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

Heroes are Exceptional, not Typical

Article: Too Many Heroes

I believe there are certain professions in our society that are essential, but often unsung and taken for granted.  Sometimes these professions are dangerous.  Some of them have poor salaries.  Some require strange or long hours.  All of them are dedicated to providing for the well being of our society.  Professions that come immediately to mind are Fire Fighter, Doctor, Nurse, Paramedic, Law Enforcement Officer, and Soldier.  All these professions are noble.  All require sacrifices, often with little reward.

But that doesn’t make these folks heroes.

A hero is someone who exhibits unusual character and behavior that is considered inherently admirable and atypically self-sacrificing.  Simply entering a vocation and donning a uniform does not make one a hero.  Heroes must go above and beyond the norm.  A hero is not typical, but exceptional.

The author in the above article writes:

If it looks like an altruistic act, then it IS an altruistic act. And so, we take the actions of a few and impose that quality on everyone that looks like them. So all soldiers, police officers, and fireman become heroes because of what a few of their brethren did and this denigrates and diminishes the actions of those few brave souls when their individual behaviors are extrapolated out to anyone who looks like them or wears the same uniform.

The firefighters, police officers, and volunteers at the World Trade Center on 9/11 were all heroes.  As others were running away, these extraordinary men and women ran toward danger, risking their lives, to help save others.

Mother Theresa risked violence, disease, starvation, persecution, and personal hardship to care for the poor.

Jason Dunham, an American Marine in Iraq threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his two fellow Marines.

Deborah Johnson, RN, was knocked down and injured when shots were fired into a crowded street.  Despite her wounds, she ignored the danger to herself, crawled to the four shooting victims, and administered first aid, saving three of them.

These people are heroes.  At great personal risk, they placed the needs of others ahead of their own.  Where others ran from danger and hardship, they ran to the people in need.  Some came out unharmed.  Some were injured.  Some lost their lives.

Calling someone a hero simply because of their chosen career lessens the value of the title.  It takes honor away from true heroes.  Heroism requires exceptional behavior.  Like respect, the title of “hero” is earned, never given. 

God Bless America

On Tuesday, September 11th, 2001, at 8:46am, America woke up to fund ourselves at war.

Since that infamous moment, our lives have changed.  The US went on the attack against terrorism.  Up until that moment, we thought terrorism was someone else's problem.  It was something that happened in Greece, Israel, or France.  It occasionally touched us, but never with any real teeth.  The events of 9/11 made us finally take our heads from the sand.  We began to realize that we, like the rest of the world, were vulnerable.

Following 9/11, we have initiated many changes in culture and policy.  We have adopted the Patriot Act, strict TSA guidelines, new security measures, and a greater acceptance of CPLs.  We have invaded two countries and toppled their governments.  We have chased terrorists in half a dozen other countries, clipping their wings and greatly reducing their ability to harm us.

Our reaction to 9/11 has been somewhat controversial.  I personally don't support the Patriot Act or the new TSA guidelines.  I don't believe the Iraqi war was intended to fight terrorism.  I don't believe our efforts in Afghanistan are currently related to terror.

I believe there is one thing I think we will all agree on, however.  9/11 reminded us that, our differences aside, we are all Americans.  We can fight among ourselves, but we will not allow anyone to harm our American brothers and sisters.  We may be divided along political and social ideals, but we are united in this.

We Are America.

Wink at the Moon

Video: Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon ?

Scientific Response to the video: Conspiracy Theory: Did We Go to the Moon?



Neil Armstrong died last week.  Armstrong was a real American hero.  He risked his life to advance American exceptionalism.  He dedicated his career to acquiring specialized skills and knowledge, and to maintaining excellent health so that he could serve us by advancing technology and by starting the incredible task of exploring the final frontier.  It was a sad day when Armstrong died.  To honor and salute him, and in compliance with the Armstrong family's request, my kids and I went outside during the Blue Moon and gave it a wink.

There are people who claim the Lunar Mission was a hoax.  They point to certain points they claim prove the landing occurred on a Hollywood set, rather than the giant planetoid we see in our sky most nights.  They have a list of things they expect to see in Lunar photos and video, then cry conspiracy when their expectations are not met, regardless of the logical, scientific explanations for the supposed "discrepancies".

