Ten Lessons Learned from Sandy Hook 

What do we, then, learn from Sandy Hook?

1. We learn there is a place for guns. The principal rushed the gunman, only to be shot down. If she had had a gun, perhaps she would have taken him out.

So, what do we do? Either we encourage more people, such as teachers, to bear guns in places where shootings could happen, or we post guards there. The advantage of having guards is that the presence of them is a deterrent. Yes, the guard becomes a target, and the shooter is aware if he takes out the guard, he can then shoot everyone else at will. Still, a guard is a deterrent, and you can post them behind bullet-proof glass or have them walking around so the shooter does not know where to find them when he or she enters the building.

2. We learn that while the police might not be far away, they can be so far away that the violence will be over by the time they arrive.

Can anything be done to improve on that, to reduce how long it takes for them to arrive? Why not have every police headquarters and substation be coupled with an at-risk site? Have the police station right across from the school, and a substation located right in the mall. Move the police closer to the at-risk sites and it will cut down on the response time and act as a deterrent, to boot. "Location, location, location," someone has said, and we should listen to that advice.

3. We learn video games might have an influence. Adam Lanza was a gamer. Acting out things, it would seem (if we use logic), does increase the likelihood of the person actually doing something.

So, do we outlaw video games? Our society already has age limits on smoking and drinking, and even selling pornography to minors. But, we are no longer the same society we were when we place those laws in effect. This time around, we are hesitant about infringing on freedom. Me? I say slap age restrictions on violent video games. They are bad influences. We commonly do not give children all the rights we give adults. We are trying to raise them and teach them what is right. This, too, should be part of that training.

4. We learn the availability of weapons can lend to the commission of the crime. Adam Lanza lived with his mother. She had a gun stash. She encouraged Adam to have guns.

I do not favor gun bans. Nor are many citizens even calling for bans. But, we should see that availability does  increase the opportunity to commit the crime. It would be helpful if those of us who do not need guns, who do not feel threatened, would not be so inclined to own them. This would reduce the risk, somewhat.

5. We learn guns should be locked up. Adam used a gun from his mother's gun collection. Police found no sign of forced entry. 

Guns should be locked away by the owners. And, there is reason to suggest that that should include locking them away from some of the family members. 

6. We learn to wonder if a single image of death can have an impact on a person. Investigators found in the home the image of what appears to be a dead person covered with plastic and blood. If an image is before a person, day in and day out, can it sometimes have an affect on a person?

What can we do, outlaw all violent pictures parents might post on their walls? Hardly, but public television spots might prompt parents to reconsider whether they hang such things on their walls.

7. We learn the glorification of weaponry, also, might impact a person. Investigators found a 7-foot pole with a blade on one side and a spear on the other. It is not likely such an item had much use, but was there simply for the novelty of having it.

Again, we cannot and should not ban parents from having such things in the home. Perhaps even a television spot discouraging owning such items would come off as overbearing. Still, it would be wonderful if parents realized the downside of glamorizing such things. 

8. We learn that rapid-fire weapons facilitate mass shootings. If he had had to place bullets in the gun one at a time, he probably would have killed few, at all. For one thing, there would have been opportunity for someone to rush him while he was reloading.

Some have suggested there be a limit on the number of bullets in a magazine. Perhaps I would go along with that if we changed our Constitution. The Second Amendment says we should not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and I feel that an infringement. Also, if we view guns as a weapon of war that each citizen should have in case they need to fight against an invading nation, or against their own government gone awry, then we shouldn't restrict magazine capacity.

Some have also suggested we outlaw assault weapons. I have never fully understood this. If it is the semi-automatic nature of the weapon that causes the problem, then isn't that what we should be wanting to outlaw? Again, though, that is an infringement on the Constitution. And, again, if people view the gun as a defense against government . . .

9. We learn some of those who have mental problems are dangerous.

I do not favor banning guns from those who have mental disabilities. I believe the way this would be enforced is that anyone who is on medications (all medications for mental disorders?) would not be allowed to buy a gun. That is a ban. That is also taking guns from some people who are perfectly harmless and non-threatening. Not everyone who buys Prozac is dangerous. So, what do we do, to take guns out of the hands of those who are mentally unstable? I suppose I can think of nothing more than to encourage family members to monitor such situations, and that is a sobering thought to me.

10. We learn that if you try to regulate guns, you are going to have a backlash. "You won't get my gun unless you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." Any move to regulate guns is seen as an affront to the Second Amendment.

What to do? People can be taught that not everyone needs a gun. They can be taught that if they don't need it, and don't perceive the need arising that they will need it, then they might want to consider not owning a gun. Public opinion does sway, as the current debate over same-sex marriage shows us.

Are there Lessons to be Learned from Sandy Hook?

