Political Processes - Can we talk?

[Frybabe]

I know, Mary. I was surprised to learn the wording had changed a little over the years. I grew up with "under God" in it. Maybe not the first year or so of elementary, but I just don't remember ever not having it in. It was a shock to discover it was a late addition.

Regarding the word "equality", I can't find where Bellamy actually used it. The quote from the Fox article inferred that it was. Bellamy considered it, but decided against it according to one source I read.

[bellemere]

Great research Frybabe!  It was fascinating to here that the Pledge was first a marketing tool to get people to buy flags. As a small child, I often spent a week or two with my grandmother in her Philadelphia "row house."  It had a porch, identical to all the others on the street, that had what loooked like a metal hand attached to the front of theporch rail. There were holes where the "fingernails " would have been  Into these holes, Nana inserted her little
american flags on Fourth of July.  the whole block did the same, and I remember being thrilled by the patriotci display!

[bellemere]

As far as political process is concerned, is anybody worried about the excess of money in our politicalprocess? 
It seems as if the law allows all kinds of circumvetions to get around limits on contributions to candidates, and that super Political Action committees can influence office holders to support their causes if not with outright oney then with implied threats to prevent their re-election.  Is this really democracy? The  supreme Court has ruled that money equals free speech.  Seems like something is not right.

[Frybabe]

I guess they subscribe to the "put your money where your mouth is" view. Your money talks for you. Never thought of it as a form of free speech. Didn't know the SC ruled it as such. Interesting.

[kidsal]

The 28 Jan issue of Time has very interesting articles on gun control.  Sorry to say I live in Wyoming where there is very little control.  They can't understand why carrying a loaded gun into a bar is a bad idea?  But the article that states that a highly trained policeman could hit his target in a gun battle only 18% of the time -- the brain just can't process this highly tense situation in so little time.

[maryz]

A couple of years ago, the TN legislature passed a law that if you were licensed to carry a concealed gun, you could take it into a bar - but you couldn't drink.   Yeah, right!

[bellemere]

did it really say 18 percent of the time for a hit by a trained policeman?  Not very good score.  In that shoot out in fron of the empire State Blda few months bac, the cops fired 12 shots altoether and hit 9 bystanders.  Nd New Yor city cops are very well trained.
Our state leislature is contemplating requiring Liability insurance for gun purchasers, like car insurance.  We'll see how that plays out. A pliceman cannot come into a person's house to ascertain that uns are safely stored, but an insurance agent can.

[jane]

Not sure where you're getting your figures that say 18%...sounds way too low to me.


    Police firearms training typically includes qualification with a pistol, and also with a shotgun, general knowledge on the use of deadly force, some time on a training simulator such as FATS (Firearms Training System), and chemical agent training (using and getting sprayed) on oleoresin capsicum (OC pepper spray).  Pistol qualification usually requires at least a 84% proficiency score on two or three consecutive runs of the Practical Pistol Course (PPC), and shotgun qualification usually requires 80% proficiency (which is also the passing score on most written tests).  Officers who shoot at proficiency levels in the 90's usually become firearms instructors.  Some departments exist that allow qualifying scores in the 70-80% range, and another small number of departments require all their officers to qualify in the 90-100% range.

Source:  
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/205/205lect02a.htm

[mogamom]

This is from the Cato Institute and was written following the Columbine shootings:

Gun Control: Myths and Realities
By
David Lampo
May 13, 2000

The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a “Million Mom March” to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother’s Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it’s easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.
Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.

True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.”6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let’s hope more people are catching on.

