Why the Rittenhouse thing bothers me.

 I think I am starting to understand why the Rittenhouse issue bothers me so much. 

There's an interview with him, after he was sprayed with what appears to have been mace, where he was asked why, if he was attacked with non-lethal weapons, he didn't respond with non-lethal weapons. 

His response was that "we don't have non-lethal." 

See, I am an infantryman, obviously not professionally anymore, but I still benefit from the memory of that training. According to the Ft. Benning page on infantry heritage, "The role of the American infantryman has remained constant since the earliest days of American military history: to close with and destroy the enemy"

We are not present to deal with our own citizens. We are not trained simply for peaceful action. We are trained to destroy the enemy. So I would understand the concept of not having non-lethal weapons, right? 

I don't. See, every infantryman in the U.S. Army is trained in a concept called "escalation of force." The basics of this concept are simply that we meet the enemy with their level of force, and only escalate as absolutely necessary. If we are facing an unarmed foe, we do not fire. If we do fire, we face court martial. If, in that court martial, we cannot provide good enough reason or evidence that our actions were necessary, we are punished, and for very good reason. Mistakes like that, like shooting an unarmed person, are often what create new terrorist cells. We are the best trained military in the world, not amateurs with guns. We need to act like it. 

So when we face someone with less weapons than we have, and they seem intent to attack us, we don't shoot. We have specific training on what to do if your firearm is grabbed. We have training on how to secure our firearm while we grapple hand-to-hand if necessary. We even have training on how to use our firearm as a close quarters weapon, without firing. There is never a moment in which we do not have non-lethal tools. There are only moments in which the force required is lethal. 

Now, I understand its unfair to treat a 17 year old with a rifle like an infantryman. He doesn't have the training. He definitely doesn't have the psychological conditioning. He's, essentially, just a kid. And yet he's being held up with titles of "patriot," "hero," and "citizen soldier." Because he shot three men. Now, don't get me wrong, I can't think of an infantryman that, if they were on the ground and multiple assailants were coming at them angrily, would not fire. That's not the situation I'm talking about. 

His first kill was the result of a person with whom he'd had an altercation earlier that day. That person, clearly aggressive, honestly probably nowhere near sane, was trying to grab his rifle, and that is the reason given for him firing four rounds in the general direction of that man's head, and he is lucky the three that missed did not hit anyone else. 

An infantryman would have noticed that the rifle was slung. He had what's called a single-point sling. That means it's attached to the firearm only at one point, rather than the two point slings that are standard issue in the Army. Still, unless he undid the point of contact, or used the quick-release buckle that some such slings have, it's attached to his body. He had not only the strength of his arms to maintain control of that firearm, but he had his entire body weight if necessary. I understand how that would not come to mind, and if that's not in your mind, if you're not trained to use that knowledge, someone reaching for your rifle looks like a real threat. But even then, if you adhere to escalation of force guidelines, you have not run out of options.  

See, the simple problem is that in his mind, his actions could only be at either of two levels of force: passive, and lethal. That's a very dangerous mindset to have. Any person with that mindset, as soon as there is a threat of any kind presented, will at the very least be sorely tempted to shift from that passive stance directly into lethal force. 

So why did he have the rifle? Well, he said that the reason he had a rifle was self-defense, because he was going to be putting himself in harm's way by providing medical help. That rings incredibly false to me, because Army medics don't use their firearms, if they carry one, while in harms way taking care of first aid. They may have to use it to defend a position where they are treating wounded, but in doing so they sacrifice their protection under the Geneva convention, so they prefer to have us grunts handle that. 

Even so, a rifle is not a weapon for what I would call self-defense. As with any tool of battle, it can be use defensively and offensively. Defensively, it can be used to provide cover fire, to allow a fellow soldier time to move, or suppressing fire, to keep an enemy at bay, or return fire, to kill an enemy at a distance. I can be used as a physical bludgeon, to keep an assailant off you. It can even be used as a deterrent, though if things are bad enough that you think that might be worth trying, it's probably not worth trying. But none of that I consider self-defense. That's mostly defense of others, or defense of a location. When I think of firearms good for self-defense, I think of weapons that have very high stopping power, which an AR-15 doesn't really have. Shotguns are good for that. Or I think of weapons that are known for being quick to aim and fire, especially at close distances, which an AR-15 is not. It's designed to be fairly versatile, but what some might call "hip fire" is not one of its strengths. For that you'd prefer a firearm that can be brought to bear one handed, like a handgun, or a short barreled shotgun, the latter being illegal to own in Wisconsin. 

An AR-15, much like the M-4 which is very similar in design, is an offensive weapon. If you plan to use it, you should be planning to kill. That's part of why it's so good for hunting, good range, easy to figure out for the most part, and generally effective. But close range reaction fire? I mean, it'll do the job, but that's not its strength. 

Everything I know as an infantryman tells me that he set himself up to kill. Probably not intentionally, but the only other outcome, in his mind, was that no conflict occur that he couldn't run from. If you're armed with an AR-15, that's a bad plan. Just having that rifle on you, especially when you're there reportedly to "protect property" from "violent rioters" that have also been called "terrorists," is an aggressive act. It's asking for trouble. You can see that in the altercations that happen over and over that night between protesters and the various militia groups present. To the protesters, they see it as an intentional threat, a promise of death if the gunmen get the chance. Just by having it, you're escalating force beyond passive. And when your only choices are passive and lethal, well you know where that goes. 

That's why it bothers me. Part of me thinks that someone around him had to have realized that he was going there with no option but to kill, unless he was so lucky no one threatened him. Someone, maybe his mother who drove him up there, maybe his friend that lent him the rifle, maybe the journalists or other militia members, should have told him, "hey, if you think that you don't have a non-lethal means to respond, you should have a lethal means. Put down the rifle." But no one did. He was hung out to dry, and when he found himself, as far as he could tell, alone and unsupported with angry people threatening him, he escalated force from passive to the only other choice he thought he had. And now two people are dead, and a third has permanent damage to one arm. Now, are those people innocent? No. Should that matter? Not as much as people think it should. 

See, the final problem I have is authority. Law Enforcement has the authority to use lethal force to protect property or lives. A civilian only has the authority to use lethal force to protect lives, usually just their own, not property, aside from the castle doctrine. So where did he get the authority to stand there with a rifle, with no choice outside passivity and lethal force, to protect someone's property? He wasn't licensed, wasn't bonded, like some security providers are. He wasn't deputized. He certainly wasn't hired by the police or elected as sheriff. And he wasn't appointed by another elected official. Near as we can tell, he was part of a group that volunteered to do it, though there are some reports of a request from the business owner, but can the business owner provide that authority? This wasn't a home, so the castle doctrine doesn't apply. This was, supposedly, a simple business, with no one inside. They were not protecting lives, they were protecting property. They were going to protect property by taking lives. 

In the FBI database there are two categories of crimes: violent crimes, and property crimes. Violent crimes damage a life, property crimes damage, well, property. Theft, arson, vandalism, these are all property crimes. Manslaughter, homicide, reckless endangerment, these are violent crimes. They're separate because lives outweigh property, for the most part. But not that night. That night, armed men were willing to enforce their belief that property outweighed lives. Why? Because terrorist lives don't matter. Because we destroy enemies. But a 17 year old boy was not an infantryman, was not capable of controlling the escalation of force, and because of that, to put out a fire, he took two lives. 