   It is said that those who won't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So, if we were to do a little barnstorming, looking at Sandy Hook, and asking what we learned from it, what would we come up with?
   Can we look at the shooter, and the way things went down, and the protections we did or didn't have in place, and say, "This gives cause to change our society this way."?

Aposhian's Stolen Gun Underscores the Danger

  Enter Clark Aposhian to the gun debate. Well, of a truth, if any one person has been central to the gun debate in Utah, it would be gun rights advocate Clark Aposhian. He entered this debate long, long ago.
   But, today, he entered the debate in a way he surely didn't want to. His gun was stolen. Check that. His assault rifle was stolen . . . out of the car he left it in overnight.
   Big enough story. Lead story on Fox 13 today.
   With 600,000 guns stolen from homes each year, and with a large share of violent crime being committed with stolen guns, it can be argued our nation's thirst for having guns means more gun deaths than there would be without so many of them. The response is that responsible gun owners wouldn't let that happen. Well . . . http://fox13now.com/2013/03/28/assault-rifle-stolen-from-gun-advocates-car/
   It's possible someone just stole the gun to embarrass Aposhian. At any rate, leaving an AR-15 overnight in a car, even though the car was locked, isn't good gun safety. If one of the state's best-known gun safety teachers can slip and let his gun be sniped away, well, that underscores the danger.

 Monsanto Rider is an Outrage that Should Put an end to Riders

   Tell me if the practice of having riders attached to legislation is not a form of secrecy.
   This past week, there was a funding bill, and someone slipped a rider in, giving the USDA authority to override a court order that prevented Monsanto and others from planting genetically modified seeds. (I imagine the court order just stopped some such plantings, not all.)
   Word is, the rider was slipped in anonymously. Now, how is that possible? Congress members can make changes anonymously? Why is that, in and of itself, not illegal? Why doesn't any one of our Congress members march in tomorrow and introduce legislation making that illegal?
   But, more so, why do we ever allow riders to be attached to bills? There is danger that the riders will slide through unnoticed. And, if they don't pass through unnoticed? There is danger that the person voting will consider the whole bill to be so vital that he or she feels compelled to vote for the package, even though opposed to the rider.
   Is not attaching such riders a form of corruption? And, we allow it? And, it happens time and time again and none of our Congress members raise a hand to stop it? 
   Be done with such a thing! Would that a member of Congress would march in there tomorrow and introduce legislation against such a practice.
   
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/21/174973235/did-congress-just-give-gmos-a-free-pass-in-the-courts

 Will Foursome Marriages be Next?

  Those first words from the Declaration of Independence keep ringing through my mind as I consider the current debate on same-sex marriages.

   "When in the course of human events."

   I think of my America, and of the news stories pointing out how public opinion has swung from opposing gay marriages to supporting them. I think of the talk of how we have evolved as a nation on this issue. I think of my own sentiment, that perhaps many are born with the gay sexual orientation.

   I don't know that that is true, but I have to consider it, owing to both science saying it is so, and to the testimony I have heard from such as Josh Weed.

   I also think of the gay pride parades, and the forceful opinion of those who have same-sex attraction, of how they argue they are being wronged and slighted and discriminated against.

   So, when in the course of human events.

   I read a Facebook post, asking if we do grant same-sex marriage, then what of polyamory relationships, where people do not need to marry and they have multiple partners. I think in my mind, what if two men and two women want to get married as a foursome, do we say, that, too, is okay?

   Well, when in the course of human events, a people decides a thing it right, you grant them the privilege of living that way. I am grateful, at least for however long it lasts, that there is not a movement for foursome marriages.

Let the Non-Practicing Gays In

   If I were the Boy Scouts of America, I'd let those of same-sex preference in. 
   Kind of.
   I wouldn't let them in if they were practicing gays, but if they said that is where their natural attraction was, but they weren't acting on it, then, I'd let 'em in. Well, and if they promised not to teach it, then, I'd let 'em in.
   There is too much evidence that they can be born that way to turn them away. Plus, letting them in is a way of loving them, and I believe in loving them. 
   But, what if they were practicing? I still think practicing it is wrong. Those who are in the Boy Scouts do influence each other, and I do think a practicing person might be apt to spread his influence. If you believe practicing this thing is wrong, and you do not want your boys to be influenced by it, and you are a private organization, then you should be able to set that standard.
 

 Prisoners are the Sheep that are Lost

  I offer you reasoning as to why the criminal should be the most important person in society (well, one of them), Sunday take.
   Now, it is natural for a person's views to be influenced by religious principles, for the religious principles are core values and picking a side on a political issue, often, means following one's values. A non-Christian simply chooses a different set of values to affect him, and they can be good values, as well as mine are.
   Nor does my basing my belief on religious values mean I am right. I might be influenced by one set of scriptures, while another Christian simply sees another set of scriptures as applicable.
   So, back to telling you why the prisoner is the most important person in society. He is the sheep that is lost.
From Luke 15:4, "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?"