Tag: Gun control

Posted on

untainted analysis

photo-1444850321296-e568c6a10d26I’m penning this post on Tuesday afternoon, having just watched Pres. Obama’s East Room announcement in regard to taking Executive Action on gun control. As soon as the President was done speaking, I turned off the television and shut down my server… no Facebook, no nothing. In other words, I write this having read nothing, seen nothing, nor heard anyone offer their two nor seventeen cents on the address. I have not been subjected to any analysis. In a contemporary news cycle that seems to create more news than it actually, factually reports, I didn’t want any blatant nor subtle subjectivity to permeate my opinion.

To be clear, it is important to wrestle with this topic well — fully acknowledging that gun control is a subject that sets many people off and often prompts blood pressure to immediately rise. I get that. It’s an understandable, emotional issue.

The most prominent measure announced seemed that Pres. Obama is issuing an Executive Order to expand the number of gun buyers subject to background checks; this will be done by increasing the number of sellers who are legally labeled as “dealers.” Dealers must be licensed and are required to conduct those checks on their customers.

Also, the President clearly articulated that he has no desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment and that this was not a first step in a “plot to confiscate guns.” His stated motivation is to reduce gun violence.

So let me offer my two — I mean seventeen — cents… (Please note that while my thoughts are untainted, they are by no means comprehensive. The two approaches should not be equated with one another; more thoughts may come at a later date.)

I appreciate the President’s stated motivation; I think it’s wise. I think we’d all like to see gun violence diminished. One of the blessings in the hollow heartbreak after each horrific incident is that as a nation — black, white, conservative, liberal, gay, straight, Jew, Christian, whatever — we are typically united in our tears. We’d like to see all violence diminished — gangs, terrorism, public protest destruction, etc.

I appreciate the President’s tears; the killing of innocent babes is unspeakably atrocious. It makes me cry, too.

I think, also, the stated idea of subjecting more buyers to background checks is wise. Americans have a right to bear arms, but a convicted felon, for example — who has already shown an intent and willingness to infringe upon the rights of another — should always be subject to a background check. In my opinion, he has sacrificed his 2nd Amendment right by his own, previous choice.

Hence, I don’t question the primary content of the President’s speech. Save for a few political jabs that it seems most of our leaders sadly can’t resist these days, I think the desire to curb the violence without caving to those who wish to repeal Americans’ rights makes sense. I do, however, have some valid questions in regard to the process.

While some previous presidents have utilized Executive Orders more frequently, the motive for utilization has varied. I struggle with the motive to bypass Congress because of an inability to pass desired policy initiatives. I have sincere concern about the expanding precedent of the Executive Branch becoming the crafter of law. What if, for example, the next president declares new law on abortion — making it significantly more or less restrictive, pending his or her political bent? What if the next president decides he/she can make more military decisions on his or her own? Even with all of its noted dysfunction, I appreciate the accountability within the combination of a Congress which makes the laws and a President who executes them. I don’t want single executives making the law on gun control or abortion. And I don’t want my opposition or support of this process to potentially hypocritically fluctuate with what the law is, who is the enactor, or how emotional I am.

I also question the legitimacy of the Executive Order being valid because “a majority of Americans” support it; what a majority of Americans desired in regard to ACA/Obamacare, for example, was considered irrelevant. It thus seems obvious to this semi-casual political deserver, that what the majority wants is only considered when the leader is in the majority. Where is the current national leader who has said, “A majority of Americans do not want this measure, so I have respectfully decided to refrain from its pursuit”? Note problem #1 with our democracy: what a party wants is prioritized over what the people want.

Yes, this subject is tough; it’s tough to navigate through respectfully; please know that is my desire. There is much I appreciated in this week’s gun control address; there is a significant some I did not; please remember, too, that my initial analysis is nowhere close to comprehensive, but it does help to edit out those who come from the standpoint of this President being the most awful or awesome man ever. I don’t feel their perspective is objective. Hence, the “untaintedness” helps with the blood pressure.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

curbing the violence

pie-chart-149727_640Another shooting. Another predictable, rhetorical cycle. It goes something like this:

There is too much violence!
When are we going to stop this?!
We need more gun control!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!

And hence, the disrespectful debate continues. We have lots of admirably passionate leaders and individuals, but the issue is never adequately solved.

My strong sense is that the issue of curbing gun violence is never adequately solved because we never deal with all that influences the issue. We rant and rave and pick and choose what aspect to jump on; we fulminate on Facebook or utilize Twitter to take others to task… “When will this stop?!” That’s the main idea; we want it to stop. Save for a less honorable few, yes, we all want it to stop.