 

[bellemere]

the Cato Institute promotes one, very libertarian , point of view.  It
s financed ,very well, by Charles Koch, the billionaire energy manate who opposes any ovt. action regarding the envioronment., as well as any action aainst gun violence. There are other sources. 
But to et back to the police shooters.  I think the Time article made a oint that even the best performers on the qualifying range undergo such severes stresses in an actual gunfiht, that their skils deteriorate very quickly.
My son in law was a city policeman for over 25 years and never fired his gun in the line of duty. He did break several nightsticks, and broke up many a barroom brawl with his fists. 
But the conflict over gun control will once more be won by money, not by emotion or reason.  ,

[jeriron]

In the New York City police department, for example, officers involved in gunfights typically hit their intended targets only 18% of the time, according to a Rand study. When they fired 16 times at an armed man outside the Empire State Building last summer, they hit nine bystanders and left 10 bullet holes in the suspect—a better-than-average hit ratio. In most cases, officers involved in shootings experience a kaleidoscope of sensory distortions including tunnel vision and a loss of hearing. Afterward, they are sometimes surprised to learn that they have fired their weapons at all.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/your-brain-in-a-shootout-guns-fear-and-flawed-instincts/#ixzz2Iut8AfdL

Bellemere

you are right about the Cato Institute. Also David Lampo is a Log Cabin Republican. His views are the same as the NRA.

"But the conflict over gun control will once more be won by money, not by emotion or reason." Exactly

[mogamom]

You are so right - it does represent a point of view, which is why the source needs to be cited.   What you seem to be speaking to here is the great difficulty in getting unbiased 'facts'?  There is a great deal of money spent by liberal groups also who promote gun control laws vehemently.  One problem I found with their statistics (often taken from FBI stats) is that 'gun violence' here includes suicide - which really is a whole different issue than violence against another.  The numbers can also be deceiving if you consider that they may be included in more than one column, but represent the same incident (ie.  'murder' and 'robbery' may refer to the same or separate incidents).  I try to look at both sides carefully.

But, that aside, how did the writers at Time reach their conclusions - was that described in the article?  I mean, how did they measure the accuracy?  Were these their numbers or a compilation gathered from law enforcement in several areas?

[mogamom]

Thank you for that link, jeriron! I'm having trouble reading it all, but will keep trying.  If their findings are accurate, what are they suggesting?  That police shouldn't carry guns either?  I'm really not trying to be provocative - just trying to understand.   

Is it wrong to be a Log Cabin Republican, a conservative or a libertarian?  Don't many Americans actually share the opinions voiced by the NRA?   

[kidsal]

There are not too many government statistics on gun violence as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms are prohibited (thanks to pressure by the NRA) from gathering statistics. I wonder why??

I certainly don't share the NRA's position.  I have no problem with owning guns for hunting or self protection (altough I believe that is very dangerous).  But the NRA is unreasonable in believing the government is going to take people's guns away which won't happen because the Second Amendment allows citizens to own guns.  However, the constitution does not say that owning or using a gun cannot be regulated.  A friend of mine wanted me to carry a gun (concealed).  What would she do if confronted by a robber?  Say "Wait a minute while I get my gun out of my purse!"

[bellemere]

Funny how different jurisdictions are attempting to find solutions to gun violence without treading on the toes of the NRA.  One small town in Ohio plans to arm the school janitors and give them two whole days of training in un use. Source: Steven colbert, sometimes outrageous, but neve inaccurate. that TN law reported here where you can carry a gun into a bar, but not drink is truly bizarre.  I guess if you see a bi ttouh looking guy at the bar drinkin a Diet coke, wyou know he is the "Designated Killer."

[maryz]

bellemere, it sounds bizarre to some of us Tennesseans, too.  Unfortunately, not to our legislators.

[kidsal]

"Designated killer" 

The Time article said that most local police practiced a few times a year at a shooting range.  Of course the targets don't shoot back!

[bellemere]

I deep thinkin about those janitors, wonderin if these men and women are happy with their new responsibility
to defend the shcoolchildren with a un. Was it voluntary or made a condition of their continued employment?  Shcool janitor used to be considered a pretty good job.

[jane]

I worked in public education at various levels for 36 years.  There have been more than a couple janitors I surely don't want armed in a school setting! Good grief!!

jane

[CallieOK]

Have properly and well-trained guard dogs ever been considered?