Our world is not filled with conspiracies.  It's nearly impossible to get enough people to cooperate and keep quiet enough to make a conspiracy succeed.  Even a small leak or mistake will be jumped on by legitimate news media looking for the "kill" of a major news scoop.  Credible sources will come forward, opening the door to countless others who will seek their moment of fame by coming clean.  Think Watergate...

There is no Moon conspiracy.  Armstrong was a hero.  An American hero who walked on the moon.

Dogs are Better than Cats

It's been said that dogs have masters, cats have staff.  Dogs are loyal, obedient, and reliable.  They are easy to train, desire to please, and can help protect your family.  They love to work and play, and can earn their keep.  Cats are the ultimate narcissists.  Yes, they are soft and furry, when they allow you the privileged of stroking, scratching, and massaging them, but they are also aloof, lazy, and labile.

Please don't take this wrong.  We have a cat.  I like our cat.  When she is in a joyful mood, I enjoy playing with her.  Stroking her fur is relaxing.  Watching her chase toys and bugs makes me laugh.  But the cats we've had in my lifetime have never captured my heart like my dogs.  I don't have a dog right now, but I still have fond memories of Misty, Tipper, and, dearest of all, Kirstie.  I miss my Kirstie...

Dogs really are man's best friend.

Disarm the Police?

Read article here: NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police



Last Friday, a disgruntled employee, in a city that has all but made guns illegal, used a gun (illegally) to kill a former colleague.  When police engaged the criminal, he pointed his gun at them, so they shot him... along with NINE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS!

NYC already has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country.  The criminal in this incident violated several of them.  As a result, one person was killed.  Police responded legally, and not only was one more person killed, but several others were injured.  Who's guns were more dangerous?  The criminal's?  Or those of the police?

I used to compete in PPC, a shooting sport developed by police to encourage the development of shooting skills.  Competitions were generally organized by police and held on police ranges.  Private citizens competed directly against police officers.  And we were better.  Every department had skilled shooters who would score with our best, but the average officer's shooting skills were far inferior to those of the average shooting enthusiast.

If gun control advocates believe the presence of a firearm is inherently dangerous, why do we arm police?  How is a gun in the hands of a police officer somehow safer and more beneficial than one in the hands of a private citizen?  Are police officers more responsible?  More ethical?  More rational?  In my experience, they're certainly not better trained.  Friday's incident supports that observation.

I'm not suggesting we disarm police officers.  What I am suggesting is that gun control advocates consider the possibility that their position on firearms is based more on emotion than fact.  To consider the very real possibility that their solutions to gun violence are ineffective.  To admit that they may be wrong.  

Wisdom Through Failure

"Develop success from failures. Discouragement and failure are two of the surest stepping stones to success." -- Dale Carnegie

"Before success comes in any man's life he is sure to meet with much temporary defeat and, perhaps, some failures. When defeat overtakes a man, the easiest and most logical thing to do is to quit. That is exactly what the majority of men do." -- Napoleon Hill

"Don't be afraid to fail. Don't waste energy trying to cover up failure. Learn from your failures and go on to the next challenge. It's OK to fail. If you're not failing, you're not growing." -- H. Stanley Judd

We have all heard that success comes from refusing to submit to, and be defeated by failure.  We are told to strive on when we experience setbacks.  We are to ask those who have succeeded for their wisdom of success.  We should look at the failures of others to discover and avoid their mistakes.

All of these things are true, but, perhaps, a bit cumbersome.  There are certain people in the world who are able to help us avoid learning all these lessons for ourselves.

To truly avoid mistakes and achieve success, we should not only look at mistakes that led to failure or choices that led to success.  We should look for people who have achieved both the wisdom of failure and the thrill of success from the same source.

