We Can Do Something About Mass Shootings - And Response (5)

  • Friday, October 2, 2015

A friend posted his observation this morning that there was paranoia about reasonable gun laws. I know his heart is saying we have to do something about these mass shootings. Then while scanning the morning news shows I watched a pile o’ pundits from Al Sharpton to Donald Trump pontificate on doing “something” about the problem. Personally, I think there are plenty of gun control laws in place and so I immediately thought – “You can’t do anything about it” and let it go at that. 

But I am wrong. My Facebook friend was right - we can do something about it. 

Upon investigation it turns out there have been over 40 shootings on a school campus this year alone (sorry for yelling – but that’s a big number). And yes, I realize the data is broad on what constitutes a school shooting. But still, with my wife a teacher at an elementary school, that stat made me sit up and take notice. 

My wife Diana changed schools this year after 13 years at her previous assignment. They all knew me at the previous school so when I walked in the door there were greetings and such but never an effort to stop me. Understandable. But the first time I walked into her new school I was not prepared for the reception – or rather, the lack of one. I walked in the front door, carrying a tote with the book I was planning on reading and the snack treat for the kids, and walked up to the front desk. And nothing happened. The receptionist barely even looked up. So I dutifully started signing in whereupon a man walked up and asked if he could help me. I told him no, I was fine. That’s it. No ID check, no further questioning. And this is an observation, not a criticism. 

But that’s the problem. For the most part, shooters choose soft targets. Schools are as soft as they get. They are not monitored (actually my wife’s school is video monitored – I guess so they can review the footage after an attack), patrolled or otherwise operating under serious security protocols. And because the very nature of a school is to be a warm, inviting place for students to come they have literally left the front door open. To anybody. 

My wife is a Navy veteran who served two deployments to the Middle East. She has been qualified on handguns and automatic weapons. She has a carry permit issued by the state of Tennessee after taking training and having a background check. But if she carries a weapon into her school, and gets caught, she will not only lose her job but become a criminal to boot. 

Umpqua Community College had 13,000 students enrolled. And one security guard, and he was unarmed. The College’s own handbook states that concealed carry is not permitted on campus. The students at Umpqua, and indeed all campuses in the U.S., are sitting ducks for an attack.

If the problem is crazy people, we should ban them. If the problem is terrorists, we should ban them as well. If guns are the problem, we should ban them too. Of course, you can’t do any of that. But that is exactly what politicians, seeking votes from scared people, will next attempt to do. I heard a host on MSNBC say “We should do something – anything.” C’mon Mika – don’t you know how foolish that makes you look? Don’t you know the statistics don’t support a major law change, that the President’s speech was full of misinformation?

But you can protect the sitting ducks. My wife’s school has two assistant principals (turns out the one who asked about me when I checked in was one of them.) Surely every school campus has former military or qualified gun owners on their rolls. It’s time to harden the soft target. It’s time we protect law-abiding citizens from the crazies and the terrorists and the lone wolves and the copycats seeking fame. 

We can do something about these senseless attacks. But instead of doing something – anything – to control the gun violence let’s do something sensible. Imagine if you went duck hunting but the ducks were no longer sitting – they were armed. Duck hunting would no longer be such a fun pursuit.  

We can do something. Let’s fight back.

Kenny Fleshman  

* * * 

Kenny Fleshmen makes a few good points about school security and then veered off track with guns in purses and how to defend against a madman.  He suggests that his wife, a vet, with good gun skills should be allowed to carry her permitted pistol into the school.  I personally do not have any problems with guns in purses and if that gun is in a woman's purse that purse is not likely to be on her desk exposed to children or others.  

See where I'm going with this? If she, typical school person, has secured that purse in the bottom drawer of her desk or worse, locked in a locker in the classroom or worse still locked in the school secretary's desk, now the scene is this:  gunmen enters the school, he is not confronted, not stopped. He might even know where he is going, but if he does not and begins randomly shooting innocents, the person with the gun in purse must do the heroic thing and confront the shooter.  Now we have already told the reader the issue with the locked purse.  If the shooter comes into her room first, well, you know the rest of the story.

The myth that the good guy with a gun is just that, a myth.  I am a vet. I am qualified on many weapons. I have a pistol in my home. Let me repeat the scene only in a different location.

My home, intruder has a weapon in his hand as he breaks open the door.  Is the gun I own already in my hand waiting for the intruder?  See where I'm going?  

If those folks that actually believe they can confront an actual shooter, then have them step up and share how.  

Let me conclude with the awful scene in that movie theatre in Aurora.  Movie theatre is dark. Shooter enters via a rigged exit door.  Enters dark theatre and unloads AR-15 on audience members, spraying bullets. The good guy(s) with a gun are 40-50 feet away from the shooter and one could guess how those pistol bullets would fly also and further hit moms, children and dads.

The untruth about this story, told and retold by countless defenders of gun rights, is just plain false.

Bob Brooks 

* * *

Everytime there is a mass shooting, which seems now to be on a weekly basis, there is always the call for more guns, that if we just had more guns, we could take the bad guys out and protect ourselves, as if if we are all being denied the right to gun ownership.

The fact is, the U.S. ranks first in gun ownership globally per capita, with roughly 270 million firearms, or 89 firearms per 100 residents.  Given that fact alone, you would think that the U.S. should be the safest country in the world, but just the opposite is true.