[BarbStAubrey]

I think we are in a new time - I just do not see us being able to control who does and who does not have a gun - the latest on the national stage is that there are as many differences in gun laws among the states as there are states - my concern has also been on two aspects of controlling guns - if the police and FBI are the only ones with assault weapons and we cannot even trust them with pepper spray however, that leaves us open as citizens to have our rights lessoned rather than we are all equal - this is how many nations have police states - I really am not anxious to live in a police state.

Second there is no stopping criminals from getting and using assault weapons - and so the police need them and then gradually those who live where they feel vulnerable with less police protection - which let's face it, police do not protect! They come after the event or if we are lucky to be able to notify them during an event. And so, those who know the police could not protect even if they wanted will also feel compelled to have weapons. What started out as a hunting and war machine hundreds of years ago that later, in order to settle this nation we used guns to kill those in the way, the gun became individual war machines are now sophisticated killing machines used for a rational we have not understood.

There were mass killings including children long before assault weapons - that is a behavior that I have not heard examined - oh the individuals physiology is often assumed but mass killings has never been explained. This is something basic - how does rage get to this point - there was the African experience some years ago where one tribe killed everyone they could find from another tribe - we toss off 9/11 as an act of war or terror but how does someone urge another to be a part of a mass killing and in this nation when you look at the history of mass killings in just the 20th century - and so if it is not assault weapons it is dynamite or long knives or planes or anything that can harm.

I also think that with the other mass school shootings it happened in the part of the country those in the east saw as separate and more open as we still have the image of the Wild West planted in our minds - I think Connecticut was a case of the behavior associated with big city inner city ghetto life of drugs, poverty and daily murder coming into a middle to upper middle class community - I do think that is part of the fear. The gate to hell had opened and what was considered over there was here and all the associations with inner city culture like music and dress and now behavior was affecting an upward mobile community.

No we cannot close the door and we cannot go back and fix the sins of allowing a system that gave no floor or protection except to jail those who do not live like the middle class. But yes, we need protection and we do not want to allow our children to be someplace unprotected - we would not allow them to shop alone or go to a movie theater in certain parts of town - too bad since the children in those parts of town have no choice but again that is taking on a huge social issue.

So like it or not we are going to have to hire armed protection - we could look to see how the few schools that have increased their attendance and graduation from these inner city schools set up protection - large lawns may have to be surrounded with high barbed wire fences and that will be the new picture of what an elementary school looks like - when it comes down to it who do we trust to protect with arms - some do not like teachers carrying others do not thing janitors have what it takes others see the police often drunk on the feet during their off time and see uncontrollable behavior when in uniform - the FBI kills the wrong people and yet as individuals all these people protect themselves and their families and are our neighbors.

I think we have to face facts - until we know what are the causes some with individual emotional problems to turn to mass shootings when they experience trouble in their life we have a problem and until we can develop ways for inner cities to have hope and safety and until those to the south of this country are not so desperate that their biggest commerce is drugs with gun wars that spill into our country all of these problems are now handled with firearms - we will have to figure out a way to protect our kids when we are not there with them.

[mogamom]

I have read statistics from the CDC, DOJ, and FBI.  Each measures different populations and the analysis of the statistics given is different; but on this they all agree (as do their numerous charts):  gun ownership has gone up measureably (even dramatically in the last four years; estimates of access given as high as 80 out of 100) and gun violence has continued to decrease since 1990, although by far the majority seem to be rightly stating that there is no honest way to say that those numbers constitute a cause-effect relationship.  I guess I was most surprised that, with all those guns, the gun violence isn't much higher than it is.
 
The second amendment was given to us to give us a way to protect ourselves and our families AND to protect us from tyrrany.  James Madison made that clear in the Federalist Papers.  And for those who think the second amendment will protect citizens from losing the right to carry weapons you should note that the last two Supreme Court justices have both defined that amendment to be only relevant to a collective group (militia = state National Guard), not to individual citizens.

I have also read the 23 executive orders President Obama is considering:  some are relatively benign, some are troubling (ie. using the Health Care Act to get doctors to report patients who own guns, a federal registry, etc.).  But what they all have in common is that they are ineffective - bad guys don't fear/keep the law.  

