Sunday, September 7, 2014

Idealism vs. Idealism....

Interesting contrast in idealism.

For Jihad Recruits, a Pipeline From Minnesota to Militancy

Los Alamos Native Seeks Help For His International Battalion

In one case, Minnesota youths become radicalized Islamists and join an international assortment of young men fighting for ISIS; later two die in service of their "ideals". In another case, a young man from Los Alamos joins an international assortment of volunteers who have formed a brigade as part of the Israeli Defense Force as they head off to fight in that cauldron of violence, injustice, and evenly matched political pig-headedness, Gaza. Seems to me the last thing the Middle East needs is more young idealists heading over there to kill each other. Maslow's Hammer, you know.

I'm sure no one in the FBI or State Dept. will object too strongly if we send money to Jonathan Miller, but I would check with the Feds before I wrote a check.. Try writing a check to those Minnesota boys who joined ISIS and see how fast Uncle Sam's black SUVs will be pulling up to your door.

There is certainly no equivalence between ISIS and Israel, but there is an equivalence of young men overwhelmed with idealism, following their bliss, and taking up arms for what they consider a just cause--and killing other people. We just don't know except in retrospect if the cause is really just. Many men came back from Vietnam pretty jaded. Or for that matter, from more recent conflicts. Heck, there was a time in my life when I lustily cheered on the IDF, my first name notwithstanding. I'm a little more detached these days. That's what age and history does to you.

It seems to me that if young American men want to join an army, it ought to be ours. Or, become a citizen of another country. Abraham Lincoln Brigade notwithstanding.

Added later.

Valerie Harris has attacked me and my letter, which is certainly her right, just as it is my right to criticize young men for volunteering to join various Middle Eastern military or terrorist organizations when it is apparent that neither military force nor terrorism have a ghost of a chance of solving the problems endemic to the region for the last half century.

Indeed, Mr. Miller's request was for equipment that would be used as his unit marches off towards Gaza, which is the latest scene of violence and devastation in a region long used to senseless acts of tit for tat attack and retribution.

Ms. Harris could not, however, do a better job of conflating Israel the nation-state with Judaism the religion or with the Jewish community in order to shut down any criticism of the nation-state by hanging the threat of an accusation of religious intolerance or hate crime over the heads of those with which she disagrees. Such conflations are highly unfortunate, and to some degree, are red herrings.

I truly hope that Mr. Miller gets home safe and sound, whether home is in the US or State of Israel, but also wish that all of the various adversaries in the Middle East would find a more constructive way than bombs and rockets to solve their problems. The State of Israel is a fact of life and it is not going away nor should it contract to indefensible borders. The inhabitants of the region would be well advised to find constructive ways to live together rather than fight each other. I'll leave it at that.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Can You Tell Ferguson from Fallujah? These Guys Sure Can't.


The over-militarization of the police in many American jurisdictions, egged on by Dept. of Homeland Security grants and the Pentagon's 1033 program that gifts (taxpayer funded) surplus military equipment to police departments, is coming home to roost in excesses of violence and Constitutional infringements. SWAT teams are no longer small elite units dedicated to potentially high violence situations, but are the go-to units for a wide variety of mundane jobs as discussed in The Economist (i.e., checking barber shops for licenses, raiding low-stakes poker games, raiding homes for a thousand bucks worth of stolen clothes, checking bars for underage drinking, etc, etc).  Regulatory inspections have become no-knock, warrantless searches and mistakes are being made as trigger happy cops are shooting innocent people (and occasionally being shot themselves) as citizens, er, I mean enemies, wonder who the hell is breaking down their door.

As Radley Balco (book author, Washington Post writer) has said quite eloquently, this has gone too far.  The only beneficiary is the bloated military industrial complex, where arms suppliers can keep building and selling stuff like MRAPs to the military, which can then pawn the stuff off on the police, making it look like there is not as much waste. Meanwhile, the waste continues, in the form of  the people wasted by militarized cops, and the deluge of your tax dollars continuing to fall into a Federal black hole. Indeed, some of these police forces seem to have fallen victim to Maslow's Hammer, i.e., when all you have are warfighters and MRAPs, everything looks like a war.

Data on Transfer of Military Gear to Police Departments (NY Times)


"...Make no mistake, I don’t want to see operators in MRAPs smashing through a front door to serve a No Garage Sale Permit warrant. But I also don’t want an innocent victim to bleed out in front of a house where a lunatic is firing an AK. If an MRAP can be used to rescue that victim, I’m all for it...."  --Chris Hernandez, police officer and army vet writing "Cops, MRAPs, and the Heartbreak of Police Operator Syndrome"
 I find it rather predictable that nowhere in this latest confrontation between citizens and police who have been over-militarized by the Dept of Defense's Excess Property Program has there been a hue and cry from the militia and Tea Party types who love to rail against how Big Government has intruded on our freedoms and Constitutional rights.  I am sure the folks in Ferguson would agree, if they were asked. I wonder where those militia types who rallied behind deadbeat rancher Cliven Bundy are right now. Would they give a rat's ass about these people?  Sure is quiet out there.