But we tend to harp on aspects nearer and dearer to our hearts; we tend to repeat angles consistent with our favorite partisan proclamations. We blame people, presidents, and police. We blame groups and gangs who we perceive to most contribute to the existence of gun violence. We tend to emphasize singular aspects while ignoring other aspects — as opposed to wrestle with and acknowledge all angles of the problem. Such as (in alphabetical order):

1. Evil
2. Gangs
3. Law
4. Lobbyists
5. Mental health
6. Movies
7. Rap music
8. Sin
9. Terrorism
10. Video games

And more.

Many will address only one of the above. Addressing only one aspect, however, seems a futile attempt to adhere a tiny, tiny Band-Aid on a pulsating, gaping wound — that will thus continue to bleed. The Band-Aid makes us feel better… but it isn’t effective.

For example, many will understandably direct their angst toward the lobbyists — at the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), suggesting the group’s approximate $3 million dollars spent annually distorts the legislative process. Many simultaneously ignore that the NRA isn’t included in the top 20 spenders — and were also silent when the American Medical Association (AMA) influenced healthcare and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) influenced mortgage lending legislation. AMA has spent $19.5 million and the NAR has spent near $16 million this year thus far. (Note that the Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest lobbyist spender, has spent $42 million in 2015.) We need to be consistent in our cries out against lobbyists’ influence — a stated passion of the Intramuralist.

Others examples of addressing singular aspects are seen in how some only focus on the perceived sins of the shooter — ignoring the potential mental health component or illness. Others still, will focus only on mental health — ignoring how evil so obviously permeates this world.

Forget not the impact of the music, movie, and gaming industries. Amazon, Forbes, and USA Today all show lists of the most popular video games dominated by celebrated violence.

I wonder, too, if the gunman’s motives are relevant… The shooter at Umpqua Community College in Oregon last week, for example, killed people because they were Christians. Said one witness via Twitter, if they were Christian, “Then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.” Seems like gun control isn’t the only issue here. Can we honestly wrestle with the religious persecution? Maybe the motive is the bigger picture.

My point today, friends, is that there are all sorts of angles and approaches when considering the violence on this planet. We have a desire to curb it, to stop it. But unless we are willing to wrestle with and acknowledge the totality of the problem — and the entire bigger picture — our efforts, as good and passionate as they may sound, may remain sadly futile.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

some kind of evil

Bad things happen on planet Earth.  Like last week… primarily according to USA Today:

 

Federal investigators believe Aaron Alexis cleared a security checkpoint with his contractor identification and carried a shotgun into building 197 at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C.  Alexis reportedly began firing at people indiscriminately from an atrium overlook.  After firing several rounds, Alexis ran down a flight of stairs where he confronted and shot a security officer. It is believed that Alexis took the officer’s handgun and returned to the overlook where he continued to shoot.  13 people, including the shooter, died.

 

Like yesterday at a Kenyan shopping mall:

 

At least 59 people were killed and 175 injured during a Saturday afternoon shooting rampage at a shopping mall in an upscale district of Nairobi.  The 5-10 gunmen carried AK-47s and other sophisticated weapons and wore vests with hand grenades on them.  They also asked Muslims to leave before opening fire.

 

Bad things do happen.

 

In wake of the so-called “badness,” many respond with immediate, perceived necessary solutions.  On Monday, the Navy Yard shooting was only hours old when Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) took to the microphones to call for increased gun control measures.  “When will enough be enough?” she asked.  While Feinstein repeated details that were inaccurate but fueled the passion behind her plea — as many and the media are often apt to do, even though pausing would be prudent — she was not alone in her plea.

 

When bad things happen, we have a desire to fix it.  We have a desire to ensure the bad things will never happen again.

 

On that note, the Intramuralist has great respect for Feinstein, etal. in their stated desire to curb violence.  Who among us desires to see the innocent die?  The challenge, no less, is whether or not the proposed solution is actually effective — or is more proposed and applied because it makes us feel better; it makes us feel as if we are doing something.

 

In the wake of last week’s shooting, in multiple circles, I thus posed the following question:  where does this “badness” come from?  Is it evil?  Where does the evil come from?  What, in fact, is evil?

 

The answers were fascinating…

 

Most would acknowledge an existence of evil, but few seemed comfortable with evil dwelling within a person.  Some called the behavior of Aaron Alexis evil; still others said the identification of evil would be dependent on whether or not the gunman had a mental illness.  If he had any mental deficiency, the evil — if it existed — rested in the hands of someone or something else, perhaps in the institution or people who allowed him to have a gun in his hands.

 

My conclusion from this certainly unscientific polling is that we’re not comfortable with the idea of evil, and when we do utilize the label, we seem to do so inconsistently and subjectively.  We don’t like it.