How many lives do you think your business is worth? How many lives do you think a car is worth? See, to me, those are impossible questions, because I would rather lose a thousand businesses and a million cars than lose one life. But that's where we're at, that's where Rittenhouse was at that night. He was willing to put his life at risk to protect property, which is strange enough on its own, but then, when it came down to it, he'd rather trade multiple lives of others for his own, which is not strange at all. Two lives, and was the fire even put out? Was that business worth two lives? 

I don't think I'll ever know. 

Firearms Violence Side-Post - Milwaukee Molson Coors Brewery Shooting

 On February 26th, 2020, an employee of the Milwaukee Molson Coors brewery came into the plant with two handguns and opened fire. He killed five other employees, and then took his own life before police were able to secure the area. That night, the police thankfully avoided releasing the identities of any of the dead, so that their families might be informed and have some time to process the information before being set upon by reporters and others, who although well-meaning, often make the situation worse. 

The purpose of this write-up is to analyze the facts of the case, and note what actions the government could take that might have prevented this, and might prevent further tragedy. I'll take a look at the effects of proposed and theorized laws on this specific event. 

Before analyzing the effects of laws and policies, we need to note the important facts of the case. The shooter was a 51 year old, African American man, who was employed as an electrician for 20 years, the last 17 of which being at the Molson Coors plant. According to witnesses, family members, and coworkers, he had been in the middle of a conflict with a fellow electrician at the plant for quite some time. On top of that, he had expressed a variety of beliefs that seemed to be paranoid in nature, both about his coworkers and the company as a whole. 

When news outlets looked into his personal, medical, and legal history the following facts came to light: He was a United States Coast Guard veteran, discharged in 1991. He had been experiencing back pain likely since his time of service (news sources list it as about 25 years prior to 2010) that was exacerbated by multiple events, including one for which he had been seeking workman's compensation. At one point, insurance assessors were basically staked out in front of his house during weekends to try to find proof that he'd lied about the back pain. 

The back pain was severe. After working 50 hours in a week, he would often remain in bed for the majority of the weekend in order to recover enough to go back to work the following week, according to family members. His doctor prescribed Vicodin, an painkiller that contains a synthetic opioid, as well as Cyclobenzaprine, a muscle relaxant. These were both reportedly prescribed for the back pain, which is not terribly uncommon for chronic back pain. So not only was he most likely constantly in pain, but he was under the influence of two psychoactive drugs, both known to cause issues with cognition that can lead to paranoia. Despite this, no news outlet has reported any history of psychological treatment.

Based on the above information, I believe that his back pain should have been ruled a service-connected disability, resulting in him having access to VA medical and psychological care, as well as some compensation and access to the training and education resources made available to disabled veterans. This assessment will come into play further into the analysis. 

First, let us cover what laws were actually broken. Obviously, homicide is illegal, so the shooter violated that law. According to news reports, a "no gun zone" law was not in effect, though there may have been one in effect and just not mentioned. If so, that law was also violated. The existing firearms control laws were all followed. The shooter was a known "gun collector" according to neighbors, but exhibited no violent tendencies before that day. No outstanding criminal record was noted by news outlets, so it is likely that every firearm he owned, he purchased and maintained perfectly legally. Sources close to the shooter also noted that he used a gun safe, which is above and beyond the current laws. Wisconsin does not require registration of firearms, nor does it have limitations on magazine size, suppressors, or basically anything else aside from minimum age when it comes to handguns. So, aside from homicide, it's likely no applicable laws were broken. 

Second, let's look at the most strict firearms control laws in the USA and discover if any of those had been violated, and what effect they would have had if enforced. California has the most stringent laws when it comes to firearms and magazines themselves. Under California law, it is possible that he would have violated the maximum 10 round magazine restrictions, but as these were handguns, that is unlikely. Outside of special order magazines, even the highest capacity handguns ship with a maximum of 15 round magazine, with most having less than 10. There are some laws that restrict the use of suppressors (erroneously called "silencers"), and one of the handguns he employed had one attached according to witnesses. If he fired the first shots only with the handgun with the suppressor, it's possible that later victims thought that the sound was machine related, rather than a gunshot, and thus did not flee as early. Based on that assumption, the absolute maximum such a ban, if enforced, could have done is slightly reduce lethality. However, it's important to note that suppressors, even on low caliber firearms such as handguns, do not "silence" the weapon, but simply reduce the amount of sound that comes from the barrel. The sound is still quite loud and distinctive. For that noise reduction, the shooter would have paid in accuracy, and possibly fire rate depending on the type of firearm. It is my assessment that, given the targeted nature of the attack, it is not likely that removing the suppressor would have reduced the lethality of the attack. 

Another type of firearms restriction that has been discussed is more strict background checks. Looking at this, Massachusetts has the most wide-reaching restrictions based on background checks. Massachusetts' law bars anyone with nearly any criminal record from owning firearms, as well as anyone who has been ruled unable to handle their own affairs, and anyone who has undergone in-patient psychological treatment. Although I assess the last provision to be a violation of the rights of disabled Americans, we will still apply those restrictions to this case. Based on all information available at the time of my analysis, he would have passed such a background check. Such a law would have had no effect on the lethality of the attack. 

Finally, let's look at the proposed and theorized laws of those lawmakers that are also advocates for firearms control reform. Since these are not detailed, I will endeavor to look at each concept and assess it's affect on the lethality of the attack very briefly: 

Universal background checks barring any criminals from owning firearms: No effect. 

National licensing program and registration for firearms owners and firearms: No effect.

"Red Flag Laws": only those with restrictions already ruled to violate the rights of Americans would have had an effect. Again, the shooter was an otherwise law-abiding citizen with no history of psychological treatment, and that did not express violent tendencies. That wouldn't have even gotten a judge to grand a restraining order, much less an order to remove his firearms. Minimal effect if any. 

Assault Weapons Ban: No effect.

Ban on high capacity magazines under current definition of the term: No effect.

Mandatory Assault Weapons Buyback: No effect. 

Given all of these, it seems clear that no currently proposed firearms control law, whether actually filed, in place somewhere in the USA, or simply proposed as part of a campaign speech would have effected the lethality of this attack significantly. 

There are, however, laws and policies already in place that, had they been implemented more completely and earlier, would have likely reduced the probability of the attack in the first place. Thanks to the Inspector Generals' of the DoD and VA that have been instigated in the last decade or so, new policies requiring all discharged personnel to be entered into the VA system, increased probability of favorable decisions from VA Disability assessors, and increased funding to psychological health programs, it is possible that if he had access and encouragement to seek treatment with the VA, the paranoia he experienced that likely influenced his decision to attack would have been identified and treated. In short: if the government had worked harder to ensure his mental health as a veteran, this might have been prevented. 

On top of this, there is a policy that should have been implemented a simple safety reaction to the opioid crisis that would have likely prevented this attack: Anyone prescribed opioids beyond a very short treatment window should be required to seek out psychological treatment. The details of that treatment should be up to the psychological professionals involved, and not released to the government or other organizations in accordance with privacy law. This simple policy would have likely helped him deal with the psychological effects of the medications he was prescribed, as well as the constant pain he experienced and the fear and anger he expressed as a result of the conflict he had with his coworkers and company. 

