It is a Tool of Death, so can it Sometimes be a Bad Influence?

  Our mass murderers of late, for the large part, are not cut from the lot of criminals. They often lack extensive criminal histories. We should wonder what makes them jump from no crime (or little crime) to major crime.
   Some are lashing out at the world. Some are reflecting their ideologies. Those are factors.
   What I'm wondering, is whether the gun culture we live in is also a factor. Our love of guns, our glorification of guns, does that have anything to do with why some go from no crime, to gun crime?
   Bad influences can make good people, bad people. You might not want to think our love of guns, as a society, helps foster the murderer, but does it? I'm sorry, but I'm guessing it is a factor. You might not want to think of the gun as a bad influence, but can it be? It seems it might have been invented to bring about death. It's hard to imagine that a tool of death cannot be a bad influence.
 

Mass Murders are not the Average Criminal's Cup of Tea

   If you notice, many of the shooters in the mass killings are first-time criminals. Oh, I suppose I don't know their exact histories, but I am rather sure few of them had extensive violent backgrounds.
  Our hardened criminals might rob banks, deal drugs, and, yes, murder, but they don't seem too bent on shooting masses. It just doesn't seem to be their cup of tea.
  Instead, rookies do that.
  I search for reasons as to why. I brainstorm a little. Maybe hardened criminals are mostly just in it to get by. They just want to make their lives easier, and so they steal and rob and kill to get there. They don't commit a crime just for the glory of committing the crime, but only as a means of getting something they want. The crime isn't an end in and of itself, it  is a means to an end.
 So, what is it about the mass killer that sets him off? Is he a person angry at the world, and seeking to take it out on the world? I'd guess, many a time, that is the case. They aren't seeking to make their lives better. To them, the crime is an end in and of itself.

People are Dying While Waiting for Social Security Disability Approval

   I think of the Veterans Administration scandal, of how people were dying while waiting to be seen at the V.A. hospitals.
  So, five days ago, there is a story on how people are dying while waiting to be approved for Social Security Disability. The story is tucked deep into my newspaper, and I don't think it made much of a ripple nationally.
  Isn't this the same type of a scandal as the V.A. situation? If people are dying for lack of speed in getting their paperwork approved, is that not scandal? If someone were to show up on an emergency at the hospital, and we took so much as a day to process them before admitting them, that would be a scandal. Why is this so different? When you are dying, that is an emergency. It is not a situation where you say, "Let us process your paperwork for the next six months, and then we will take care of you."

Let Them Know Jihad is Simply the Struggle to do Good

   Heard one news report today say the San Bernadino shooters had been "radicalized." I know the investigation is still underway, and perhaps it isn't yet determined that a radical Muslim belief system led to the shootings.
   But, I cannot help but think of two blogs I wrote last week, warning that if you tell someone enough that they believe in something, they might come to believe you. If you tell them their religion believes in killing those who do not believe as they do, there will be some who come to believe you.
   They will be "radicalized."
   Some may be radicalized as they are recruited by the radicals, others might be led that direction by hearing the drift of comments in the general public that say their religion is a violent one, and suggesting that the word, "Jihad," means a holy war against non-believers.
   What I'm saying, is that people often become what they are told they are. So, we should not want to tell them they are killers.
   My thought is, we should be doing everything we can to counter that message. If we can find Muslim leaders who say, "Wait, this is inaccurate. This is not what we believe," then we should get that counter message before the Muslims.
   I found one such source tonight. I found a link that says jihad is not killing innocent people. It is not committing suicide, for suicide is a sin. It is not acting out of hate and anger. It is not a holy war against unbelievers.
   Jihad is simply struggling and striving for good and for Allah. It is one's inner struggle of good against evil.
   http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=2
   If we hear the definition is a holy war against unbelievers, and we can become convinced it is correct, why should not some Muslims also come to the same conclusion? If it makes sense to us, it can make sense to them. It then becomes imperative that we get the message before them that "jihad" means something else rather than the evil things being ascribed to it.
   They want to do live their religion the right way. Let's not give them reason to believe the right way is to kill.
 