 

Bad things happened on planet Earth last week.  I didn’t like it.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

violent crime

In my quest to discern what is wisest and best, I stumbled upon a bit of a case study surrounding the “Windy City.”  Love that town!  As a young adult, many a day did we stroll the streets along Lake Michigan, somehow even embracing the cold, enjoying the sights, and taking advantage of Chicago’s innumerable offerings.  Chicago, so-to-speak, has always been ‘my kind of town.’

 

With the recent response to the shocking Sandy Hook shootings — and how that tragedy, for some, has created cause to ratchet up the gun control debate — I have perceived that far too many of us are unaware about the situation in Chicago.  Now allow me to first share that I have no engrained partisan stance in the gun control conversation.  I have no sword in this fight.  I am neither an NRA card carrying member nor an anti-gun advocate.  My what-I-believe-to-be common sense approach is that the Constitution allows for guns, and they should be responsibly utilized.  Hence, I seek to discern what is wisest and best.  That search leads me to Chicago, as society discusses prudent approaches to gun control.

 

Violent crime in Chicago — how should I say this respectfully — is awful.  Let’s be clear; that’s the Intramuralist’s opinion.  Allow me to now share the facts.

 

According to the New York Times, the total number of illegal incidents in Chicago decreased by 9% in 2012.  However, the murder rate rose 15%.  After 513 homicides in 2012, New Years Day 2013 was rung in with 3 more.*  Among “alpha” cities (municipalities considered significant in the global economic system), Chicago has the highest murder rate — more than double that of New York City and Los Angeles — also higher than Mexico City and Sao Paolo.

 

A potential knee jerk response could be a cry for increased gun control.  The irony is that Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

 

Friends, I would encourage you not to overreact on either side of this debate.  I would encourage you to refrain from adopting any engrained partisan stance; this is not a partisan issue.  The presentation of the facts above does not clearly communicate that gun control is unnecessary; but it also shows that increased gun control is not necessarily effective.  What the facts say to me — and again, in our pursuit of what is wisest and best — is that something else must be in play here; some other factor(s) is influencing crime in our country.  Do we honestly believe that if we remove all guns, then we would remove all violent crime?  That there would be no other way for the sick, perverse, or even evil mind to hurt innocent others?  That sticks and stones would somehow no longer be able to break our bones?

 

And so I ask, similar to my initial response in the days immediately following the seemingly unthinkable in Connecticut, what else is in play?  What else is a factor in why violent crime is far too prevalent in this country?  Could it be…

 

… the lack of complete care for the mentally ill?

… the muted attention and compassion for the mentally ill?

… the reasons for mental illness?

… the breakdown of the American family?

… the digression of societal values where sometimes “anything goes”?

… the ambiguity of absolutes in regard to what is right and wrong?

… the dilution of giving credit to the divine?

… the temptation to rely more on self and do away with the divine?

 

What else?  What else is in play?

 

Are we courageous enough as a country to acknowledge that this might be something more?  … that this might be something that increased legislation may be incapable of fixing? … that simply more or less gun control might not make a difference? … that we are actually talking about the wrong thing?

 

As seen, perhaps, in Chicago?

 

Maybe even in our kind of town.

 

Respectfully,

AR

 

 

* Note that the Chicago P.D. reported only 506 homicides in 2012; however, they base their statistics on the day the victim died, as opposed to the day the incident occurred.

Posted on

selective morality

As all times when we are so shockingly rattled, the race to reaction is furious and fast.  When scenarios and circumstance significantly disturb us, we immediately jump to the solution.  “If we only had tougher gun laws… eliminated the violent video games… cared more for the mentally ill… if we put an end to all the ‘war’ rhetoric…”  (note that the last of those suggestions seems oft hypocritically proclaimed, as violent rhetorical usage is often chastised until it’s convenient to employ for personal passion…)

 

The reality is, friends, that I understand the rapid reaction.  We probe possible cause and means of prevention.  We want justice.  The disturbance demands justice!  And when the victims are obviously, especially innocent — as in Newtown, Connecticut, where reportedly 20 of the victims are under the age of 10 — many of them kindergarteners — kindergarteners! — our need for justice is only magnified.

 

Thus, in our quest for justice, we attempt to find the way or the one thing that would solve the seemingly inherent problem, such as the gun laws, video game and rhetorical restrictions, etc.  “If we only had that!…”  Those are wise, appropriate conversations that we should have.  The challenge, however, is that none attack the root of the issue; none address the actual bottom line, and if we fail to tackle the bottom line, shocking scenarios will continue.  They may look a little different — possibly utilizing different weapons and words — but we will feel the same.  Still shocked.  Still rattled.  Still so disturbed.

 

“How could someone actually do this?!”  It doesn’t make any sense.