The final conclusion is simple: due to the firearms used and the history of the shooter, no existing or proposed gun control laws would have affected this attack, but approaching the issue holistically leads to the inescapable conclusion that the government could have better served him as a veteran, and as a possible victim of the opioid crisis. 

TL;DR: in this one case, just this one, the only actions the government could have taken to prevent this would be to ensure proper medical and psychological treatment to veterans and patients prescribed opioids.

Firearms Violence #3 - Causes and Cures

Disclaimer: This is the third of three posts that I wrote in the spring of 2018 regarding violence involving firearms, then-current arguments regarding possible solutions, and the information that, given the research I had been able to do up to that point, might actually lead to the most effective solution possible, for both short and long term. This time, I attempted get to the heart of the matter. I cover the a few of the most powerful underlying causes of mass violence, and many other violent crimes. Thankfully, I also cover a potential cure for it all as well. Hold on tight, this one's interesting. 

This entire concept started to come together after I saw an interesting post on Facebook. It was about a tool that a teacher had developed to identify lonely students, obviously with the hope of helping them. She would ask the class to anonymously submit a piece of paper with the names of students they wanted to sit next to the following week, and note who's names weren't showing up much, and especially if someone's name used to show up a lot, but not this week. As one might expect, she started this the Friday after Columbine. 

This led to a friend of mine asking "Well, what do you do after you find them? How do you break their isolation?" To learn how to fix something, you first have to learn about it, so I decided to start looking. The conclusions I came to, after hours and hours of research, comparing experiences with people, and running it past people I trusted, were disheartening to say the least. Let's first cover the causes. 

Mass violence is largely caused by a lack of sympathy. This seems overly simplified, and somewhat ignorant, but hear me out. Sympathy is that thing that tells us not simply how others might be feeling (that's empathy), but how to predict how they'd feel given our similarity. To put it more simply, it's what makes us think "Well, if someone punched me in the fact, I wouldn't like that, so I probably shouldn't punch that person in the face." It's based in the realization that we are not alone, that we're in fact very, very similar. It's what makes the difference between seeing someone as a thing and instead seeing them as a person. 

So, what happened to sympathy? Sympathy is not actually a naturally occurring thing. Empathy is, and so a very simplistic version of sympathy is common in children. "Hatred is learned" is generally proven by showing this behavior. But sympathy must grow with the individual, must be nurtured and encouraged, and must have the proper foundation. That foundation is destroyed by isolation. Isolation is what causes a bully to bully, what causes a victim to break and lash out, what causes the abused to become an abuser to another. In short, although it's not the *only* issue, isolation is possibly the most powerful cause behind all of the mass violence we've seen in recent years. 

So where did it come from? We made it. We planted the seed, we watered and fed it, and we watched it grow all without realizing what we'd done. By we I mean our culture, our nation, our society. There were three prongs to the attack against sympathy, and all of them are driven home while we're growing up. 

The first prong was developed in the hope of making the world a beautiful place. You see, we saw the damage that conformity could do: racism, bigotry, hate crimes, all of the worst of humanity seemed to stem from the overemphasis on conformity we placed on our children. We still see a fight against conformity today, but one of the biggest weapons we developed against conformity was just two simple words, repeated over and over, to growing children: "You're Special."

There are a number of myths and beliefs that I'm going to challenge in this article, and none more important than this. Take a moment to say, even without believing it, that you're not special. It stings, it feels wrong, it goes against so much of what we were raised to believe. Well, at least that's how it feels when I do it. Allow me to be clear: you are not special, I am not special, and the fact that we are not special gives us the power to change the world for the better. Allow me to explain: the "You're Special" theme of child rearing became very popular some time ago, sometime after World War II, when the Baby Boomers were the first generation to actually be able to be artists on a large scale. They passed this on to their kids, because there could be nothing more wonderful than believing you're special, right? 

Wrong. If you take a few minutes to Google "You're Special Psychology", you'll find out that somewhere between 10 and 20 years ago, the psychological community started to really question this belief in being special, and noting it's destructive tendencies. The basic concept is that when you raise a person with the "You're Special" it will generally have two effects. The first is to convince them either that they are better than everyone else, or that they should be. Both states of mind lead to brokenness, either because you have to wonder why things aren't working out perfectly for the most amazing person ever, or you have to wonder why you're not perfect when you're supposed to be. It breaks kids every day, and we know it. It's in our literature, just as much as we try to defend it, we know that it's a problem. 

The second effect is much more subtle, but so much more problematic. The concept of being "Special" is basically one that says that the real value you have as a person is in being unique, being different. You end up focusing on that difference, focusing on maintaining it, whether it be something like geekiness, or superiority at a sport, or a talent, or whatever made you think you were simply "special." It becomes everything. It's not even something we notice, but slowly, we find it harder and harder to remember that we're not alone, that there are other people so much like us right there, that we need to be part of their lives and need them to be part of our lives. When the only way you feel valuable is to feel different, you become isolated. 

Now, this isn't a 100% thing with every kid raised this way. I doubt that most of the people reading this are so isolated because they need to focus on their difference from others, but it's just a part of your mind. For those who truly depart from their communities, those that decide to murder others in great numbers, the effect is probably a bit stronger. It's not a psychological disorder, it's not a mental illness, it's a failure to perceive the whole picture of the intent behind "You're Special." Our parents wanted us to grow up with confidence, without the need to conform to feel comfortable, and it just went farther than they could have expected. 

Now, you might ask why this didn't seem to blow up 40 or 50 years ago like it is today. That's where the other two prongs come in. There were two other factors that, for generations, acted as a balance against the anti-conformity movement, that have since died. Let's look at the killers. 

The big one that everyone is tired of hearing about is tests. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 cemented it, but it started earlier. Schools used to be areas of conformity, and not necessarily in a negative light. Yes, those that were noticeably different were persecuted, but there were positive aspects to conformity as well; things like school spirit, patriotism, teamwork, etc. Somewhere in the 90s (I think) we started to move away from a conformity culture in schools to a competitive culture. Tests were something to be beaten alone, group projects were a practice in manipulating others to get the work done, even Phys Ed turned from teamwork to competition. These weren't really new concepts, but they took over the schools. Suddenly a student, who is already worried that they're not special enough, is focusing on doing everything alone. No helping each other. Group work especially was broken; it became an attempt at balancing those that would work just to be the best, and those that already thought they were the best and so didn't work well enough, and then tying it all together to appear to be a single project. 

Back in the 50's, the hope for America was in schools. Look at the science fiction from back then: you'll find examples of everyone growing up in school, and being better for it. We didn't adopt the dark, distopian version of schooling for a while yet, because we didn't know they were going to fail. But fail they did, and now our education system is so broken that many consider it a lost cause. (Don't get too disheartened yet, we'll get to the good news later).

The other killer was the isolation of the parents. Only a few decades ago, the norm was for parents to have so many resources available to them. There was an entire class of citizens, albeit small, that made their careers all about raising children. Yes, I'm talking about Nannies and other similar persons. These were people who specialized in bringing a child up, true experts simply from experience, that would help people out. They got demonized because people thought it was too impersonal of parents to hire someone else to do their work. The concept of "A village raises a child" was lost. It was replaced with "Don't you tell me how to raise my child." Child-rearing became the soul responsibility of the parents. Do yourself a favor, go ask any friends you have that are parents of children, and ask them if they know what they're doing. Most will openly admit that they have no idea, but so few have any resources to help them. 