We can learn about how to avoid divorce by asking a divorced spouse about what he or she did wrong, but the answer will be jaded by the person's desire to protect his or herself from the pain of true introspection, even if they have gone on to a successful second marriage.  We can look at a successful marriage, but the couple will be unable to advise on challenges they have never experienced.  If we want to have a successful marriage, we should look for a couple who has experienced failure, then rebounded to success.  A couple who has divorced, or come close, then reconciled and restored their marriage will have an intimate understanding of how to avoid marriage pitfalls and promote success.

The same is true in business.  Some wisdom can be gained by talking to someone who has experienced bankruptcy, then succeeded in the next company.  But imagine the wisdom gained from going bankrupt, then digging your company out of financial failure and leading it into real success.

Failing, then trying again is not the same as success achieved from refusing to accept failure.  We can learn tremendous insight from the rare individual who has turned failure into success.

Stop Living Life Through a Camera

Go to a school, music, or dance performance.  A sporting event or a kids' karate belt test.  A birthday party, 1st communion, or a graduation.  Look at the parents.  How many are watching and experiencing the event?  How many are instead watching their cameras, more interested in recording the event than experiencing it.

I admit, I've been guilty of this too.  But then I've put down the camera and watched.  There is no comparison.  Experiencing life first hand and creating real memories is so much better than recording life for later viewing.

Setting up a video camera and forgetting it is fine.  Taking a few stills to trigger memories is great.  But for the most part, we should put down the cameras and experience our lives.

Christianity is not a Hostile Takeover

As a Christian, I am charged with spreading the "Good News" of Christ's redemption and a better way of life offered through faith in Him.  I should tell others so they can enjoy the blessings of a life lived for God rather than worldly values and empty pursuit.

I have to remember, however, that Christianity is a choice.  Following the ways of the world is also a choice.  People are free to choose Christ or to choose the world at their own discretion.  Regardless of my wish to see everyone experience the joy of everlasting life with God, I have to respect the right of others to choose death instead.

This means that I cannot support laws based in Biblical values rather than secular argument.  Christians surrender to the will of God, so we follow His laws as we understand them.  We are bound by His commands.  The world, however, is not.

If we create law forcing non-Christians to follow God's will, they can never choose God.  The choice is taken away.  God's first law is to revere Him as God.  It would be wrong to make that a national law.  The Bible is often interpreted by Christians to prohibit things not mentioned specifically, like cigarettes, multi-partner marriage, abortion, unmarried sex, wealth, etc.  It would be wrong to outlaw these things as well, unless we, as a society, could provide sound secular argument to support these laws.

As Christians, it is our job to persuade others to choose God and to follow His will.  It is never our job to force our perception of His will on secular society. 

HBO's The Newsroom Goes Anti-Gun

Read Article Here:  HBO’s “The Newsroom” Shows Anti-gun Bias

I've watched a few episodes of HBO's The Newsroom, and I like it.  The characters are engaging and real.  The newsroom action is authentic and interesting.  The entire show is captivating.

But Hollywood reared its ugly anti-gun head in last weeks show.  Citing flawed statistics from a poorly modeled twenty year old study, they claimed that guns are useless for self defense.  Ignoring pre-presidential-run positioning on gun control and 2008 campaign comments, they claimed that President Obama is not unfriendly toward gun ownership and that all gun owner distrust toward the president is the result of a smear campaign by the NRA and conservative activists in an effort to raise revenue. 

I like this show.  The premise is great.  But to ignore data, distort facts, and present an agenda as reality in an effort to sway the opinions of ignorant viewers is irresponsible and unnecessary.  It added nothing to the show.  All they have succeeded in doing is alienating 40 million gun owners like me.

How sad.

Gymnastics isn't a Sport

I love the Summer Olympics.  I especially love watching gymnastics and the shooting sports.

But many of the Olympic events are simply not sports, including gymnastics.

Sports don’t require judges to assign points.  It’s really that simple.  Gymnastics, synchronized swimming, ballroom dancing, diving… All of these events are athletic.  All require skill and talent.  They are certainly contests and fun to watch.  But they are not sports.

A sport requires only that an objective be achieved.  Style doesn’t count.  Get the ball in the basket.  Put an arrow in the 10-ring.  Pin an opponent.  Finish the race first.  These are requirements of sports.  No one judges the technique, only whether the objective was met.  Did the ball go in?  Yes?  Point awarded.  There are no subjective scores, no artistic value.  Just yes or no.  Did you do it.  Period.

