The Dumps

Christopher Dorner was in the navy, was dismissed, and went on a murder spree.  Aaron Alexis was in the navy, was dismissed, and went on a murder spree.  Is the military dumping, rather than treating it's mentally ill members?  If so, I wish they'd be a little more responsible and think about the consequences of their actions.  And by the way, it's not just the possibility of a man with a gun, and the training to use it effectively.  It's also about the homeless veteran, domestic violence, and self medication that results in alcoholism and drug addiction.

Speaking of bat shit crazy, NRA nutter Wayne LaPierre is at it again.  The mantra of the gun crowd is that bad guys with guns are stopped by good guys with guns.  The Washington Navy Yard was crawling with armed good guys,  two of whom were shot by Mr. Alexis, their guns added to his collection.  So what was crazy Wayne's response?  Not enough good guys with guns.  I can't believe that people actually take that guy seriously.

Just A Reminder.....

In the 1920s Congress banned private ownership of the Thompson sub-machine gun, and no, Capone and the other gangsters didn't turn in their Tommy guns.  But, in time, the Thompson disappeared from the American scene.  The police seized some when they arrested criminals.  Some got turned in or destroyed by their owners.  Others just got old and unusable.  If we were to ban large capacity clips, at first it wouldn't make a difference.  But in time, those clips would go the way of the Tommy gun.  It might take twenty years for them to go away, but sooner or latter, the thirty, forty, fifty and sixty shot clips would no longer be part of American gun culture.

A Boy and His Gun

Every so often, circumstances require us to ask a very simple question about our judicial system:  Is it about vengeance or is it about justice?

There is not doubt that James Holmes opened fire in a crowded movie theater, and that he did kill twelve people.  There is no doubt that he booby trapped his apartment to kill the first person to enter.  If our system is about vengeance, then why even the pretense of a trial.  Pass the necessary amendments, and take him out behind the building and put a bullet in his head.

If our system is about justice, however, then like it or not, we have to accept the possibility that he is not guilty by reason of insanity.  It is a long established concept in both English and American law that a person has to be sane to be responsible for his or her actions.  We know that Holmes has been under the care of a psychiatrist and that Dr. Lynne Fenton has done research on schizophrenia.  She has also been part of a team that analyzes students at the University of Colorado who might be a danger to others because of mental illness.  Dr. Fenton may have been off the mark in regard to Holmes, but that doesn't mean he wasn't insane.

I'm writing this because the chorus of those who say Holmes is trying to get away with murder by pretending to be crazy is getting louder.  And not just among law and order types on the right.  There are lots of liberals who are saying the same thing.  I admit my prejudice.  I believe Holmes is mentally incompetent.  I don't want him to walk free  with a  prescription and best wishes, although I also think that one day in the future that could and should happen.  What I want is a fair trail where his possible insanity is taken seriously.

But what about the families of the victims?  Shouldn't they have closure?  Shouldn't they feel the relief of knowing that the killer of their loved ones is punished?  No, they shouldn't.  The justice system should not be about the feelings of victims and their families.  The justice system should be about the arrival at an objective  truth, (Or at least as close as we can get.) followed by an appropriate action by the courts system.

Auroroa

Just a bit of history.  Twenty years ago the tobacco lobby was considered to be so powerful as to be unassailable.  Tobacco companies marketed their products to children, they targeted minorities, women and college students as the next wave of smokers.  Tobacco company executives went to capitol hill, swore an oath, and then perjured themselves by saying that cigarettes were not addictive.  All with impunity.

After the Aurora theater massacre, we're now saying that the NRA and the gun lobby are so powerful that nothing can be done.  Republican senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has said that the possession of large ammunition magazines  is a constitutionally protected right.  And within a week, we'll probably all be hearing the tired old mantras that guns don't kill people, people kill people, that the actions of a single disturbed individual has nothing to do with the dangers of unfettered gun ownership.

Meanwhile, many of us on the left are saying the sensitive thing; that we should not politicize this tragedy.  That the families of the dead, wounded and damaged should not be drawn into a political campaign on the whole gun control debate.

This is wrong.  We politicize issues that need addressed, and the lightly regulated, absolute right to own any type of weapon is an issue that needs to be hammered in the public forge.  As long as we show sensitivity for the dead of this horrific shooting, the shootings in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, and others, the gun lobby and the NRA will rule the debate.  Their voices will not go challenged, and it will only be a matter of time before another crazy with a credit card and a deranged sense of self will buy an arsenal and gun down more people.

Twenty years ago big tobacco had it good.  But things change.  Joe Camel is gone, smoking in the workplace has disappeared from many states, and tobacco company execs consult with lawyers, fearing what they say may come back to haunt them.  It won't be easy, but gun lobbyists can be put on the defensive with enough pressure.  The first step should be a ban on large magazines.  A one hundred round clip isn't needed for hunting or self defense.  After that, a return to the full assault weapons ban.  But it won't happen if we are sensitive.  The twelve deaths in Aurora, Colorado should be the rallying cry for a new movement, no matter how cruel it may seem.

GUNS DON'T CAUSE VIOLENCE....

.....conservative political policy causes violence.

The NRA, Glenn Beck, and President Obama

I grew up in a small town were the majority of men, and a sizable minority of women hunted. To say I grew up around guns would be an understatement. As a child, the National Rifle Association was such a common part of my life, that I didn't think there was anything odd about people getting together and shooting guns. Here's the thing, though, when I was growing up, the NRA was an organization that stressed hunting rights, sport shooting and gun safety.

-

What happened? Somewhere along the line, the NRA was hijacked by the gun extremists, who are more worried about the right to walk around in public, armed to the teeth, than they are about deer season. These extremists equate showing up at a presidential speech with AK-47's over their shoulders with the right to hunt, target shoot, and to defend themselves from crime. (An issue that's blown way out of proportion. Most Americans will never know crime beyond the level of irritation.)

-

Enter Glenn Beck and his border line endorsement of assassination as a form of political protest. Beck, Limbaugh and the rest of the far right hate mongers are playing to the gun extremists. Every time I read in the papers about an Obama town hall meeting surrounded by gun wielding nuts, I wonder just how long it will be until a few of these fools decide to rush the hall and try to take out the president. They probably won't get beyond the local police and secret service, but they'll probably end up killing a few people before they themselves are shot.