The few experts on child-rearing that remained were either relegated only to work for the highest economic classes, or became our modern teachers. The problem is that there is no obligation or incentive for parents to actually listen to them. You could literally have multiple teachers, the school counselor, and the principal all tell a parent that their kid should go to therapy, but until that child has been neglected or abused by legal definition, there's really nothing that can force the parents' hand. On top of that, accepting help was stigmatized, with people claiming that a mother specifically was both a bad woman for being a stay at home mom and a bad mother for being a working woman. No help, and absolute authority, leaves parents pretty much on their own, and unaware that they really could use the help. 

Parents can be wonderful people. They are the ones that will treat each of their kids the most differently, because they're the ones most aware that the kids are different. When they're the only one in control of their kids' development, that means that there's no consistency from child to child. The saddest part is that most of the parents are honestly doing their absolute best, they were just told that they have to do it on their own, or they're not trying hard enough. That lack of consistency, the lack of consistency in schools, and the focus on uniqueness among children can lead to a painful level of isolation. 

Isolation breeds destruction. A boy that comes from a difficult home situation, feeling that he's the only person who feels this pain, may take it out on others. He becomes a bully. Some of his victims will turn around and continue that cycle. Others will continue to isolate until their entire world collapses on them. The end results are not pretty. Check the statistics: suicide rates among teenagers, those who are feeling the full effects of the isolation thanks to the natural changes their body goes through, are hitting record highs. And sadly enough, those are the ones that break and choose not to take it out on others. Thanks to the sheer numbers, it's a statistical inevitability that there will be reactions that are violent towards others, rather than simply towards themselves. Is this the only cause? No. Does it absolve them, their bullies, or anyone else of their choices? No. But today we're trying to learn how to reduce the damage, to make the world safer, so this is the biggest problem that might be able to be tackled. 

Now we get to the good news: we know the cure. Well, not quite a cure, the violent among humans are still a statistical certainty, but we can lower that risk significantly. Let's call it a vaccine. 

The Vaccine For Violence. Has a ring to it. 

The vaccine for violence is community. To kill the isolation, we need to do what the isolation stops us from doing: acting like we're not alone. 

Some teachers are already ahead of the game. I'm blessed to be the brother of a woman who is not only a teacher, but was a nanny, and is a parent. She's seen the progress being made, she's been a part of it. I can't go into detail, mostly because as a non-expert in that particular field, I don't have the knowledge yet. I can tell you that the two concepts that seem to be the most helpful, that are being actively applied already in some schools, are "Inquiry/Problem based learning" and having a "growth mindset." It's not perfect, but it's progress, so there's hope. 

Let's deal with the good news that we may not want to hear. What can we do? 

Well, the first thing you can do is stop focusing on what you shouldn't do. Allow me to explain. Every time you answer the question of "What can I do?" with "Well, don't do this," you basically don't help at all. Restricting behavior alone won't fix anything. Simply saying "don't be a bully" isn't enough, we know that because we've been saying it for decades and bullying is just as bad as ever. Instead, look for what you can do, replace behaviors, be pro-active, not reactive. 

The second thing you can do is face the reality of your relationship to your community. There's a huge myth that's believed across the world that you need to be proud of your community in order to take pride in it. To take pride in something, like your work, doesn't require for it to be praiseworthy. You take pride in your work before you do it. You start with the belief that you can do something great, and then move on. The same concept applies to your community. 

Your community isn't just your neighborhood, either. Community is any level at which you and others refuse to believe that you're alone. Your family, your school, your friendship group, your workplace (yeah, I know some adults are reading this too, scary huh?), your hobby groups, and of course, your nation. Let me tell you, I am not proud of the USA right now. I am a proud American, because I take pride in my nation. I see my nation as sick, and it's probably self inflicted. I'm saddened by my nation. But I take pride in my nation in this: I will not give up on her. The US is not yet a lost cause, not while I, and the millions of people who are willing to work to save her, have breath in our lungs. To borrow some words, we are pressed, but not crushed; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 

One of my favorite TV shows of all time is called The Newsroom. The first few minutes of that series has become viral. I'll link the video below, but the end of it is a grown, proud American saying simply "the first step towards a solution is to admit that there's a problem. America is not the greatest country in the world anymore." We're not, we lost our fire, but we still have a spark, and if we work together, we can become great again. And before you ask, no, no president is going to facilitate that. No single citizen is going to do it. We can make this country better, but only if we stop believing that we have to do it alone. 

As with any concept, there's often a less lovely view here. I want to make this clear before I start the next section: there is no reason to believe that these problems are your fault. Will Smith recently pointed out a wonderful truth: it doesn't matter who's fault it is, but it's "for damned sure" our responsibility to choose what we're going to do about it. Take a few moments and try to let go of that need to find fault, and then take a deep breath, and brace yourself for a very ugly mirror. 

If you're reading this, I'm betting you've seen the risk factors yourself. You know someone who's isolated. You know someone who's a victim somewhere along the line. You've turned the blind eye, because it's not your fault. Like I said, it's not your fault at all, but you need to choose what you're going to do. Look for the signs of isolation: look for the victims of bullies, but also look for the bullies. Look for those who might need to be reminded that they don't have to do it all alone, and yes, that includes the mean ones. 

I'll give you some pro-tips, things you *can* do, rather than things you shouldn't do, and I'm going to do it as dramatically as I can, because that's how we'll all remember it. 

You want to stop the violence? Make a friend. Be the break in isolation that you and others need. Show honest care and love to others. Deny the lie that anyone has to walk through this alone by offering to walk with them. 

You want to stop the violence? Stop fighting against things, and start working for things. Work for family, community, friends, your local government, charities, or just people that might need help. Can't work in normal ways? That's great. Remember: your value doesn't come from your uniqueness alone, but that doesn't mean that your uniqueness is remotely bad. If nothing else, do what I do: do small things to make people smile, and take requests from time to time. 

You want to stop the violence? Build community. Join a club, invite others to join. Start a club, if you can. Communicate with others around the world, make friends that you may never have made, oh, and the big kicker: cultivate friends that don't agree with you. Best way to remind yourself that you're not alone is to open yourself up to new and different viewpoints. Remember: you don't have to actively support someone if you agree with them, you don't have to agree with someone to understand them, and you don't have to understand someone to accept them. Don't let your differences divide you; let them make your community that much more complete. 

You want to stop the violence? Share stories. Stories are really what allows us to connect all over the world, and even through time. Every person's story is unique, and every unique story might just have new lessons, or might reteach old ones. Share your favorite books, movies, games, TV shows, songs, even pictures. Connect to someone by sharing an experience in another world. My closest friends have always been those that shared a very special book with me. Rarely if ever the same book, but always memorable. Our stories remind us of who we are, and sharing stories reminds us of how wonderfully diverse, and yet wonderfully similar, the world really is. It may be a small world after all, and getting smaller by the minute thanks to new communications and travel technology, but the worlds we hide inside our minds and souls are vast and beyond number. Go share one. 

You want to stop the violence? Love people. A little game I like to play is to see how many smiles I can make in a day. Most days it's maybe one, but some days I get to make a lot of them, on the faces of friends, family, loved ones, enemies, even strangers. Make the world a better place, one act of kindness at a time. 

We have a long way to go, and I'd be lying if I said it's going to be anything like easy, but many hands make light work, and as I've pointed out over and over: we are not alone. 

