Life is Terminal

Please visit my Book Blog.  Come along as we discuss life and death in the United States, and our cultural unwillingness to accept that all life eventually comes to an end.

Life Is Terminal: A Writer's Blog

Let's Get Serious About Stopping Gun Violence

Are we serious about reducing gun violence, or do we just want to ban guns?

Gun control doesn't work.  Since we started to enact these laws, 80 years ago, gun crime has actually increased.  Gun rights advocates say gun control is contributing to the increase.  Gun control advocates say we need more laws.  Both are wrong.  No one has ever scientifically shown a causal correlation between gun restrictions and gun crime.  Gun control does not reduce crime.  It also does not increase it.

Gun control does absolutely nothing.

Isn't it time we stopped passing useless laws in a feel-good effort to “do something”?  Isn't it time we enacted measures that really work?  Isn't it time we asked the experts what to do rather than the politicians?

Active Shooters in Schools: The Enemy is Denial

Active Shooters in Schools: Should Teachers be Trained by Police Firearms Instructors?

In the above articles, Doug Wyllie addresses the issue of stopping an active shooter in a school setting.  He talks about designing schools to provide safe zones, holding drills, training teachers in how to safeguard their students, etc.  He compares it to our initiatives to avoid injury and death from school fires, and follows a similar model.  Wyllie also discusses the idea of training and arming certain individuals in the school, so they will be able to respond immediately with force-on-force, in much the same way a police officer would in a similar circumstance.  This is much like the Israeli model for defending against terrorism.

And let’s call this what it is.  It isn’t a gun problem.  It isn’t a mental health issue.  It’s not about video games, movies, or a lack of God in our schools.   These issues may contribute to the cause of these events, and it’s great that people want to study them, but we need to focus on our response first.  Dealing with the triggers can come later.  We are responding to terrorism.  Period.

Israel has dealt with terrorism almost since the nation was re-established.  We need to look at their model.  We need to consider adopting some of their policies.

Israeli teachers can and do sometimes carry firearms to protect their students.  Armed military personnel patrol public areas, ready to respond to terror threats.  Private citizens are observant and report suspicious activity which is immediately investigated.

I believe we should adopt some or all of the following policies:

• Teach firearm safety in the schools.  The Eddie Eagle program is one of the best models out there.  Let’s use it.

• Provide funding for community education programs teaching home firearm safety to adults and older minors.  The NRA’s “Home Firearms Safety” program is an excellent training model.  (The NRA and its instructors would probably offer this program for free if asked.) 

• Create a new Civil Defense Corps (CDC) made up of private citizens who have passed a background check and mental health screening.  Members of the corps will be overseen by Homeland Security, which will provide funding and supervise training.  Members will voluntarily provide security to local public areas and schools.

• Use the National Guard and reserve military personnel to supplement the CDC in providing security in areas under federal jurisdiction such as Post Offices, airports, train stations, etc.  National Guard units could also be used in State areas at the request of the Governor.

• Start a national program teaching the general public how to watch for and identify unusual activity and report it to the authorities.

• Ask the media to voluntarily stop providing names, images of, and statements from criminals who engage in terrorist acts such as public shootings or other forms of mass murder.

• Allow Concealed Pistol License (CPL) holders to carry in currently restricted areas in which other official forms of armed security are not provided (i.e. Schools, hospitals, sports arenas, stadiums, etc.).

• Amend current laws to protect lawful armed citizens from prosecution and litigation should they use their firearms in a justifiable manner, especially in the protection of the general public.

• Eliminate “gun free zones”.  Police, military personnel, CPL holders, etc. should be allowed to carry freely in these areas.  (Criminals already do.)

• Allow all public employees with CPLs to carry while on duty, not in a law enforcement capacity, but as first responders in a terrorist event.  Provide any necessary training to interested employees.

• Offer free training, litigation protection, and tax incentives to private companies who allow their employees to carry firearms while at work.

• Equip every police car with a high powered rifle and provide appropriate training to all police personnel.

• Allow CPL holders with rifle training to keep secured rifles in their vehicles.

• Finally, let’s start enforcing the laws we already have.  Let’s get serious about violent crime.  Let’s stop offering parole, plea bargains, and suspended sentences for violent crimes.  Jail sentencing should not be seen as a punishment for violent criminals, but as a means of protecting the public through sequestration. 

Angry About Guns

I’m angry.

Another wacko has entered a “gun free” zone, this one filled with innocent children, and shot the place up, killing at least 26 people, including 20 kids.

To protect the kids, one teacher moved her students into a bathroom, bolted the door, and prayed.  I’m a huge advocate for prayer, but honestly, in this circumstance, I’d rather pray with a shotgun in my hand.

“Gun free zones” are inane.  Criminals don’t rules, so the only people who are “gun free” are the victims.  Will a gun always stop a nut from killing people?  No.  But it can offer a victim the means to defend his or herself, possibly deterring the criminal.

The knee jerk reaction to these types of tragedies is to blame the guns, gun owners, or the gun culture.  This hurts.  I’m part of the gun culture, but I certainly don’t kill kids.  My heart breaks when I hear about any killing, especially when kids are the victims.  Imagine how much harder it is to hear of such a tragedy, realizing you will be blamed.