I love the artistic athletic events.  I just can’t call them sports.  And since they are not sports, I question whether they should be part of the Olympics.

USDA Did Right

Read Article Here:  USDA Meatless Monday Posting Retracted After Beef Industry Calls Foul





The USDA last week gave its support for "Meatless Monday".  A least for a few moments.  The department retracted its support following outcry from American livestock farmers, and rightly so.

Meatless Mondays are an international initiative by environmental extremists looking to force their religion on the general public.  They claim it will help the environment my reducing grain consumption and by limiting methane in the atmosphere from "cow farts"

For the USDA to take a position on such an obviously controversial issue was irresponsible.  There is no peer reviewed data to support this type of initiative to improve our environment.  It's a feel-good measure designed to push an agenda.  The government should never participate in this type of debate.  It should certainly never take sides.

As for "cow farts"...

Methane in cow flatulence is caused by the breakdown of vegetable material.  If the grass and grain fed to cows breaks down in the cow digestive tract, or on the ground through the normal process of biodegradation, the same amount of gas is formed.  Cows may concentrate greenhouse gasses into a smaller area, but they do not cause a higher volume of gasses to be formed.

Cow farts do not affect the ozone and do not contribute to global warming, or climate change, or whatever the green wackos want to call it.

I Blame the Media

In the wake of the recent Colorado massacre in a crowded movie theater, we are again hearing the clamor of the uninformed.

A criminally insane young man used gas bombs and firearms to kill and injure over a hundred people.  He chose his venue well.  He carefully timed the crime to delay police intervention.  News reports aside, he appears to have had an accomplice.

Immediately, the "disarm America" crowd, both foreign and domestic, started calling for more gun control.  We have heard the term "semi-automatic" bandied about as if the reporters understand the term.  We see pictures of military style firearms posted with every report of the incident.  We are carefully led to believe that guns are the cause of this crime, not the atrocious acts of one, or possibly two young men.

Personally, I blame the media.

These types of public killings are not about killing people.  They're about getting attention.  When a deranged individual, or group of individuals, kills in public, they become famous.  Their names and faces are plastered across every newspaper and TV screen.  Their family, friends, and neighbors are interviewed.  Their manifestos are read to the public.  They get a message out.  They get attention.  They get notoriety.  That's why terrorist groups will claim responsibility for crimes they didn't commit.

I say take the fame away.  When these events occur, report the news.  Cover the story.  But keep the killer's name and identity a secret.  Never report on what was found at his apartment, on his computer, or written in a diary.  Don't tell how the crime was carried out, how many guns or explosives were in the criminal's possession, or what organizations he was associated with.  Leave relatives and associates alone.

When referring to the killer, use derogatory language.  Call him a coward, a lunatic, a fool.  Use the media for a campaign to destroy his image.  Never use his name, but make sure that anyone who does discover his identity will have for him only a feeling of disdain.

Let's stop making heroes of murderers.

Eddie Van Halen is the Greatest Guitar Player of all Time

How the solid-body guitar came to be is of some dispute.  Most will agree, though, that Les Paul helped to make it successful.  Chuck Berry and Buddy Guy both influenced Rock n Roll.  The Beatles changed the perception of guitar music forever.  Jimmy Hendrix found new and interesting sounds.  Eric Clapton and Carlos Santana both demonstrate some of the greatest technical skill in the industry.  Laurence Juber has a unique style that is simply amazing.  But as talented and important as these guitarists are, none have contributed more than Eddie Van Halen.

Eddie took the skills, talents, and discoveries of his predecessors and raised them to new heights.  He helped develop the "Super Strat" to create new sounds that would have made Hendrix smile.  His speed, skill and precision compare with the guitar greats, both then and now.  He plays Rock, Blues, Classical, and Finger Style with incredible skill and his own unique flavor.  He made "tapping" and "shredding" mainstream guitar concepts, influencing the next two generations of guitar players.  Today, he continues to astound guitar fans with his skill and innovation.

2007 Eddie Van Halen solo