I'm finally done with this series. Thank you so much for reading. God bless if you'll allow Him, and in any case, I hope you have a good day. 

- Draknus.  

PS: no sources this time. The reason why this chapter was the hardest is because I had to put the pieces together all on my own, so I don't really know if anyone else has yet. I gathered information from a huge amount of places, from talking to people directly, to reading blogs, to articles in psychological journals, educational websites, but I can't really say that I've said anything here that really relies on any of them to stand up. Most of what I've said here is either my own take on things, or easily found through Google, so I'll ask you to forgive me for being so bold as to simply leave this as is.

Firearms Violence #2 - Control Proposal

Disclaimer: This is the second of three posts that I wrote in the spring of 2018 regarding violence involving firearms, then-current arguments regarding possible solutions, and the information that, given the research I had been able to do up to that point, might actually lead to the most effective solution possible, for both short and long term. In this post, I cover one potential framework for gun control reform that I believe would result in a safer nation for everyone involved, at least in the long run. I'd like to point out that any reform takes time, and I mean years, to be fully implemented, even after it's passed. That would be even more true of this kind of reform, as it would require a lot of changes that are not easy to make. 

I wish I could say I have a theoretical solution that would provide increased safety in the short term. I can list out a bunch of possibilities, and I will in a moment, but I don't see them really doing all that much, even if they were to somehow get implemented. The obvious solution is to increase security at schools. Security Guards armed with lethal weapons is not a popular idea, so perhaps a variety of non-lethal weapons could be made available. Or perhaps those same non-lethal weapons could be made available to teachers, as well as paid training to use them. Not every teacher is going to have the constitution to defend their students in that manner. It does take a very special mindset to do it, one that I've most often found in my fellow veterans. As Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (a character in Robert Heinlein's novel "Starship Troopers") said, "The most noble fate a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between his loved home and the war's desolation."

There are a few promising non-lethal weapons that I feel would be useful in schools, specifically, but also pretty useful for home defense and other situations calling for some heavier duty self defense than a martial arts class can offer. The first is the s1 Pepper Spray Gun made by the Salt Supply Co (linked below). It's not terribly expensive as weapons go, only about $350 each, but it fires small paintball-like rounds, filled with a pepper spray mixture rather than paint, that is very effective in temporarily blinding and/or disabling an assailant. Tasers are generally very effective, though they have limited range, and have been known to cause permanent damage. There is a longer ranged version of the taser, The Taser X12 shotgun (no gunpowder, just a specially designed taser round), but the rounds alone are $160, so although it's promises, it's not yet practical. Unfortunately, that's about all I can think of that would be provide for more safety in the short-term, and as you can probably guess, I don't think they're great solutions. 

As far as the Long Term goes, I've been putting a *lot* of thought into it, for literally years. Thanks to finally getting all of the pieces together, I can at least lay out the framework for it. 

The big problem I see in implementing any reform is that we don't have access to the data that would be most helpful to everyone. Thanks to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986, the Dickey Amendment of 1996, and a few other laws that have been heavily supported by the NRA, the government can't really do much to find out what risk factors are actually correlated with violent crimes involving guns. We can note what factors are present in the crimes, but we can't really compare them to gun owners as a whole, nor really take a good, deep look at the data. 

First, we'd need to repeal the Dickey Amendment. This is a little thing tacked on to the CDC's budget that bans them from doing research that might be used to advocate for gun control. The CDC really does need to have the freedom to gather and assess data freely, especially when it comes to gun violence, so I think it has to go. Thankfully, there's hope that it will, if Republicans lose their control on Congress in the upcoming elections. 

Second, we would need to replace the Firearm Owners' Protection Act. I'm not asking for an outright repeal, because there are good and bad parts to the law. It was originally written because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) was abusing its power to enforce firearms control laws. It also imposed some restrictions on firearms, including a ban on all new automatic firearms, so we'll need to keep part of it. The part I really want removed is the restrictions against the ATF having a search-able database of gun owners. 

Now we start with the hard work (as if those two legal changes aren't nearly impossible to begin with). We need laws to allow law enforcement to actually enforce firearm laws. Thankfully, we have a system already in place that could be modified to really give teeth to law enforcement, and also to protect legal firearms owners from abuses of the new power. Basically, I want to copy the Department of Transportation's system, and refine it for firearms. 

Primarily we'd need to simply create a requirement for a license to operate/carry a firearm in public. Just like cars, if you keep it on your property and don't hurt anyone with it, really no reason to restrict it outside of existing bans. However, we can drastically reduce the likelihood of things like accidental deaths by requiring a written and practical exam for that license. As a person trained on how to use firearms, I find myself nervous when I see someone else carrying, because I have no guarantee that they know how to safely handle that weapon. We need to provide that guarantee to the citizens of the US. Such a test would need to ensure they know how to safely operate and store firearms. You don't store a firearm loaded, it's both unsafe and damages the weapon. You don't carry a weapon in such a way that its muzzle points towards someone else. You don't walk around with a loaded weapon unless you are expecting to have to have it out and fired in under four seconds (loading a magazine into a handgun can be done very fast, including chambering the first round). This licensing database would have to be search-able, and tied to an existing ID, so that police can simply scan it like they do your driver's license to see if you're licensed to carry. 

Restrictions on what kinds of firearms can be carried in certain areas would probably be reasonable as well. A couple years ago, a big news story came out in which men were carrying semi-automatic rifles through a Target store. They were carrying them loaded, improperly slinged, and not even properly controlled (two hands on at all times, genius). Speaking as someone who thinks tactically far too often, if I was expecting to need to shoot in a department store, or pretty much any building short of warehouses or hangers, I wouldn't need a carbine of that size. A pistol is *much* more effective in those situations, or at most a modified sub-machine gun (modified for single shot only, as the law requires). I think publicly carrying a rifle over 30 inches in urban areas without a very good reason should be considered a red flag anywhere, if for no other reason than the person doing it probably has no idea how to use it properly. 

Licensing would have to be done with firearms carried in public as well, just like cars. They would need to be registered to a primary user, and that registration must correspond to the serial number hard-etched into the metal of the firearm. Any firearm found without license or without serial number should be allowed to be confiscated, similar to impounding a car. Any firearm carried by an unlicensed individual should be treated the same way. If you're found to be carrying in public, a police officer should be allowed to see your license, just like when you're driving (some restrictions would have to apply, obviously, to avoid "stop and frisk" style profiling). If during an otherwise necessary/legal search of a vehicle a firearm is found, then the same laws that apply to an actively carried firearm should apply to it: one person in the vehicle should have a license to carry it, and it should be registered. 

Now, all of this sounds like a gross violation of the 2nd amendment. I'm a huge proponent for that particular amendment, because I don't trust my government any more than your average veteran, which means not much at all. That's why I specifically allowed for privately owned firearms to stay on private property, or locked securely in a case for transport. You really wouldn't even need to have a license to own them, you just need one to carry them publicly. If the fecal matter hits the rotating air current generator to the point that we have to assault government offices, you'll have access to the weapons without the federal government having them specifically on file. However, if there's reasonable cause, like a charge of a violent crime, such firearms should be allowed to be impounded, at least temporarily, for the duration of an investigation, for everyone's safety. 