There was a mythical time long ago where Hill Street Precinct Captain Frank Furillo kept SWAT Team Leader Lt. Howard Hunter under a tight leash, only letting the team loose as an absolute last resort; there are times you damn well need them. But it seems to me that old Howard "never saw a situation he couldn't use to deploy a SWAT team" is now running the show. Of course, fiction preceded fact. Recall that episode when Hunter buys the flamethrowing tank?

"...Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (“‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.”) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”?

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Whether With the Pen or Gun, It Helps To Hit the Target

Vincent Chravalle's recent Daily Post letter opposing gun control laws and attacking his primary opponent has been followed by a series of opinions on the subject (here and here) and more recently, a scathing one by John Pawlak attacking National Rifle Association members. This elicited a response by Dee Alei, questioning Mr. Pawlak's choice of tactics, insulting his opponents rather than attacking the quality of their ideas or lack thereof.

Rarely does anything rile up residents of Los Alamos to the point of replacing reason with vitriol; that one thing being roundabouts. But even during the most contentious roundabout hearings before the Transportation Board, which I chaired for most of those discussions, I can only think of one instance when a member of the audience loudly engaged in name calling (and to clarify, both of my parents are members of Homo sapiens). Therefore it surprised me when Mr. Pawlak forgot to secure his cannon before opening fire.

The pen is still mightier than the gun or sword, but regardless of the tool, one has to hit the target.  The gun discussion in America stays heated, in part due to the continued carnage caused by the misuse of firearms and the response of outraged citizens to these events. Thus eliciting equally heated responses  from those who never misuse a weapon but feel like they are being targeted for exercising what is by state and federal definition, a Constitutional right.

But regardless of how much we have heated up the discussion, the problems have all remained, as this past weekend's events in and around Santa Barbara, CA remind us.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

County Ordinance 02-223 and Firearms Rights

In a Letter to the Editor in the Daily Post, Mr. Vincent Chiravalle conflates a 2012 County ordinance regulating the discharge of firearms and archery equipment within the county with gun control laws meant to prevent the commission of violent gun crimes but as an unfortunate side effect of these laws, place the burden for compliance on law abiding citizens.

Here is the ordinance in question:

Sec. 28-181. Discharging firearms and other hunting devices.

It is unlawful to fire or discharge a firearm or any muzzleloader of any description within 1,000 yards, or any bow and arrow, crossbow, or other hunting device within 150 yards of any dwelling, house, inhabited building or any area or place where livestock is regularly kept or housed; provided, however, that any person may discharge a firearm or other hunting devices when reasonably necessary to carry out his duty or to exercise a legal right or privilege or when the discharge is within a lawfully operated shooting range.

Nothing herein shall preclude the safe use of bow and arrows or crossbows confined exclusively within private property.

(Ord. No. 74-78, § 10-1-19, 1983; Code 1985, § 9.24.010; Ord. No. 02-223, § 1, 2-28-2012)

I don't see this ordinance as addressing violent crime, in any way restricting my 2nd Amendment rights, or adding an undue burden such as licensing, registration, or background checks. Indeed, such a move by a municipality in New Mexico is explicitly prohibited by Art. II, § 6. the New Mexico State Constitution:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.  No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.  Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).

What I see in 28-181 is a common sense safety regulation that ensures we don't accidentally shoot each other or each other's animals by hunting or target shooting in developed areas where one cannot always vouch for the safety of what is downrange. Such locations include not only residential areas but our heavily used trails on the mesas and in the canyons. I don't think such restrictions are unusual, and are consistent with good firearms practice. Indeed, when I first started handling guns as a kid, the first thing my dad, an NRA Life Member, taught me was "always be sure of your backstop and what is downrange of your target".

I recall there being some discussion in 2012 regarding the final wording of this ordinance, and I am not aware of the original wording. Apparently, there was discussion among stakeholders before the final draft of the ordinance was passed. That's how the system should work.

I thank Mr. Chiravalle for his promise, if elected, to protect my 2nd Amendment rights, but I think as far as this ordinance was concerned, he is shooting at the wrong target. Meanwhile, we have had yet another senseless, mass shooting in the United States, this one, by a demented student, at UC Santa Barbara. While the pro and anti-gun folks continue to talk past each other, no one has implemented a meaningful way to both protect our 2nd Amendment rights and our right to be free from deranged lunatics with a chip on their shoulder and a deadly weapon in their pocket.
The Only Thing Stopping a Homicidal Lunatic With Three Guns???
 NY Times story and photo here.