 

It’s sad.  It’s grievous.  But evil exists on this planet.  I recognize that such is not a popular thing to either say or believe.  In fact, I have been a part of many discussions where at some point in the conversation in order to press home a point, one person inserts their passionate perspective that “all people are inherently good.”  Some may be messed up or mentally ill or a ‘switch is off somewhere,’ but for the most part, we’re all pretty good.

 

Popular or not, the Intramuralist respectfully disagrees.

 

Each of us have witnessed friends and loved ones make some rather confounding choices.  We’ve known persons who’ve engaged in violent crime, salacious infidelity, and unfathomable professional wrongdoing.  Simply put:  we’ve known people who have made bad choices.

 

What we now identify as a “bad choice” has somehow changed.

 

The closer people are to us, the more likely we are to offer grace and potentially, possibly, even alter our moral standards.  We have become, it seems, as I like to describe, “selectively moral.”  The closer we are to the perpetrator, the more morally selective we’re tempted to be; on the other hand, the more emotionally distant we are, the easier it is for our need for justice to trump any extension of grace.  What could instead cause us to attempt to offer full justice and full grace — simultaneously?  The recognition that none of us are “pretty good.”  It’s about capability; we are each capable of becoming confused in our moral standards — thus each capable of making bad choices.

 

Ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky.  The invisible qualities of an omnipotent creator have been made manifest.  Yes, evidence of God is all around us.  But yet, even though we’ve known God, we sometimes refuse to worship him or even give him thanks.  We begin to instead think up our own ideas of what God is like — as opposed to seeking what he says he is like.  We craft our own ideas — our own solutions — perhaps ideas that fit better with our individual experience and thus passions.  As a result, our minds can become confused.

 

When a person’s mind becomes confused, they typically come to worship or value something far lesser than the divine.  And my sense is when that happens — not knowing exactly how things work here on planet Earth — that at some point God abandons them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desire.  It’s similar to a parent/child relationship; we teach and encourage obedience, yet over time and the repetition of wrongful thinking and poor behavior, at some point, we give our children over to their own desires, hoping that they learn wisdom the hard way, potentially via the consequences of their own behavior.

 

As a result, therefore, of the shameful things in some persons’ hearts, people will do vile and degrading things.  That’s what we witnessed in Newtown on Friday.

 

It’s shocking.  It’s tragic.  And it doesn’t make any sense… even with our admirable demand for justice.

 

Respectfully… and with an incredibly heavy heart…

AR

Posted on

blaming the gun

At halftime of Sunday night’s Eagles vs. Cowboys football game, NBC host, Bob Costas, added a creative sort of commentary.  In reference to the weekend murder-suicide initiated by Kansas City Chiefs linebacker, Jovan Belcher — and quoting significantly from Fox Sports’ Jason Whitlock’s editorial column — Costas shared the following on national television:

 

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.

 

In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries.  Who knows?  Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend.  What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

 

In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed.  Who knows?  But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe.  If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

 

As typical of our seemingly oft hypersensitive society, cyberspace and Twitter’s tweets were active with both outrage and support…

 

Is it appropriate for a sports host to offer a politically-charged monologue?

 

Is it appropriate for Costas to speak of something other than sports?

 

And is it appropriate for the host to opine against what is actually a civil right?

 

Would other civil rights opposition be treated similarly on TV?

 

Truth is, while the Intramuralist wonders about Costas’ conviction, I don’t claim to know the answers to all of the above.  Costas consistently shares an opinion in his weekly segment; rarely, however, does the opinion have any political connotation.

 

Is there some truth in what Costas opined?  Possibly.

 

Is there also some truth ignored?  I would agree with that as well.

 

The gun control debate in this country is challenging.  The right to keep and bear arms is firmly implanted in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights; it is the law of the land and a civil right.

 

As with all “rights,” they are often used and abused.  Sometimes it seems the most grievous abuse — regardless of frequency — garners the greatest attention.  Jovan Belcher sadly, grievously misused his right.

 

The ignored truth, in my opinion, begins first with the impossibility for any to aver definitively — not even a respected long time NBC sports host — that Belcher and his girlfriend would actually be alive today if Belcher had not access to a gun.  Too often our society blames a thing or a circumstance as opposed to recognizing the foolishness of one man’s actions — as opposed to holding the responsible person responsible.  In other words, it was not the gun that triggered the murder-suicide; it was Jovan Belcher.

 

I wonder if the reason we so quickly and easily jump to blame the gun (or the thing or relative circumstance) is because it’s easier to control.  Maybe if we attempt to impose gun control, we won’t have to deal with the foolish ways some utilize guns; maybe if we attempt to limit free speech, we won’t have to wrestle with the foolish things some say.  If we focus on control of things and/or circumstances, perhaps then we never have to focus on the actual foolishness of some people.

 

And my sense is that the foolishness of some people is what’s most challenging to control.

 

Respectfully,

AR