Even regulating gun shows promises to be ineffective since that accounts for only about 1% of the guns confiscated in a crime: most 39% each get guns on the street and/or from friends/family/neighbors.

The shooting in Webster was more thoroughly discussed:  the perpetrator of the shooting was angry because his mother left everything to his sister (since he was in jail for killing her mother with a hammer).  So he killed his sister and set fire to the house.  A woman got him the guns and ammunition which he couldn't obtain.  It only took the Webster police ten minutes to respond, and as soon as they returned fire he ran off and shot himself.  People are wondering what more/different laws/regulations could have prevented this; or if it would have been wiser to give first respondents a way to protect themselves.

As far as schools go - how about we start with an alarm system and go from there?

[BarbStAubrey]

Yes mogamom you make the point about Webster and the individual motive of the shooter - but why mass shooting - that is the motive not explained about any of these mass killings - rage I understand - feeling deprived - and I could understand the murder of a few who  you blame but to turn to mass killings of folks you do not know - what is that all about - what is the cause - we have no info that gives us the picture of why that is an alternative action - how can we protect ourselves against a rage with unknown rational for choosing macro versus micro killing.

[bellemere]

But where is this taking us?  It has been estimated that there are at least 230,000 guns on the street in the hands of criminals that were stolen from the pribate homes of gun owners. Are we really oing to spend millions of precious education dollars on armed guards for our schools? What about our daycare centers,? Our nursing homes, another vulnerable population? Hospitals? sporting events? libraries? thaters ? (Aurora) how about churches and synagogues? 
I know that facts must be faced.  But the ision of a nation of civilians carrying weapons and eerplace packed with armed guards is terrifying.  And a police state looks bad? 
On youtube you can hear an anti control advocate explain how "This is not about duck hounting!" Youtube, piers MOrgean alec Jones interview)
He makes it clear that gun owners who do not like something "the government" (freely elected goernment) does, the matter will not be settled by ballot but by bullets.  In other words, they will "rise up" and "take back" our country from its democratically elected leaders. By shooting them,, i guess. How else would they do it?
I wll hang on to my Impossible Dream: a change in the gun culture of my country .  Just as now , it is culturally okay to say to a friend who has had too much to drink, "Let somebody else drive" it should be okay to tell a friend going through and a dark time with job loss or divorce, "Store the gun someplae else for a while"  That might prevent some of the domestic murders by (formerly)law abiding gun owners. I know hoping for a change in the American gun culture is pretty hopeless, but do we really want to be ruled by the NRA?  Are we to let them design our future as one of More, more and more guns? Assault weapons are not toys. They belong to soldiers, yes and FBI agents who have taken an oath to defend our country.

[BarbStAubrey]

The NRA has been in panic mode for a very long time - they really have the second amendment in mind and their sense of liberty that was assured by the gun and for most members they live where guns are not used for killing others but as a sport - they are tied to the gun as the extension of the individual versus being subjugated to the power and will of others. No, I do not belong to the NRA but to set this up as another football game with gun rights and the NRA on one side as the demons I do not think gets us anyplace.

As to safety in public places - I do not know the answer - I wonder though if fear is at the basis of this - there is an article that shows the women killed in domestic and other rape violence since 9/11 are more than all the deaths of 9/11 and all the soldiers killed in wars since 9/11 and yet, it is still difficult for women even to get a fair understanding if she shoots her perpetrator - comparing that number to the deaths from mass killings makes the fear seem out of place. Then when you compare the deaths by shootings to death from an auto accident we do not seem to share the same panic and fear getting into our vehicle nor taking our children with us in our vehicle that is far more a death trap.

Frankly I am with you - I do not see how we can afford armed guards for our schools or all the public places where mass shootings can take place - we cannot even afford to assure there is no death on the highway much less assure women and some children are not killed in their own home.

I still think until we know the basis for disturbed people to shoot masses of people I do not think we can figure out a way to protect the community - but then we know why there is so much crime and violence in inner cities and we still do nothing about that.