The U.S. represents less than 5 percent of the global population but accounts for over 31 percent of global mass shooters and most all of the weapons used were legally obtained. 

More guns and less restrictions obviously are not the answer. 

John Fricke 

* * *

Is there truly a way to reduce mass shootings, particularly at schools? Yes. It will cost a lot of money and it will bring with it a lot of inconvenience. Sound familiar? If you have been to an airport to take a flight somewhere you will understand. If you have entered a courthouse or certain other federal buildings, you will understand.

I went to the Atlanta Aquarium a few months ago and they were fast scanning everyone who entered. It was minimal but I felt a bit better for the process. 

Why do these individuals attack schools? Schools are soft targets, the shooter can inflict the maximum pain, and attract the most attention. I agree that a "shootout" in a panicked, dark theater might have cost more lives and injuries. No way to know for sure, but definitely no guarantees. 

If we do everything we could think of, can we ever prevent a determined killer from inflicting a deadly attack? No. Remember Oklahoma? Guns are a weapon of convenience, but by no means the end of the arsenal of weapons that could be used against any location or institution. 

The worst school mass killing in the United States was in 1927 and involved the use of a bomb. It predated a lot of history and experience that we associate with the problem today. 

We can "harden" school targets but remember that we will have to harden other soft targets as well as the killer options change. That could include but is not limited to malls, churches, individual businesses, and any gathering of large numbers of people for work or recreation. 

Sound impossible? It would alter our society throughout and snuff out freedoms. The atmosphere would become more military and permeated with even more fear. 

Shouldn't we give a lot of consideration to identifying individuals with social/mental dysfunctions. Here again, personal freedoms will suffer. We can't have it both ways and that is why we cannot address the problem correctly. Society wants a solution that does not cost much money or personal freedom. 

The irony is that our freedoms have allowed this to persist. We have to choose. 

Ted Ladd
Chattanooga 

* * *

While I will agree that the U.S. is number one in gun ownership, 90 guns per every 100 people, I’m not sure how that ties into the shootings and murders if you look at this globally. If guns were the problem, more laws and less guns should reduce the murder problem, right? And, the places with less guns should have less murders, right? 

While the U.S. has more guns per capita, we are not even in the top 100 nations when you look at per capita murder rate. Honduras is, with 90 murders per 100,000 people. We are number 111 of 218 nations, with 4.7 murders per 100,000 people. Even though a lot of the nations above us on that list are socialist nations that have always had with very stringent gun control laws. 

Our national average is artificially higher than it should be because of a few particular cities. Detroit is one of the highest per capita murder rates of any of our cities. If it were its own country, it would just beat Venezuela for second place at 54.6 murders per 100,000 people. New Orleans has 53.2 per 100,000, St. Louis 35.5, Baltimore 34.9, New York 34.4, Oakland 31.8, and some more. These are cities that have the very strictest gun control laws. Maybe we should work on the leadership in these cities.  

There are places like Plano, TX. that has .4 murder rate per 1000,000. Plano is probably gun nut city, and virtually every home in Plano, Texas probably has multiple guns. 

I won’t argue that we have more mass shootings but I’m just not convinced they wouldn’t be done in another fashion. They tend to use homemade bombs in some of the other 110 countries above us on that list. And they are more destructive than guns.  

I won't even comment on the previous liberal knee-jerk statement that the U.S. is the opposite of the safest country in the world. 

Stan Conner
Soddy Daisy 

* * * 

Stan Conner, I see you like to use the right wing method of stats. Bring up gun ownership per capita and then make the next stat really broad to make it support your theory. Let's use the first part of your stat about guns, but this time make the second stat just about guns as well.  

Among developed countries, the U.S. has by far the most gun related homicides per capita in the world. And yes, the part about developed countries is very important. About 70 percent of our homicides are committed using guns. That's also highest among developed countries. Not only that, but we have the third highest suicide rate using guns in the world. More than twice as many homicides. That's awful.

It's obvious you got your info from either Fox news, the Tea party news network, or some NRA affiliated news source. I know because you talked about socialist countries. So let me educate you a little bit. Just so you know, there are over a dozen different types of socialism. North Korea and the old USSR are the countries the right wing wants you to associate with socialist countries. Yes, they are a type of socialist country. They are not, however, democratic socialist countries like Sweden, Norway, and New Zealand. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist.  Eight out of the top 10 countries to live in are democratic socialist, just so you know.  

If you're going to form an opinion, please have the decency to actually look into the facts first. Get you info from reliable places like motherjones or politifact. I mean, every right wing outlet tells you trickle down economics works. That should immediately tell you there is something wrong with the info you're getting. 

Carlos Gonzalez

Latest Headlines
Opinion
Democratic View On Top State Senate Issues - March 18, 2024
  • 3/18/2024

Campbell bill seeks to save lives by studying suicide trends in Tennessee 3 p.m. Senate Regular Calendar — SB 1787 , by Sen. Heidi Campbell, would require state health officials to produce ... more

The Odor Of Mendacity - And Response (2)
  • 3/16/2024

The Fulton County judge, Scott McAfee, overseeing the Fani Willis prosecution of Donald Trump and eighteen other defendants has spoken. In response to a motion by defendants to remove Willis ... more

Capitol Report From State Rep. Greg Vital For March 15
  • 3/15/2024

General Assembly confirms new Tennessee State Supreme Justice Members of the General Assembly confirmed the appointment of Mary L. Wagner to the Tennessee Supreme Court in a joint session ... more