Killers

There cannot possibly be a more inconceivable, horrific, despicable act than the intentional, close range murder of small, helpless, innocent children in an elementary school class room.  I am certain that everyone in the world could agree on that.  But as emotions run high people should avoid the natural urge of making an irrational, knee-jerk, unwarranted reaction and doing something really stupid in response.  Unfortunately, it appears Americans can't help themselves.  The politically correct army of self-righteous, self-appointed airheads is demanding to impose more limits on our freedom, and as usual Barack Obama is leading the charge.

The holier-than-thou, politically correct fanatics are coming out of the woodwork to re-open the debate on banning guns in America.  As usual, the legal ownership of guns issue has again careened off into the hysterical and irrational.  It is probably news to the zealous, but the fact is laws concerning gun ownership already exist to prevent convicted criminals, domestic abusers and the mentally unstable from acquiring or owning guns.  The Connecticut killer was clearly insane.  According to the law he should not have had access to a gun.  Fifty years ago he probably wouldn't have.  Back then the insane were institutionalized.  But due in no small part to the 'compassion' of the politically correct morons that is no longer the case.  The same people screaming about banning guns are the same ones who told us the mentally ill can be controlled with medication, psychotherapy and encounter groups.  Obviously they were tragically wrong.

There is one simple argument that should be easy for everyone to understand.  Making the ownership of guns illegal means the only people with guns would be the criminals and other miscreants who could care less about complying with the law.  Good grief people, that is what being a criminal means.  Thugs, bullies and hoodlums would control the streets.  Law abiding citizens would have no means to protect themselves and their families from bad people.  It is not difficult for those with violent intent to find guns.  Approximately 300 million guns exist today in the US alone.  There are few things in the world more available than guns, many a lot more lethal than the kind used by the Connecticut killer.  If guns were banned, gun smugglers would become billionaires.  Banning guns is nonsense.  People sticking their head up their ass will not make bad guys go away.

There have always been mass murderers and serial killers since human beings began living in close proximity to each other.  The only real solution is to ban the real life monsters, but of course that is impossible.  Evil exists in the world and cannot be eliminated.  No one knows where the monsters will strike next, but potential targets can be anticipated.  Have the anti-gun folks ever noticed that mass murders mostly take place in designated no-gun zones such as schools, theaters and shopping malls?  Does that tell them anything?  The only defense is to be armed and prepared to deal with evil if it intends for you to be its next victim.  Banning guns would be the equivalent of making everyone a helpless potential target.

Guns have been around for centuries.  What is new over the last two decades is the pervasive graphic violence distributed in massive quantities to the younger generations in the form of popular entertainment.  Could it possibly be expected that a few of the millions who spend hours every day exposed to this stuff might become impervious to it all?  Maybe it would be a good idea to ban the glorification of shameless violence on television and in the movies.  Maybe Hollywood should stop producing shows with zombies, vampires, axe wielding psychos and murderous teenagers.  How about banning the mindless gore and senseless mayhem with body counts in the thousands generated in best selling video games?  They may not be poisoning the brain of everyone who plays them but almost certainly influence the psychopaths among us.  Of course taking measures that restrict the distribution of this trash is unlikely to happen since the producers of it are big contributors to the Democratic Party.

While we're at it, lets discuss another issue of destructive human behavior that society has gone  ballistic to punish - drunk driving.  First of all, no one would disagree with the contention that drunks should not be driving vehicles.  The problem is with the definition of drunk.  The general definition of drunk is one who is intoxicated with liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties.  The legal definition of drunk is based on blood alcohol content (BAC).  Even though they have varied in the past, every state now has a BAC limit of .08%.  Ask anyone who has studied intoxication and they will tell you that .08% alcohol in the blood is an arbitrary creation.  The blood alcohol test can be inaccurate by as much as 10%, and it doesn't really measure an individual's level of intoxication.  There is no specific identifiable measurement of intoxication.  Every individual's tolerance for alcohol is different.

The Office of Alcohol and Drug Education at Notre Dame University has published studies claiming that many factors go into determining whether an individual is intoxicated.  The primary factors are weight and gender.  Yes ladies, females get drunk on less alcohol than men. Other physical factors are body fat, medication taken and when the person last consumed food.  Mental factors affecting the level of intoxication include a person's mood, fatigue, expectations and emotion.  Notre Dame's studies have shown that impaired judgment, impaired coordination, slurred speech, diminished senses, intensified emotions and lowered inhibitions occur anywhere between .06 and .10% blood alcohol content depending on the individual.

In most states a person driving a car stopped by the police for any moving violation may be tested for inebriation if the officer thinks he smells alcohol.  If the test measures the driver's BAC at .082%, he would most likely be arrested, go to jail and quite possibly have his life ruined.  But if the person is a man weighing 200 pounds who has just eaten dinner, he is most likely not drunk.  An innocent man is being unjustly punished.  I can't help but wonder if that bothers the politically correct crowd's sense of justice.

We might as well also discuss another big time killer of people in America who are driving and riding in vehicles - cell phones.  Driving while distracted is growing rapidly as a factor in fatal vehicle accidents, and everyone should know by now that talking and texting on cell phones is a primary cause of distraction.  You can't drive down the street without seeing at least one out of every three drivers yacking into a cellphone or looking down to text.  Nothing could be more dangerous to you, your passengers and other drivers on the same road than not paying attention to driving the vehicle.  Should sell phones be banned while driving?  My answer would be yes.

Human beings often feel compelled to stand in judgment of others.  A lot of people have a superiority complex, believing they inherently qualify as the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong, who is good and who is evil, and what should be done to punish those who violate their standards.  But many of these same people break some laws on a regular basis, I imagine because they think those laws don't apply to them.  You can't drive down a street without having someone fly by you 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, oftentimes a woman talking on a cellphone with children in the car.  Those people are accidents waiting to happen.

It is not a perfect world and never will be .  Of course society must do everything it can to prevent as much of the shit from happening as possible.  Laws must be established to discourage and limit the potential damage.  But these laws must be rational, reasonable and effective.  Emotional, knee-jerk reactions usually make things worse, not better.  People need to chill out and use common sense and logical analysis rather than mindless, childish, head up the ass nonsense to deal with these issues.

Tragedies happen to innocent people in real life.  There doesn't always have to be a reason.  But I suppose if you don't own a gun, have never driven a vehicle after having had a drink, have never talked or texted on your cellphone while driving, don't watch violent television or movies, don't play violent video games, have never driven faster than the speed limit or run red lights, then you can feel imperious and authoritative enough to throw stones and call for drastic punishment of those who do.  It may make you feel better, but it will not solve anything or prevent the tragedies.

Having said all that, let me make a prediction.  None of it will matter.  Personally, I don't have a problem with stricter controls on the sales of assault rifles or the prevention of gun sales through unlicensed dealers without background checks.  Furthermore, the legal definition of mental illness should be strengthened and compliance improved.  But the current anti-gun frenzy is unlikely to stop there.  We live in a new America.  Common sense and rationality no longer exist here.  Politically correct attitudes and the feminization of society are now a done deal.  The America we grew up in is gone.  The strongest evidence for that fact is living in the White House.  Prepare for your world to continue to be turned upside down.