The plus side to all of this is that we will have access to the data to show that the overwhelming majority of firearms owners are not only responsible with their firearms, but good citizens. Firearms owners are being crucified in the media regularly because the only firearms owners we have a lot of data about are those that are either perpetrators or victims of crimes. There are other sources of information, like surveys and the like, but they're not really viewed as reputable. 

This entire system can be tweaked in a number of ways: licensing could be required for purchasing of certain kinds of ammunition, or at least a background check. There could be specific licensing/tests for different kinds of firearms (rifle vs handgun vs shotgun). It would even make background checks both faster and more accurate. You'd even get to see if someone's been buying a lot of firearms in a short period of time, which is probably a red flag. 

The ATF would be able to finally digitize all of the records of firearms sales that they have stored. If nothing else, this would create a lot of low-skill labor positions (data entry) for a good, long while so they can update the system with older records. 

Finally, this would have to take time to implement. Just as a quick estimate, I think it would be good to have a 3 year window for state DOTs to work with the ATF to implement the license system, with an additional grace period of 5 years for existing gun owners to earn their licenses and register any weapons they intend to carry outside the house. It's not a quick fix, but I think it's possible. However, my assessment can always be wrong, so please, take this as one possible framework, not a perfect detailed plan. 

As far as bans go, I've been asked to consider the possibility of temporary bans that would help. There's only one kind of ban that *might* help short term: ammunition. Restricting who can buy specific kinds of ammunition, especially 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds, might reduce the risk. Banning specific firearms doesn't really help, but ammunition is a low harder to 3D print. You can make your own, but it's not hard to track sales for the components if necessary, and to make reliable ammo, you need specialized equipment. If a bill were to come out that proposed restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and/or quality gunpowder, that also had an end-date *in the bill*, I'd support it. Long term, this kind of ban is not sustainable, and I don't believe it would be effective outside of a fairly narrow window, especially since its implementation would cause a panic among a significant segment of the population. 

I feel I should remind people of one piece of history in regards to weapons bans: complete and/or significant firearms bans have been used by oppressive governments as the first step towards totalitarianism. Remember that we don't trust our government right now, we know it's corrupt, so giving that government such a massive advantage over citizens, historically speaking, is a dangerous idea. I think there's got to be other solutions, and we have to remember to protect the whole of the nation, including from the government, not just from violent criminals. At least, that's how a lot of Americans see it, and we're not simply paranoid about "losing our guns," we want to help, we just don't want to end up in a Pied Piper story. In making your decisions on what kind of reform you'd like to support, all I ask is that you keep this in mind. 

Once again, Thanks for reading. God bless if you'll allow Him, and in any case, I hope you have a good day. 

- Draknus.  

PS: Salt s1 Pepper Spray Gun: https://www.saltsupply.com/products/s1-pepper-spray-gun-starter-kit

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/10/taser-xrep-up-close-and-pricing/

Firearms Violence #1 - Bans

Disclaimer: This is the first of three posts that I wrote in the spring of 2018 regarding violence involving firearms, then-current arguments regarding possible solutions, and the information that, given the research I had been able to do up to that point, might actually lead to the most effective solution possible, for both short and long term. 

First, I'd like to take a look at the current favorite potential solution: bans. There are a few different categories and specific bans that have been proposed recently, with various reasoned and unreasoned arguments attached to them. I'll assess and provide counterarguments to both sides of each proposal as best I can given the research I've been able to do so far. 

The most commonly called for ban at the moment is to ban "Assault Weapons", "Assault Rifles", and specifically the ArmaLite designed AR-15. The first two are arbitrary definitions. Despite what it held to be true by  many, the "AR" in AR-15 does not refer to Assault Rifle, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle; it serves as a designation for the company that designed it, not its actual function. There are no firearms that any organization that actually uses them for violent purposes, such as the military, militia groups, hunters associations, police forces, etc. categorize as "Assault Weapons." Any ban on such weapons would require a definition first. "Assault Rifles" has the same problem, except that it already has one feature defined: rifling inside the barrel (basically grooves that twist the bullet on the way out to improve accuracy and range.)

The AR-15 itself is the media's poster weapon for mass violence. However, statistically speaking, it's not actually the weapon of choice for killers. Overall, its versatility (which is why a very similar rifle, the M-4 Carbine, is the current choice of the US Army Infantry) actually hurts its ability to be the best gun to kill anything in a specified situation. It's capabilities are focused on being able to be used effectively in as many situations as possible: it has a maximum effective range of 600 yards, it uses a commonly found round size (NATO 5.56mm rounds), it has a variety of magazines, all of them able to be changed quickly, and it is both smaller and more mobile than more powerful rifles as a result. Unfortunately, this makes it inefficient for both close quarters combat, as its size and barrel placement make it unwieldy around doors and narrow aisles, and very long range, as beyond 300 yards, its accuracy is no longer good for human-sized targets, and the rounds it uses don't have the power to destroy most equipment at that range. 

When looking at the actual statistics of mass shootings (Data from Mother Jones investigations of mass shootings in the USA from 1982-present), the AR-15 is actually very rarely used. Out of a total of 97 mass shootings, only 7 (7.22%) used an AR-15 style rifle. A higher percentage of fatalities (15.81% or 129 total) resulted from the use of an AR-15 style rifle. Unfortunately, although this seems like a lot, the AR-15 style specifically doesn't make up enough for a ban on it to be effective. Other rifles, most notably Kalashnikov-like rifles (similar to AK-47), are just as easily obtainable, and are generally more capable of doing damage, and have been used in a number of mass shootings. 

This leads to looking at the possibility of banning all "assault weapons." Thankfully, there is a definition we can look at in order to figure out what a ban on them would be, from the Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989 (California). In order to pass that test, a rifle must either not be center-fire (meaning it uses a round in which the primer, the point of the round that has to be struck in order to fire the bullet from it, is in the center of the rear of the casing), must not be semi-automatic (Semi-automatic does not require a separate action between pulls of the trigger), or if it is both of those things, it must be at least 30 inches long, and either have a fixed magazine that can hold 10 or less rounds, or if it has a removable magazine, it cannot have any of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a thumb hole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a grenade launcher or flare launcher, a flash suppressor, or a forward pistol grip. This law also has requirements regarding shotguns and handguns. 

This would ban an extensive variety of rifles and handguns, many of which are actually the types that were used by mass murderers. If any arbitrary ban on the types of firearms available for purchase would possibly be effective, this might be the one. However, there are a wide variety of arguments against it, and some of them are actually well reasoned. 

The primary argument against an "Assault Weapon" ban, even with a clear definition, is that it would violate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. That Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The current Supreme Court interpretation of this clause is that it contains two separate but related clauses, and that its spirit is to allow the citizens of the United States to be able to defend themselves from the government of the United States, including being able to fight back effectively, should the need arise. The second clause "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the linchpin here. The spirit of this clause was, indeed, to avoid the kind of injustices that the British Government perpetrated against the colonists that led to the Revolutionary War by allowing US citizens to always have access to the military equalizer that firearms represent. However, just like all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights (The first ten amendments to the Constitution), this has been limited in order to provide for the general welfare, safety, and the rights of all citizens. Current restrictions include a ban on fully-automatic firearms that were manufactured after 1986 (the time at which the Firearm Owners' Protection Act was passed). The appeal to the 2nd Amendment is still a strong argument, but it is not all-encompassing. Unfortunately, it is being used as one of the major arguments *against* even discussing gun control reform, and loses its effectiveness as a reasonable argument at that point. 