There's a Plus Side to Spreading Out the Homeless Services

   I can see a plus in the announcement that services for the homeless are to be spread throughout the valley. It means the services will now reach those who are not in the downtown area, who are on the streets in other parts of the valley. They will now have resources to help them, It is, then, a good thing to provide services in the outlying areas.
   Only, don't kick the homeless out of downtown. Instead, if you are embarrassed that they are to be seen on your streets, do such a good job taking care of them that you keep them indoors and not wandering around outside.
   I don't understand why a large homeless shelter cannot be built. Use the whole of the Pioneer Park block, if necessary. The only reason for opposition to such an idea that I can think of, at the moment, is that you don't just give them something for free. If you do, you are going to be overrun by people who rush for housing without having to pay a dime.
   I suggest, give them housing, anyway. Don't begrudge them. But, make them work for what they get. Place them in jobs, when you can, and require those who don't get jobs to work -- even if it is busy work like sweeping floors that have already been swept.
   I don't understand the homeless problem. It seems it should be easy to just built a building large enough to house them. Once the building is up, invite the same charities who are serving them now to serve them. If private charity is working, don't shift that responsibility to government.

Two Thoughts as the San Bernadino Shootings Increase the Debate

   Two thoughts, as the nation picks up the pace of the guns debate after the San Bernadino mass shootings. I heard a commentator tonight note that so many of the shootings have two things in common: Mentally-disturbed assailants and gun-free zones. I have a thought that ties to each.
   Is there anything we can do to deal with mentally-disturbed people going off and shooting folks? Yes. If every time we learned of a person who was mentally off balance, if we showered them with love, it would make a difference. Aye, I know you might have doubts. I only say, we know enough about love to know that it does make a difference. Some of those mentally ill are at least in part that way because they feel a shortage of love. (That may not be an established and accepted belief, but I submit it is true.) It would make a difference if every time we ran into someone with mental disabilities, we rushed to give them warm, enthusiastic, loving friendship. If we as a society rushed to the comfort of those with mental problems, it would make a difference. How big a difference, I don't know, but it would make some.
   Second, gun-free zones? The thought behind this is the old, If-we-get-rid-of-guns-only-criminals-will-have-them argument. I don't believe this argument is all together correct. There would also be fewer people who gravitate towards crime having guns. I am not in favor of outlawing guns, but I do see that the fact that so many have guns in the U.S. does factor in to people committing these kind of crimes. President Obama keeps hammering at us, noting that the propensity of these shootings is unique to the U.S. Well, we do have more guns than most countries, and that is a factor. Yes, if they were not so easily available, if they were hard to come by, there would be fewer people committing these shootings. The gangs might still find ways to get guns, but many would not. It does not go unnoticed on me that a fair share of the shootings are committed by those without criminal histories. Yes, I do believe if our society didn't value having guns so much, some of these shooters never would have had them. Our love of guns does play into the number of mass shootings. If a good share of us go out and buys guns, that share is going to include a lot of people who might bend towards the criminal. Indeed, a person with such tendencies is going to be among those who gravitate toward buying a gun. And, once the gun is in hand, they start considering reasons for using it. The average Joe might be thinking the gun is only for self defense, but these others turn to mass shootings.
   Yes, having so many guns in America is not a good thing. Our love of guns does have a down side. And, we are seeing the effects of that.

It Rubs Me Wrong that the Homeless Should be Booted Out

   They are ready to disperse the homeless from downtown Salt Lake City, again. This time, the idea is to scatter the homeless shelters and facilities to various communities, instead of having just a central site.
   I wonder if I am wrong and am just begrudging those who want the homeless moved. The reason they want them gone? They want to develop the area more, and the commercial interests eyeing coming in want the homeless gone. That's what I've heard. Anyway, somehow it rubs me wrong that the homeless would be chased away to make way for commercial development.