The US has some of the least restrictive gun control laws in the world.  Many people blame these laws for the gun related violence in the US.  Truth is, there has never been a persuasive study showing a correlation between US gun violence and US gun laws or the proliferation of gun ownership.  In fact, there is a strong suggestion that such a correlation doesn’t exist.  States and cities with strong gun laws often see higher rates of gun crime than states and cities with less restrictive laws.  Foreign nations almost all have more restrictive laws, yet their rates of gun violence run the gambit from virtually none in countries such as Japan, Switzerland, and New Zealand, to extremely high rates in countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Russia.  The US does have a high rate of gun related violence, but, for a developed nation, we also have a high rate of incarceration and overall violence.

Some will claim that the US has seen more high profile shootings than other countries.  What they fail to observe, however, is that the US is not really comparable to Great Britain or Germany.  In the US, these countries would be states.  The US is best compared with Europe as a whole.  When considered this way, The US rate of mass shootings is about the same, even though Europe’s laws are much more restrictive.  Gross data is rarely relevant.  It has to be adjusted for contributing factors, then assessed for a correlation.  Without analysis using proper research technique, data is simply a political tool used to manipulate perception.  Most studies I’ve read on gun violence and the effects of gun control use “cherry picked” data to support a political agenda either for or against gun restriction.  John Lott, a highly regarded economist and former Yale professor, is the most reliable researcher I have found.  His analysis is precise, scientific, and unbiased.  In fact, he is a former gun control supporter who was converted through the analysis of his own research.  I strongly recommend reading his work.  (Note: Critics often try to discredit Lott because of his work with gun rights advocates, but this relationship started after his first publication on firearms statistics.)

I’m not necessarily opposed to gun laws.  I support an age requirement for gun ownership.  I believe violent felons should lose their rights to possess guns (not because they’ll comply, but because it provides a reason for arrest if they return to their violent ways).  If, however, we wish to add more restrictions to what is already the most regulated product in the US market, I believe these restrictions should be based on science rather than emotion.  Gun control advocates need to provide good data to support their proposals.  They’re the ones asking for freedom to be restricted.  They should provide the rationale.  So called “common sense” and emotional knee jerk reaction just doesn’t cut it.

Some References:

Gun Control and Mass Murders : http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr#

Gun control isn't the answer: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilson20apr20,0,7286389.story

Multiple Victim Public Shootings: http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf

Artificial Trees Are Best

I grew up with an artificial tree.

When I got married, my new wife insisted on a real tree.  We did that for a couple of years, but I finally convinced her that the repeated costs of a tree that would shed needles, present a fire hazard, and finally be thrown in the trash a few days after Christmas was inferior to a beautiful and perfect artificial tree that could be reused for years.  It was the cost saving that finally convinced her.

We are on our second tree in 15 years.  It’s still beautiful and perfect.

My parent's tree is aluminum... 

Halloween is a CHRISTIAN Tradition.

Read article here: Surprise: Halloween's Not a Pagan Festival After All


Dr. Garry E. Milley says "People do not become Christians by putting up a Christmas tree, giving presents, and singing carols.  Your kids will not become pagans by collecting candy door-to-door..."

He's right.  Celebrating the American tradition of Halloween does not put our children's souls at risk through participation in a pagan ritual.  Not only are our kids protected by a lifetime of family values, parental example, and the influence of a generally Christian American culture, but the celebration of Halloween isn't actually a pagan holiday at all.

The word "Halloween" is derived from the Irish observance of "All Hallows Eve'n".  All Hallows Day is one of the names for All Saints Day, a Catholic tradition of prayer for deceased Christians observed on November 1st.  The costumes and begging for treats were added in the Americas as French, English, and Irish settlers combined various fall traditions derived from Christian historical events.  Paganism didn't contribute anything until a couple of centuries later when jack-o-lanterns and witches were added to the tradition.  By that time, this decidedly American tradition was already well established.  The holiday was never pagan and is certainly not recruitment strategy for the Devil.

Associating Halloween with demonic worship and witchcraft has no basis in history or traditional participation in the event.  Calling this an evil holiday borders on religious extremism.  Halloween is simply about dressing up, having fun, and collecting candy.

Let the kids have their fun.

Attention Students. We're watching you...

See article here: Texas Schools Punish Students...


A school in Texas is piloting a program to track kids.  New student ID cards have implanted RFID chips that can be tracked by sensors placed throughout the school.  Computers track who accesses the building and where they go throughout the day.

I don't really have a problem with this system.  The cards are not implanted, but simply carried.  They allow the kids to access the building and help parents and teachers monitor student activities.  This should help reduce truancy and may help identify at-risk kids.

School is provided without cost to the students.  To access this education, they are required to follow certain rules.  If they don't like these rules, they have an option to attend another school or homeschool, or, if this is not an option, they can drop out once they reach the legal age of choice (I believe this is 18 in Texas).  These students are minor children.  They do not have the same privacy rights enjoyed by adults.  If the state wants to monitor students in this manner while these kids are in the school's care, I believe it is within its authority.  I am unable to think of a legitimate activity a student could be involved in that would require privacy from location tracking.

Should I continue this site?

Please vote to the right.

I'm not sure if folks really care about this site.  I hate to go through all the trouble of writing essays if no one is going to read them.  I don't get a lot of comments, so I don't really know how much impact I'm having.  Is it worth it?

Please comment below.

Thanks.

--Rich