The secondary argument against such a ban is that it wouldn't work. Either the firearms could be purchased illegally, or they are already owned. This is actually a very effective argument. If the current trend of mass violence continues (which is likely to matter the solution proposed), then we're likely to see anywhere between 2 and 12 more mass shootings before the end of the year. Given that, the next few shooters probably already own the weapons they will use, making any ban only good for the long run. If we want a solution to help in the immediate future, a ban on purchasing guns will not be that solution. Even with the bans in place, there are so many firearms and other methods of destruction that would be legally available for anyone with the willingness to train and do some research in order to commit the atrocity they want to.

The possibility of purchasing weapons illegally is actually a huge problem. As it is, Law Enforcement doesn't really have a legal means by which to enforce even the current purchasing laws, thanks to people who illegally sell through informal means, either to friends, through services like Craigslist, or even illegally online. Most individuals that do this are not attempting to circumvent the law, they just want to sell their gun for what could be considered a fair price (the only legal solution is to sell it back to a licensed seller, who will need to make a profit off of the weapon in short order, reducing the price they're willing to pay you). Without the "teeth", so to speak, even our current laws lack the punch they need to. 

The other major form of ban that is proposed is a ban on selling firearms to those with "mental illness." There are many, many problems with this, so I'm going to have to cover just a few. The primary problem is that it is a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. By discriminating against those with a disability (as many mental health conditions are), you have essentially taken an entire protected class of citizens and removed part of their citizenship. The immediate counterargument to this is that people with mental health issues are violent, or likely to become violent. This is not the case at all. There are really only three classes of individuals with mental health issues that are more likely than the average person to commit an act of violence: Those who suffer from a short list of fairly rare personality disorders (Borderline Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Conduct Disorder are among them) or paranoid delusions, Those that suffer from both a substance abuse disorder and another severe psychological disorder, and those with early exposure to *actual* violence (most notably forms of domestic abuse). 

Those at an increased risk of violence that is related at all to their psychological disorder make up less than 3% of the US population, and in the vast majority of cases, when those that do have mental health issues commit a crime, it has nothing to do with their psychological condition. That doesn't even cover the fact that fatalities from mass shootings make up less than 1% of gun-related homicides. Even among those previously mentioned 97 mass shootings, 17 of them (17.53%) were committed by those with an absolutely clean mental health record, and many of the others had ambiguous mental health records. Very few were actually committed by people with what can be defined as a "severe psychological disorder." Creating laws that significantly reduce the rights of 48 million Americans because of 3% of the actual gun crimes would be not only ineffective, but likely would result in an increase in harm to those with mental health issues. In that case, doing nothing is actually better than doing something, as such a ban would likely increase the suicide rate significantly, if only for a short period of time, out of fear of government oppression of those with psychological disorders, and a possible increase in violence against those individuals. 

The reason why that particular ban leaves a bad taste in so many mouths is that it stinks of similar restrictions that totalitarian states put on their citizens before essentially slaughtering millions of them. Yes, that does include the Nazi regime in Germany, but that is far from the only place. Registration and categorization of those with mental health issues has a dark history all over the world, including in our own nation. It wasn't even that long ago, back in the 1950's, that reforms brought about by exposing the atrocities committed in psychiatric institutions changed the United States, and it seems far too easy to slip back into the mindset of those suffering from mental illness being lumped together as "dangerous" and isolated from the rest of the world. 

Then there's the problem of deciding who is too "mentally unstable." Because it would be a legal decision, not a medical one, the decision would probably be made by those with law or business degrees, focused not on the good of the people, but maintaining or improving their position. We already know that the federal government is full of people that do just that. "Mentally unstable" would likely become a political tool, with the worst case scenario involving declaring those with opposing opinions and beliefs as "unstable" and taking away their rights as a result. Again, this is not science fiction, it's historical fact, right in our own back yard. Categorizing and partially disenfranchising a population of tens of millions for the actions of perhaps a few hundred may be effective in reducing one kind of atrocity, but it would give rise to plenty of others. It doesn't help that literally anyone who survived a mass shooting would automatically be considered mentally unstable, as they're incredibly likely to suffer from PTSD for the rest of their life. 

As a side note, PTSD specifically has been used a lot in the recent past as a reason to isolate and disenfranchise people, specifically veterans. There are dozens of child custody cases in which a Veteran's diagnosis of PTSD has been used as evidence against them, sometimes resulting in full custody going to the other parent, with no visitation rights. There have been those that have used specifically to ban Veterans suffering from PTSD from owning firearms, despite the fact that firearm ownership among veterans with PTSD is actually correlated with lower rates of suicidal ideation, and in fact a higher level of stability than the average of veterans with PTSD. 

At this point, the discussion tends to be at a standstill. One side insists on a ban, and the other side insists that it won't work, and that's where they keep it. The discussion needs to move forward, because gun control reform cannot simply take the form of more bans; it must be more complete. A ban *might* be part of the reform, but it cannot be expected to be the whole of it, and any reform must move to not only protect those without firearms, but also to better protect those with them. I'll cover the possible course of action for reform that I've worked out as a framework in my next article. 

As always, Thanks for reading. God bless if you'll allow Him, and in any case, I hope you have a good day. 

- Draknus. 

Sources: 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/mental-illness-crime.aspx

http://jech.bmj.com/content/70/3/223

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mental-illness-and-violence

http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archipsy/Swartz_1998.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/rimfire-vs-centerfire-ammunition/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California#Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatric_institutions#United_States:_reform_in_the_1940s

http://www.12news.com/article/features/can-military-vets-ptsd-records-be-used-against-him-in-child-custody-dispute/459535150

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308415/

August 25th, 2020 - A cry for help.

 The following is largely an emotional reaction. It contains references and direct mentions of controversial topics. Please consider this a trigger warning, but maybe also a cry for help. This is all I have left, so I'm using it to reach out and try to find something worth while. 

I'm honestly wondering what it is we're supposed to be protecting any more. 

Having service in the military, I can tell you that there are a lot of reasons our military is one of the best, if not the best, in the world. There's also a reason why our military is generally a better culture than the average among the whole of the nation. Is it perfect? By no means, not even close. We keep allowing high ranking officials to forget who they're supposed to be protecting and then we get rapes and murders like what happened to Spc. Guillen. Yet, I can see why we might want to preserve the progress made in the military, but what for? 

Our international policy is a joke. We have multiple treaties, some of which we allowed to be forced on us by the UN despite having veto power, where our government is responsible for the military and economic welfare of other nations, receiving close to nothing in return. Look up the Compact of Free Association (COFA), which makes us responsible for three other nations, gives their citizens full access to the USA including services normally reserved only for our citizens, no tariffs, military and economic support, and we are held legally responsible if anything happens to them, but if we were to be destroyed they would be left unscathed. What do we get in return? The right to negotiate for land for military bases. We're not even guaranteed that much. And all that is for some tactical advantage in an area of the world that we haven't bothered with since Viet Nam, and frankly a lot of people believe we shouldn't have bothered with it there. Do we even need bases to get that tactical advantage? Our ships can stay at see, self-contained, for months, just hanging out. They produce their own power, they use hydroponics and can receive supplied via air drop, why do we need bases out there? 