As to Piers Morgan he is not looking at the big difference between England and the US - in Britain the police are only recently armed and except for a few swat teams they do not have semi-automatic weapons - their dealing with policing is very different -

Britain does not have near the population much less the diversity of population - they come from a history where, until the mid twentieth century, folks knew their place - we did not have a culture here until recently of a caste system based on wealth - and yes, we did have a caste system based on race but even there, guns were not as prolific as they have become since the drug culture and the drug wars and also, since Viet Nam - When disenchanted soldiers did not feel safe without carrying and then in some parts of the country the killing of folks by the FBI who were living tucked away in mountains made everyone jittery. When the nations authority mis-uses their power with guns, no one wants to take that lying down - then the authority is playing with what is basic to the reason for our nation. And that is the difference between the US and Britain.  

[bellemere]

I know we aree on the goal of a civilzed society, a rule of law, not of force.
But if the current trends continue - more guns, more semisautomatic uns, where will we be, say a decade down the road.? Surely gun tecnology willproduce even more fearful weaponry, guns that shoou nere as capsules perhaps or small handuns capable of as many multple rounds as semiautomatics today, , but easily concealed.
And as the weapons et more lethal, the reulations become more relaxed.
The poor foundin fathers.  they were so afraid the new republic would o broke supporting a standing army, and that such an armywould encourae adventuring into wars, (Boy,did they get that ritht right) that they envisioned a citizen army of armed householders coming to defend their country. After all, it worked once at lexington Massachusetts; it could again.
There are inded fact to face.  But there is also a vision to keep in sight,.  We are a great country, and it is not our weapons but our ideals that make us great. Now I sound like a pol.  but true.  You work toward, and sacrifice for,  your vision.  what is the gun owner
s ivsion?  The reason I hear for assault weapon ownership is to have more fun on the shooting rane. those weapons wee desined for the miloitry and they shuld stay there.

[jane]

I think we need to put many more resources into mental health and getting children the mental health help they need early on.  There has been a thought of "not wanting to label" a child as having mental problems too early.  If the child has mental health issues at age 5 or 6...threatening to burn down other kids' homes, violence toward other kids in the forms of physical violence, etc. then that needs to be dealt with by professionals...and not wait until he's now 8 or 10 to get the help.  There are long waits in many school districts for children referred by qualified school psychologists to mental health facilities...but it is taking months and months to get the child in.  

If we can spend $$ buying military equipment the military doesn't want, we can surely get money into the training and establishment of mental health facilities.  I don't think anyone would disagree that it wouldn't have taken a Ph.D or MD in psychiatry to see that the Aurora, CO, shooter, the AZ shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter were in desperate need of mental health help.

I don't believe you are going to legislate or change the "gun culture."  My own Iowa county has long lists every month of citizens who have the permit now to carry "concealed."  And the crime in our county?  It's been coming from those who've come into our community from the outside...from the Chicago and Milwaukee area.  These men have been caught breaking into homes and businesses...taking what's there that they want....$$, credit cards, electronics.  I guess they think a small town police force is an easy mark.  The number of them sitting in the local jail would seemingly indicate maybe that's not so.  

We also need to break this cycle that I'm entitled to what you have simply because I want it.  This kind of "entitlement" is going to take years and years to break, I fear.

These breakins of homes and businesses will only fuel more people going for their gun permits, I think.  Women living alone on farms look like easy targets.  I think the bad guys will find out that these women are armed, they know how to use weapons, and they will shoot intruders.

[bellemere]

We do need more mental health resources.  But treatment for mental illness works , sometimes.  somtimes it does notl It is not amiracle cure
The NRA has done a masterful job of portraying itself as a defender of constitutional rihts.  It is really an arm of the gun manufacturing industry.
the times today writes about the industry[ sponsored "youth shooting contests" in order to recruit children, ages, 8 and up, to learn how to kill with a gun.  In our twon, , two years ago, a perent, a docto no less, took his 8 year old to a shooting rane, in order to get a picture of him firing a semiautomatic weapon.  The little boyy was not strong enough to resist the recoil of the weapon and it slipped and killed him right in front of his father with a camera trained on him.
The gun industry and the NRA are studying the demographics and see a declinin population of older gun owners , thus they are pourin money into the "junior Shooter " movement, aimed at youn children. How much money?  uess I'll read more about it and find out. I am sure it is substantial.
Publishing the names of gun owners is a great way for criminals to target homes with guns, isn' it?
So a large number of guns owned by
Our biggest gun problem is with gangs. And their guns are stolen from gun owners, for sure. They are not customers of the gun shops. so more gun permits equals more street uns eventually.
Again, whee is all this spreading gun culture  taking us? 