Monday, April 21, 2014

A preventable and tragic death: Some Lessons

Google maps view. 
Black line is the route of a cyclist riding the 
rail-trail, south to north. Ms. LeBeau was riding
 north and crossed the tracks 
at the crossing just S. of Zia.

On Saturday morning, April 19th, Suzanne LeBeau, an avid cyclist, was killed when she rode her bicycle directly into the path of the southbound Rail Runner train at the point where the Santa Fe Rail Trail crosses the tracks just south of the Zia Road rail crossing. According to discussions with a Journal reporter, she was travelling northbound on the rail trail, which jogs briefly east to cross the tracks and then continues north on the west side of South St. Francis.

Commenters to a local TV outlet claim she was wearing some sort of headphones or earphones. This has not been confirmed by the ongoing police investigation. Presumably if earphones were present, they will be discovered.

Also relevant is that rail trail runs parallel to S. St. Francis at that location and approaches from behind the train station. A cyclist riding north at that point will be screened for a while and then looking at the sides of the lights and crossing arms in a large and busy intersection. The cyclist will also be looking directly towards the southbound train. Although we are told "...the (Santa Fe Police) department stated that the railroad barrier arms, safety lights, warning sirens and the train’s horn were all activated and working properly..." readers must note that there are in fact no barriers or safety lights whatsoever at the actual rail trail crossing used by cyclists!

We will never know everything that happened on Saturday to cause this tragedy, as Suzanne is not here to explain it. My condolences go out to her family and to the train engineer, who was powerless to stop events.

Are there lessons here for cyclists, municipal planners, and facility designers?

First, the cyclist must always maintain his or her situational awareness and anticipate hazards. We must constantly be asking "what can happen at this intersection or crossing and what will I do about it". Whether the cyclist was wearing headphones is less relevant than how a cyclist compensates for the loss of critical sensory information under potentially adverse conditions. Darkness, cold (requiring headgear), high winds, and other inclement situations can compromise one's sensory safety envelope and require adjustment. Distracted riding, or riding with a lot on your mind can be perilous as it takes away your ability to sense and evaluate danger.

Secondly, the design standards we require for trails should be comparable to those for an immediately adjacent roadway -- if there are barriers and lights for a busy roadway, why not for a key rail trail crossing at that very busy intersection and for the same reasons: we anticipate people will need advance warning of conditions at a busy intersection or crossing. Indeed, this is not just any trail, but a major part of Santa Fe's offroad bicycle network, made necessary because many of its major roads (and especially its state-managed highways such as St. Francis Drive) are decidedly bicyclist-unfriendly, thus requiring off road workarounds. In this context, it is not clear to me why a cyclist should fail to benefit from some sort of warning light or barrier system similar to that enjoyed by motorists. This is especially true because a cyclist arriving via the Rail Trail is riding at right angles to the barriers and warning lights. Is it possible that this reduced visibility coupled with background visual clutter did not give the warning that the designers assumed?

Some of this discussion goes to the very heart of defining the roles of the cyclist and the government in maintaining roadway safety. We have to balance personal responsibility with an appropriate government role in building safe, well-engineered facilities. Let's reexamine these roles today, and not let Suzanne LeBeau die in vain.

The author, me, has been heavily involved in cycling advocacy for a quarter century. I am a League Cycling Instructor, board member of the Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico, a member of the Los Alamos County Transportation Board and while a member have contributed to the 2005 Los Alamos Bike Plan and 2010 Complete Streets ordinance. I am currently chair of the LANL Traffic Safety Committee, While president of the Hawaii Bicycling League, I assisted in the creation of the Honolulu Bicycle Master Plan (1999).  Having said that, the comments above are mine alone and are not endorsed or blessed by any of those entities. 

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Creating Jobs: Is It Really Business vs. Government?

43rd District GOP candidate Vincent Chiravalle and others, one here have recently batted back and forth the idea of job creation and whether Government is involved in a constructive or negative way. I think both sides miss the point a little, or perhaps their letters are not long enough to elaborate.

First off, its rather hilarious to think that in little Los Alamos County, government does not create jobs. Without that 900 pound Federal gorilla in town redistributing other people's tax dollars (Vince and I both work there), "...the woman who does your nails, the local organic farmer, artists and musicians, your landscaper and the restaurant owner..." would not even be here. Perhaps a feed store and a general store, and if it had not been moved, a small private school would be all that would exist on the Hill. Indeed, New Mexico's economy is quite dependent on public sector, i.e., government jobs and indeed there are legions of stories about overregulation and public sector faceplants to be found.

