How to prevent multiple murders. The Elliot Rodger Story.

       If you didn't know already, Elliot Rodger was a troubled young man in California.  His father was an assistant director of the Hunger Games.  He killed 6 people on the 23rd of May, as part of a revenge plot.  (source).  Apparently he felt that not getting laid in college was the fault of the women who didn't sleep with him.

       This story is much worse than it sounds, however.  The police had several run-ins with him, at the behest of his family.  The most recent on April 30th.  Each time they completely failed to do what was needed.  The insane young man even wrote up a long winded rant about how, if they had bothered to search his place, he would not have been able to move forward.

       So, in short; his family, feeling concerned for his mental health based on documented, easily referenced, online actions, contacted the authorities.  The same authorities we are supposed to trust to protect us, despite supreme court ruling that they are not required to.  (Unfortunately factual ruling, source.).  These authorities did what they always do.  Nothing until someone dies.

       So we all know that making something illegal can't keep anyone from getting it.  So where he got the guns is no mystery.  No one is currently saying if they were attained legally or not, but since legally purchased firearms can be readily traced, I'm guessing they were black market.  (Edit: it has since come to light that his firearms were legally purchased.)  This has not stopped that paragon of unbiased reporting, the Daily News, (Heavy sarcasm), from employing their typical tactic of demanding more gun control, by quoting someone stating exactly what they want to say.  (Source).  Oddly, no one is talking about the housemates he stabbed repeatedly, after writing that he would do it.

       Apparently it is never too early to politicize the deaths of the innocent at the hands of a madman.  So on that note I will do the same.  Since it was asserted that more gun control would fix the problem, despite happening in one of the most restrictive states in the country, (funny how often that happens), I will state: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".  Or in the modern vernacular: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".  (Hitchens' Razor).

       Insane persons are already unable to legally purchase firearms.  Logic dictates therefore, that more restrictions would not have fixed this.  To be fair the person they quoted was a grieving father, and probably not at his most logical.  I pass no judgement on him, only the press who trotted him out as an excuse to forward a misguided agenda.

       This is a case where all of the rules were followed, and the authorities failed.  They failed each victim.  They failed their families.  They failed us.  Mostly though, they failed the gun-control agenda.  Had they acted, when they were informed of the problem, this troubled young man would still be alive, and getting help.  As it stands they have proven that lax enforcement, is now as it ever was, the problem.  More laws wont fix laziness.



      

Firearms Education

While on an online forum (reddit) I ran across a user on the firearms sub that had an idea I would like to share.

One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others.  Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint.  Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all.  Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following.  (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)

Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum.  Much like sex-ed.  In fact the arguments against it will be much the same.  I will tackle these as they arise.

"It's not the state's place to teach this."  Much like sex-ed, actually.  But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught.  Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.

"This is a parent's job"  Yes, yes it is.  But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly.  Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.

"I don't want my child exposed to this"  There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.

"This would encourage bad behavior"  (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm)  You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way.  Many of my friends attended rural high schools.  Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class.  Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.

Now the arguments in favor.

There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry.  In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.

The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something.  The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right.  This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt.  (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real.  Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)

The general population would be properly educated about firearms.  With education comes the removal of fear.  More education is always better.  This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic.  They spread misinformation.  Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.

You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends.  Self explanatory.

In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.

Affordable Protection Act Part 2. Implementation and Constitutionality.

       In part one we examined why the Affordable Protection Act is necessary and cost-effective.  Now we will examine how it could roll out, and why it is constitutional.  

       Implementation:  

       This would not require any major preparation, or pre-collection of taxes (which the Affordable Care Act did require), to work.  We simply make a law that every member of the militia, as defined previously, is required to own, and carry, a firearm.  I did not say pistol, and I did not say concealed.  Others may carry a firearm (insurance) on a voluntary basis, unless otherwise ineligible.  

       The legal reason given for the requirement for concealment is to not incite alarm or panic in the public.  If everyone is armed, then the sight of a gun will not incite anything.  (Except Hoplophobes, but we don't ban bridges or clowns just because of a few peoples' neuroses).  In fact seeing a firearm should never incite anything, unless it is pointed at you.  People who panic at the sight of a holstered weapon are the problem, not the person peacefully carrying it.

       If anyone in the militia decided they did not want to carry a firearm, they would not be forced.  But, due to the added strain they would be putting on the system, they would have to pay a penalty.  (Just like the Affordable Care act.) Unlike the Affordable Care Act however, I will allow for those of means, who do not wish to carry a firearm (insurance) to opt out if they can prove they have people in their employ for such a purpose.  (adequate money set aside for healthcare)  

       Constitutionality:

       In their landmark decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty, and in fact the insurance requirement itself, could be construed as a tax.  By that measure it is constitutional.  They are required, it was stated, in cases where there are multiple interpretations of a law, and one of them is constitutional; to use that interpretation in their decision, and disregard any other interpretation.  

       That same rationale would dictate that requiring the purchase, or proof of current ownership, of a firearm, and the penalty for non-compliance; would be a tax, and therefore within the scope of congressional authority to legally require.  

       Please forward this to your representatives in Washington D.C.

The Affordable Protection Act Part 1. History and justification of need.

       I am going to suggest a new law, based on the legal precedent set by the affordable care act.  But first, let's look at how we arrived at the need for each.  The current problems, and the laws allowing them, came about because of the political pull of special interest groups with very deep pockets.  The laws put in place by the politicians representing them allowed for the creation of two classes of people.
       While I could be talking about the insurance companies, and people who either do, or do not, have insurance; I am not.  I am talking about those allowed to carry firearms.  The special interest groups are the police unions, certain politicians, and the exceedingly rich fool from NY who I do not respect enough to name.  The classes I refer to; are those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.
       Before I continue I will state, for the record, that I do not believe everyone should be allowed guns.  If you are out on parole, for example.  Those who have been found, by a court, to be mentally incompetent are another example.  But the list is about that short.  Everyone else, using the same legal justification behind the Affordable Care Act, should be required to carry a weapon (insurance) or pay a penalty if they require the intervention of police (hospitals).  Government will subsidize the purchase of a firearm, (provide an affordable option) if you need it.
       Sounds funny?  Allow me to continue.  The need can be best illustrated by pointing out that jails (hospitals) are already full of people who are consuming vast amounts of government dollars, at the expense of those who are paying in to the system and not getting anything from it.
       Clearly it would be more cost effective if everyone could patrol their own neighborhoods, (take charge of their health) protect themselves and their families, (have insurance) and generally not require so much assistance from police (public aid)
       Protecting yourself (healthcare) is a basic human right.  Comically enough though, unlike those who claim that healthcare is a right; I can show you where protecting yourself is defined as a right in the Constitution.  We have all heard many arguments on the whole second amendment interpretation issue.  What we don't hear is historic context.  The reason for the "tricky" wording is that many of the founding fathers believed that we did not need a standing army.
       Many felt that it was better to simply have an armed citizenry.  A strategy that had just won us a war for our independence.  They felt that countries who have standing armies tend to exploit the world around them, and force their will on other sovereign nations.  Clearly that is something the newly formed United States of America, would never do.  (Go ahead, laugh.  It was meant as a joke)
       Thus we have the introductory first part, that clarifies the need for a "militia", which, if you want to read it, is damned near everyone.  (emphasis added)

(Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")
More in part 2.