[BarbStAubrey]

OH dear Bellemere - have you been to a rifle range - many kids learn to shoot at a rifle range and you need to be pleased because they learn gun safety and gun manners where as the kids who learn with friends out back in a field just learn to aim - if the NRA was teaching how to kill the FBI would be all over them no matter how much money is supporting the organization from manufacturers.

Do you have a site that we can see to learn where the NRA gets their money - from which gun manufacturers - this is not secret so if this is something you have researched please, let us have the benefit of your research. However, I do not think gun manufacturers are producing a product simply to kill willy nilly anyone - just as a match company or gas company is not producing matches or gas to be used to set houses on fire.

I know you are seeing this as a problem from where you live - and probably many of the local news commentators are revving up outrage blaming what is a simple blame - products can be used for both good and bad - please look at the responses here on Senior Learn - anyone who lives in a less populated area sees the benefits of a gun - those who live in an area where you not only can see your neighbor but can look out the door and see 10 neighbors and who do not have wild animals to care for when they are injured and if there is a disturbance can get police protection see guns as a menace.

Stopping house robberies of guns may be one of the biggest ways a campaign can get gun control started - that at least would drive the criminals to an open market even if it is a Black Market - getting guns from the hands of criminals would allow folks to feel safe so that populated areas would not be inundated with guns.  To go round and round and think that is going to create a change is a lot of energy that could be used to make a difference.

Jane yes, the idea of children having the benefit of mental health but my concern is we pile more and more on the schools - with so many kids and young people's shows on TV I wonder if there is a way writers could introduce in their story line kids asking for and other kids going to their appointed therapy. You were a teacher so you know, my daughter and daughter-in-law are teachers and say that if they were able to include in their lesson plans all the issues that the public think kids should learn in the classroom they have time for maybe 10 minutes for each initiative leaving no time to teach the subject matter they are supposed to learn.

My thinking is there is not only not enough public dollars invested in mental health but the attitude of caring for you mental health is still not looked at with open arms as a natural way to take care of yourself and your family. Once we see mental health as a norm then school boards may see mental health care on the same level that assures a school nurse - schools could even include some early before class half hour small group sessions and monthly assemblies showing a movie about bullying and other issues - for most schools that is only 3 movies in the fall with December a celebration month and then 3 in the Spring with April being Spring break and May is looking at finals with no more new learning. 6 movies a years handling bullying, anger, loss of a home, family member through death and another divorce. A family member in jail, or ill so they can no longer contribute and need care etc. etc.

I wonder if there are even books written with stories of kids experiencing some of the trauma that we do not talk about but a kid today lives with like putting on their shoes, pants and shirts.

And then why is it that boys and men are involved in mass shootings - there are as many women with firearms - granted most women I know only use shot guns, rifles and pistols but they know how to use a gun - what is that all about.

[jane]

Barbara

Jane yes, the idea of children having the benefit of mental health but my concern is we pile more and more on the schools - with so many kids and young people's shows on TV I wonder if there is a way writers could introduce in their story line kids asking for and other kids going to their appointed therapy. You were a teacher so you know, my daughter and daughter-in-law are teachers and say that if they were able to include in their lesson plans all the issues that the public think kids should learn in the classroom they have time for maybe 10 minutes for each initiative leaving no time to teach the subject matter they are supposed to learn.