We have at least one state and one territory where a significant portion of their population wants to no longer be part of the United States. I'm speaking of Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Both have significant movements within them that call for independence and free association, the same kind of agreement we have through COFA. And the thing is, if we don't grant those demands, we're painted internationally as evil colonial powers. If we just granted them full independence, pulled out all citizens that wanted to remain U.S. citizens and then left those nations to their own devices, we'd be viewed as monsters. So we're required, by international law and sentiment, to give to other nations with no real promise of return. Why? 

Then let's look at the domestic picture. Our nation is so divided right now thanks to the reincarnation of McCarthy creating the inevitable peak caused by literal decades of idiocy from both major parties that we literally risk armed uprisings no matter who wins in November. We already have shit-tons of unrest, for damned good reason, going on all over. Do I support burning down buildings or even peaceful protests without clear demands? No, not under any circumstance, but any student of sociology or history can tell you that such a reaction was inevitable without the changes being demanded, changes that are being characterized as anarchist, chaotic, or unreasonable. We're not talking about destroying all law enforcement, we're talking about treating their violations of the law the same as ours, especially when those laws differ. Why is it that a civilian is "innocent until proven guilty" inside a jail cell awaiting trial if they can't come up with the money to pay bail even for non-violent crimes, but a police officer who violates due process by punishing someone with 9mm rounds gets a paid vacation until it can be proven that they did something wrong? Hell, give the police officers special holding areas, their own damned building, but put them in the same situation as someone awaiting trial for homicide in which they'll be pleading self defense. 

That's not even the worst of it. There are wildfires eating up multiple states right now, and the federal government is barely responding because 45 wants one of those states to "clean up their act" before they'll send any aid to that state for the wildfires. 

That brings me to a sentiment I see from both political extremes: "let it burn" or "burn it down." From the right, the best example is the response to Kenosha, where because a single police officer was assaulted with a brick, their proposed solution is to "let them burn down their own city." One criminal act and suddenly no one in Kenosha deserves basic law enforcement services, access to firefighters, etc. And on the other side it's the entire nation! Literally! "Burn it all down" is a slogan because injustice is still a thing. Injustice will always be a thing, the point is to keep fighting to fix the injustices we see now so we can fight new injustices in ten years. Our system allows for that, at least, but we're not unique in that, almost any constitutional government with a democratic mechanic has that ability. 

Is the U.S. the greatest country in the world? No. It hasn't been for a long time, if it ever was. Our economy is trashed, our educational system is all but completely broken, our citizenry are so indoctrinated that they consider experts to be experts only if they agree with their preconceived notions, our international policy is often oppressive and when it's not it sometimes is just cowardly (see: our actions in Syria). Our history is far from clean as well. We were built up on the backs of slaves and wading through the blood of Native Americans. Until the 1950's, which is that long ago, we had overt discrimination on the basis of sex and race in our laws, and even today we have overt discrimination on the basis of other protected statuses in our laws, on top of the functionally discriminatory laws and policies. 

Would I describe us as a racist nation because of all of that? No, I would describe us as a nation. No nation with a significant population of multiple races, ethnicities, or even creeds is without the same kinds of discrimination, and often very similar history. Canada, the supposed bastion of justice in North America, is the only nation in which the word "Eskimo" has been so often used to oppress, demean, and harm their Native population that it has to be treated as a slur, much like how our nation must treat the N-word. (I apologize to any who are offended by my spelling out that term, most Americans would not know what "E-word" meant without me spelling it out). The UK still has problems of hate crimes, some of them not even considered hate crimes because of archaic laws. And I shouldn't have to explain why the histories of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have the same black marks on them as ours do, even in relatively recent times. So, no, unless we're willing to admit that all humanity is racist, our nation isn't any more racist than another. Does it have racial prejudice in the very systems meant to stop that? Yes, very definitively yes, and we have literal volumes of evidence to prove that, but that leads to my next complaint. 

We're so focused on the specific categories of oppression we see or experience that we, the generally oppressed, fight among ourselves over who is the most oppressed, rather than actually addressing the problem as a whole. Great example is police brutality: that is not a racial issue. There is a huge racial element to it, of that there is no doubt, but it is an issue that affects every race, ever ethnicity, and every creed, at least below a certain socioeconomic status. Rather than doing what Campaign Zero has done and focus on the problem and evidence-based solutions to that problem, we fight over who has it the worst, and try to justify some of the brutality because it happens to other people too. It's really clear who that benefits, and it's not any potential victims of police brutality, it benefits those that are nowhere near likely to experience it, who benefit from all of the forms of oppression present in our society. The different categories of oppression, racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, etc. etc. ad nauseam serve to make it so that those that benefit from oppression can have the oppressed to their oppressing for them. Want to keep all poor people down? Convince them that some of the poor people are inherently different from others of the poor people and that difference makes then alien, an enemy, or straight up wrong to exist. And that doesn't stop at race, ethnicity, or protected statuses, they do the same thing with ideologies. Why have we not generally come to recognize that the concept of "identity politics" is literally there to convince all the poor people that anyone who disagrees on a single point of sociopolitical policy is evil? Not pro-life? You're a satanist who loves to kill children. Not anti-racism? You're a Nazi. How is that not obvious to the vast majority of our nation? 

I woke up this morning, just looked at what was going on, and legitimately thought to myself, "let it burn." Why? Because despite the fact that I sacrificed everything I had and more for this nation, I have a hard time seeing what's worth saving. And maybe that doesn't just apply to my nation, but to pretty much the entire English-speaking world, because the same problems present here seem to be present all around there. 

If you've made it this far, thank you. I'd like to ask one more favor of you: please tell me something that's worth saving here. Please share with me a reason why I should continue to strive and sacrifice for this nation that seems so hopeless to me. I know it's not fair to ask, but I've run out of my own hope, and I could really use the help.

Umbrella Academy: Ben and the Stages of Grief

I haven't seen Season Two, so yell at me about how wrong this is later, I just thought this was a funny little coincidence. This is mostly about what happens between the origin of the story and the funeral in Season 1 Episode 1, but there are some Season 1 spoilers so let this count as the spoiler alert. 

Ben died, and around his death everyone else's lives seemed to embody a stage of grief:

1 - Luther - Denial. He was in denial about their whole team, and then in denial that their father screwed up so bad that he sent Luther to the moon to escape his guilt.

2 - Diego - Anger. Diego literally goes around trying to use his ability to kill criminals, as if he's just lashing out at any target he can justify.

3 - Allison - Bargaining. She spent her time developing a career using her ability of persuasion to get what she wanted.

4 - Klaus - Depression. He's driven so mad by the visions of the dead that he falls into a lot of the traps that untreated depression historically leads to: substance abuse and addiction. Anything to keep the grief at bay.

5 - Five - Acceptance. The Old Timer is the embodiment of grudging acceptance, doing the job he's trained to do until he can figure out how to fix it all.

That leaves two more, right?

Ben died, he can be seen as the cause of the grief.

And if you look up the term "The Sixth Stage of Grief" you'll be led to a book called "Finding Meaning: The Sixth Stage of Grief." So..

6 - Vanya - Finding Meaning. She spends her life wondering why she was part of the family. She tries to find meaning in her memories by writing a book, not realizing that she can't find the meaning since it's been hidden from her.

This isn't a conspiracy theory or me believing this was done on purpose. I just thought it was a kind of funny coincidence. The fact that the numbers line up, if you skip Ben as #6, just made it seem all the more interesting.

What do you think?