Another Mass Murder with a Gun as the Weapon of Choice: What Can We Do About It?
You’ve read the headlines:
OMAHA, Nebraska (CNN) – A 19-year-old gunman who police said killed eight people and then himself at a Nebraska mall left a suicide note predicting the shootings would make him famous, his landlord said. Five other people were injured, and two of them were in critical condition, hospital officials said.
And:
The gunman, identified by the authorities as Robert A. Hawkins, who was 19 or 20, of nearby Bellevue, was described by friends as a depressed person who had lost his job at a McDonald’s restaurant earlier in the day… Less than an hour before the shooting, Mr. Hawkins had called Ms. Kovac, she recounted. He apologized to her for all the trouble he had caused, she said. He also left a note… She said that he obtained a weapon on Tuesday evening from his father’s home and that at the time he said he planned to use it for target shooting on Wednesday.
In the United States, acquiring a gun is not difficult. There is no real threat to gun control laws in the United States. Guns are there and will continue to be there for many, many years.
Few will call for gun control. Some will argue that everyone should have a gun. A middle ground position — a stop-gap, if you will — would be to argue for a massive gun safety effort in the U.S. The effort should be similar to that of the safe-sex education initiative in schools: children should be taught rules of gun safety, especially the big rule: if you own a gun, keep it out of reach of those who should not have access to your gun.
Some may argue that bomb-safety should be taught, as bombs are also used to kill people.
One person has been killed and at least one other seriously injured in a parcel bomb explosion in central Paris, the French Interior Ministry has told CNN. The package containing explosives was delivered to a fourth floor law office in a building on the Boulevard Malesherbes in Paris’ 8th district, near the Champs-Elysees. The office handles civil and commercial work, according to Paris prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin, who is participating in the investigation. It is unclear why it would be the target of an attack, Marin said. He added it was unclear who the package was addressed to because of the extent of the damage.
Good point, but guns are far more often used to kill people in the U.S. (and elsewhere). What else can be done? Gun advocates will never give up their guns. You can’t get elected President in the U.S. on a gun control platform. The only practical alternative to the lack of a gun control movement in the U.S. is a gun safety movement.
Themocracy
The NRA has a gun-safety program being taught in some schools that don’t flap their hands in panicky fashion at the notion of firearms being introduced into education. The program is called “Eddie Eagle.”
I don’t know if the NRA should be the one leading the gun safety initative. They are very partisan. I would rather an independent panel sponsored by the government to come up with guidelines. Having the NRA teach gun safety is like having the makers of Paxil teach responsible depression management. I’m sure they have relevant things to say, but they would be biased in the overall presentation of facts.
That’s an opinion. As I’ve looked at the Eddie Eagle teaching materials myself, I’m more familiar with what’s being taught.
Please describe how the teaching of gun safety would be “partisan.” Without engaging in hyperbole. Writing off a safety program because it’s taught by the NRA is exactly the sort of hand-flapping that keeps issues like this in the realm of partisan bickering. Basic gun safety isn’t a partisan thing.
Bias in the presentation of facts is one of the issues discussed many times here, especially in the realm of education. That is, the majority of college professors lean to the left, and as such the presentation of the course material is biased by the teachers’ world view. So it’s okay that colleges have biased presentation, but not okay if gun safety has a perceived bias in its presentation?
YOu think that if the NRA teaches a gun safety class that the class will not really be about safety?
Actually I have a solution. I got this idea from the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov, though it may not have been his it could have been in one of the expanded series written by some other authors. The idea is to take from them what they most want – attention. All mention of the name or any history at all of the person guilty is expunged from existance. They are not spoken about by name, and all records of their existance or any discussion about them is prohibited except by law enforcement. Probably hard to do – but no more free publicity!
On another note – I was sickened by an interview of this man’s friend:
Interviewer: “What do you think of him after learning he was involved in this shooting?” – now this is already bad, as if he was somehow wandering about and was “involved” – no, he murdered people! Ok, but it gets worse!
Friend: I think no differently of him. I know he would not do something without a good reason. He wanted to go out with a bang and that’s what he did.
The guy’s friend is a piece of shit. “Without good reason.” Let’s see him say that to the families of the people his buddy murdered. If anyone should get publicity and fame for something, it’s him. Everyone needs to know that he’s a dimwit.
I don’t think either bias is okay. That’s why I don’t do that.