 

I'm not talking about the teacher doing mental health therapy in the school classroom.  Teachers aren't trained as mental health professionals.  I'm talking about licensed/certificated master and specialist degree school psychologists making recommendations after working with children and seeing the need for those children to have more help...from clinical psychologists and psychiatrists.  THAT is what is taking 6-9 months to happen...after the master/specialist degree school psych has recognized a severe problem in a child.

The school is the logical place to find the children who need more help than they're getting.  I don't know where else trained professionals have long term interaction with the children and can see what are behaviors that need mental health help.  Finding children who need help is what the schools have been doing for years...from the passing of the 94-142 law which was to identify, locate, and provide services to handicapped children.  The law is there...it's a matter of getting the help available that these children with mental problems need.

For those not familiar with the 1975 Federal law:

www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfrnb/pl94-142.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_All_Handicapped_Children_Act

http://www.scn.org/~bk269/94-142.html

jane

[BarbStAubrey]

I like it - now to change the attitude that still exists that therapy is a luxury and for many they see it still as un-neccessary - that should not be too hard since there have been successful many attitude changes about health - the next big high jump is getting those on the board of education to see the value and include it in their budget. Nothing is easy is it but this idea really makes sense and I bet if they are so worried about test scores that a child receiving therapy will be able to focus more on their studies and bring in higher test scores.

I still would like to have an understanding of why boys and men commit these mass shootings but not girls or women. 

[bellemere]

Oh Barb, one of those little shooting range students was Adam Lanza, whose mother reularly took her sons to a hihly rated range run by the National Sports Shooting Association  that is where he learned how to use the un he later used to kill her in her sleep and go on to kill those 20 little children and 6 teachers.   And the national headquarters of the Shootin Sports Foundation is, guess where?  Newtown, Connecticut, just down the road from the Sandy Hook elementary School  Parents of those childrem must find it very hard to drive by that building  Will they have the decency to move and establish their headquarters somewhere else. ?
If you can possibly read today's long article in the new York times, you will read the tremendous effort that is bein funded by gun maanufacturerss to recruit children to shootin, starting at ae 8, and especially tareting middle school boys.  That they see as the ae roup that miht get interested in what they call "competing activities" like soccer, baseball, swimming, music, ymnastice, etc.
There are better ways to teach children responsibility , safety, and manners. Here is my view;  None of us, gun owners, parents, anti gun actibists, none of us knows the cause of thie terrible gun violence that grips so many of our youn men. Until the Center for Disease control gets busy following the initiative just sined by the President , and funded with 10 million dollars, to study the causes of un iolence, and include the easy accessibiility of assault weapons, the violent videos and films, the lack of propler mental health care, and the undue influence of gun manufactureres on public policy,. nobody will know what to do.  We are all stumbling around in the dark.
Oh, and in my state?  Smith and Wesson in the next town, was just admitted to the Golden Circle of the N.R.A. , reserved for donors of 1 million or more.  the more is open ended and until I can et the Smith and Wesson tax return, whichI cant', I can only uess that it is much much more.

[BarbStAubrey]

bellemere there are many coincidences in life - what happened can be blamed on many things including the driving school where he learned to drive the vehicle that got him to the school - you cannot take one incident and say that is the cause and if we ban that there will be no more or less violence.

There are far more deaths from teens driving then teens using guns and kids clamor to be able to drive - we should be thanking our lucky stars that there are so many kids learning the correct way to use a gun and when to use a gun - to say the teaching of this young man how to use a gun was the cause then every school would also have to be blamed and vilified just as the shooting ranges because, if he had no association with school and was home schooled his entire childhood he would not have gone to the school.  

Each of the killers were sick - he killed himself - folks who commit murder do not just kill themselves - they think they are going to get away with it - and so it is an easy way out to blame the mom, the fact he learned to shoot, that they had guns, that he learned to drive, that he had access to a vehicle, that he was on his computer all the time we need to blame I guess Bill Gates. How come no one mentions the Dad in all this - he, with all his money has insulated himself - frankly this sounds too much like the Mendez brothers who killed their mom because the boys saw that she protecting the Dad.

