the premises when the first shots were fired.

              I am in strong disagreement with the ridicules concept of “Gun free zones.” Having a sign out in front of a school which states, “This is a gun free zone.” is like me putting a sign in my front yard that says, “I have a million dollars in cash in my closet. Please come and steal it.” When you put a sign like that on school premises you are inviting people to do you harm and telling them that you are unprotected.

              Rather than have a sign that says, Gun Free Zone,” I would have a sign that says, “There are armed security personnel on premises.” This alone would act as a deterrent and would eliminate most attacks before they happen. The goal should be to eliminate the threat not to defend against it. That should be the last resort.

             There are other measures that be could taken to protect our students. Increased use of high tech equipment such as metal detectors and high tech surveillance are two examples. In addition, there are security measures that could also be implemented to limit access to the school building while classes or school activities are taking place.

                One final step that I would consider, which may be a little over the top, is to replace all windows, or at least all the windows on the first floor with bullet proof glass. This would eliminate the possibility of anyone shooting their way in through a window.

                There are steps that can be taken at all levels of government. How to deal with bump stocks has been a topic of discussion since the shooting in Las Vegas. Also, more detailed background checks and much tighter reporting procedures and record keeping. For some reason the forty or so visits made by the police to Mr Cruz’s residence resulted in no police reports and  no search warrants to the premises. Mr Cruz was able to completely slip under everybody’s radar including the FBI’s.

                 Another measure being discussed is raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm to twenty one. I would find it difficult to raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm to twenty one. I would also be hard pressed to have to  tell a military veteran or an active duty member of the military who is under twenty one, that it is illegal for him or her to purchase a firearm. There are a lot of other steps that can be taken to lessen and in most cases eliminate the threat of mass shootings. Banning eighteen to twenty year olds from owning firearms does nothing but punish innocent law abiding citizens. If government does its job of improving background checks and also creating a procedure for checking the mental health of people wishing to purchase firearms, that would go a long way towards making the country safer. And it would not take 2nd Amendment rights away from law abiding citizens.

                    I know that there are those of you who say screw the 2nd Amendment. That’s the rallying cry of the left today. My response to that is that our constitution is what makes us

different from every other country in the world. You may be personally opposed to the 2nd Amendment and may want to see it repealed. That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. The day may come when some other activist group may want to repeal the 4th Amendment. Should we repeal that one too? There may be other people that are not in favor of the 1st Amendment. In England, you can get thrown in jail for saying the wrong thing. Yes, I said England. When the different groups and activists are done repealing all the Amendments that they don’t like we would probably wind up with some kind of fascist or communist government. Take your pick.. This is a slippery slope and it’s not one I choose to go down.

                     I want to make final point before I close this post. It is that the debate on gun control has been going on for years. The narrative of this debate has been framed by the mainstream media who, under the guise of reporting the news, has fed the public a slanted view of the issue. Their coverage has been biased and almost completely one sided. The mass protests that we’ve seen over the years push the narrative that more gun control, therefore less guns, will save lives. The organizers of these protests are at best uninformed and at worst, disingenuous with regards to their talking points. They are telling the people who are attending these rallies only half the story. Here’s what they’re not telling you.

                     Virtually all of the national surveys, including the one taken by the CDC, which incidentally is pro gun control, show that crime victims who defend themselves with firearms have significantly lower injury rates than crime victims who defend themselves by other means. Also, it is estimated by these surveys that there are between 500,000 and 3 million instances per year where firearms are used to fend off an attack or eliminate the threat of an attack. Given the sheer size of the number of times prospective crime victims use firearms to defend against criminal attacks, I think it’s safe to say that at least as many people have been saved by firearms as have been killed by them. One other piece of pertinent information I wish to share is this. If someone is breaking into your home and you call the police, it might take ten or fifteen minutes for them to arrive. By that time you and your family could be dead. You just might want to think about that.                                                                                     

                        The good news is, if you choose to call it that, is that most, if not all, of these changes and legal reforms can be made by simply spending money. The sooner this is done the safer our students, and the country as a whole, will be. Spend the money and be done with it.