Can't go back and forth any longer on this - you are living a fortunate life where you have instant protection - where you do not have to kill wounded wild life - where you do not have to keep criminals off  your property because it would take the sheriff too long to get to your house on and on - the quick blame is fine if that helps folks in your area to feel safe - and yes, I agree your situation is very different then at least two thirds of this country - I see in an attempt for the folks in your area to ease their fears they are also saying y'all are willing no longer to be equal to those who do have guns - if that is the price you believe is best to feel safe than fine but that is a big price that many others in the nation are not willing to pay.

Yes, I agree there are jerks in the NRA, powerful jerks but then there are jerks in Congress, jerks on School Boards that choose Textbooks, jerks on wall street, jerks in the FBI and the various police departments and in the Dept of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - and so this month the jerks at the NRA are the flavor of the month - so be it - but all organizations have good and bad  - I just hate to see folks throwing out the baby with the bath water. God Bless - make others happy and we will all get through this life as best we can.

[bellemere]

Ues, we have to let this go.  the only thing i will be watching is that appropriation of 10 million dollars to the Center for Disease Control. , to see if g'un Conressmaen" try to get it eliminated from the budet. The NRA has been able to stop all investiative research into gun iolence for 17 uears.  I would not say that we have "instant protection, but some hoe owners have alarm systems wirred into the police stations, and that is pretty efficiient at getting the newrest cruiser to the house.
Ane no we don't have to shoot wounded or sick animals; the vet does it. And amon my friends , no one owns a un, and doesn't want on. Except for hte husbnd of one who oes hunting.
So we  have to wait for the research tfor our country to make data-drien decisions.Real information is our right under the First amendment.  menwhile, the gun indutry nd the NRA will continue to promote shooting as a nice healthy family sport; to scare people into buying guns for protection, and to recruit children into the gun culture.
In the meatnime, pax, shalom, peace.

[Frybabe]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

I've been reading your posts. It is a very difficult subject. At what point do you give up freedoms to gain safety and security? Where is that fine balance between the two, and why do we swing from one extreme to the other? The argument has gone on for a very long time, gun control is just a more visible part of it. Most of the gun control history I have found is related to the US and is biased one way or another. I did find this interesting article on a website that says it is not funded by any group that would limit their content. http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/19/a-brief-peoples-history-of-gun-control/ Not much, but a start. I'd like to find more on early gun control issues and perhaps other weaponry prior to the invention of firearms. I am curious to see what arguments were used then.

I am very happy that we live in a society that is able to openly debate the issues, regardless of what they are without (for the most part) punishment. I am also pleased to see that we can (as evidenced in this debate here) argue our various (and valid) points without resorting to ad hominim attacks. Well done.

As a side note, in our discussion of Travels with Herodotus I was very much interested to note that Herodotus' main goal in his travels was to discover the cause of war with an aim to preventing it in the future. Guess he wasn't very successful.

[jane]

An interesting opinion in the WashingtonPost on why the Post Office has the $$ problems it does....thanks, apparently to a bill they passed in 2006!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-the-collateral-damage-of-cutting-postal-service/2013/02/11/41af2ba4-7487-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html

[maryz]

I knew that about the pre-funded pension plans, jane.  Ridiculous!

[BarbStAubrey]

[Frybabe]

"Why are sex attacks on the rise in Tahrir Square?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21441624

I am a bit disturbed that Egypt seems to be backsliding into treating women abominably, but since Morsi won the vote, I am not surprised to see this all bubbling to the surface. The excuses the men give are unconscionable.

PS Barb, the roses are great. George surprised me with a small bouquet too. Truly was not expecting it.

[BarbStAubrey]

Read somewhere recently in one of the many books that during times of nationalism - not necessarily unrest but intense nationalism those low on the totem pole are hassled - my expression - but according to where it can be ethnic, religion or sex ID that folk jockey for inclusion and exclusion because nationalism is an attitude of creating strong borders instilled with pride and the heritage that tells a desirable story around a nation - which could even explain some of the backwards look at women in this country as we are securing borders keeping out the unwanted which to many is strengthening our identity with a rallying cry we are a lawful nation.