But in the bigger picture, it has to be a fruitful collaboration of good government and good business practice that creates an advantageous environment for an economy to grow. Reliable and state of the art public services and utilities, high quality public education, fair taxation to provide essential services, and laws that provide a good regulatory roadmap to guide the private sector while ensuring the pubic and its land are protected against short-sighted goals that create long term costly side effects, are all essential ingredients for a robust and sustainable economy. Business, in turn, has to provide a good product and act in a way that instills the trust of the public and its work force, both in its products and business practices. It also has to make enough money and endure a tolerable amount of red tape if we want Joe's Business to want to stay in business rather than voting its feet! The purpose of elections is to air out the competing public interests that inevitably arise in these discussions, let the competition of ideas give us better solutions, and let the voter decide on priorities.

Let's stop putting black and white hats on people and institutions. There is too much to do in the 21st Century for us to be arguing over cardboard-cutout adversaries. Meanwhile, I thank Vince, Geoff Rogers, Stephanie Garcia-Richards, and any other candidates I've forgotten, for giving us good people to choose from in the coming 43rd District election. Plus, I thank all the local businesspeople for providing us the services that make Los Alamos a great place to live and work.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Bring On the Essay Contests!

My initial thoughts on reading in the Daily Post that the local Right to Life organization was sponsoring an essay contest among LA Schools students to see who could write the most compelling anti-abortion essay were decidedly sour. But, I think we might be on to something useful. Not that we need to have local special interest groups encourage young people to circumvent meaningful thought, but perhaps we need a real, live opportunity for our students to have a public essay contest writing about current affairs, but from a more neutral, thoughtful perspective. Good writing demonstrates good thinking and both are important to good citizenship. So here are some ideas for topics, starting with the obvious:

1. I just discovered that I/my LA Schools girlfriend am/is pregnant out of wedlock. We have both been accepted to top ranked universities. Once we get over the initial panic, what will our thinking be as we decide what to do about it? Who will we talk to? What values will help us decide what to do next?

2. Holy Pueblo Complex Gun Show, Batman! What does the 2nd Amendment REALLY say about our right to bear arms? What original source documents can we read and understand to figure out the context of the Founders' text? Did the Supreme Court get it right in Heller vs. D.C.?

3. Mom and Dad's paychecks aside, what is/are the role(s) of nuclear weapons in the 21st Century world?

4. Now that Mom and Dad bought yet another SUV, how serious is the problem of human-induced climate change and what if anything, should individuals and government do about it?

5. How can we sustain ourselves in an increasingly water-limited Southwest? What government and individual decisions need to be made and implemented?

6. How shall we manage illegal immigration?

7. What should economic development look like in Los Alamos?

8. First Amendment vs. First Amendment. As a for profit business owner with strong religious beliefs, can I withdraw health coverage from my employees if the coverage compels me to pay for procedures that violate my conscience?

Students would be limited to essays of roughly 1000 words or less, depending on what the Schools English teaching staff tells us is reasonable for a given grade level. A relatively unbiased (if there is such a thing) panel would judge the essays on the basis of lucid and grammatically correct writing, persuasiveness, and the documentation and credibility of any factual assertions. Points of view that are offered with the previous qualities intact will be judged without bias.   The winners and first runners up would receive a check and would read their essays at a public forum. Perhaps the two local newspapers could sponsor this, and round up volunteers as judges.

Let's make lemonade out of this lemon.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Guns, School Boards and Trojan Horses

Dear Los Alamos School Board
Copy, E. Schmidt, LA Monitor, LA Daily Post

Although the front page article in the Sunday, 9 March LA Monitor indicates a proper level of skepticism by the School Board to Mr. Langenbrunner's broad anti-gun proposals, I would like to state that as a taxpayer and voter, I do not think that the School Board is the proper venue for setting public policy that goes far beyond the school board's legitimate areas of expertise or governance, i.e., the controls on and accessibility to firearms within our schools.

The proper place for a discussion about gun control, including ideas on background checks and the role of semiautomatic weapons in public hands, lies with our State and Federal legislatures, not school boards. Should the Board, speaking for our schools, take an overly broad stand on such subjects, one can probably surmise that future school board elections will be contested not on the basis of good education policy, but instead be contested on the basis of gun control platforms.  I don't think I need to remind anyone what a potentially polarizing issue this could be, especially if handled badly. Indeed, using student safety as a Trojan Horse for an attack on firearms rights is not only bad politics, but blatantly dishonest. This is, after all, Los Alamos, not Inner City Chicago.

I also suspect this is another tired attempt to move the annual gun show out of Pueblo Complex. Do we really need to fight that battle of style over substance yet again?

Individual Board members, to be sure, are entitled to state their opinions on the subject of gun control as individual citizens. Indeed, I hope you do so.

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Lecture: The Truth About Gun Violence and Mental Illness

At the Center for Contemporary Arts, Santa Fe, Cinamatheque, Weds, 26 February, 6 p.m.

The Truth About Gun Violence and Mental Illness

A presentation by Dr. Jeffrey Swanson
Can we predict public shootings before they happen? Is there a correlation between gun violence and mental illness? How do we balance individual rights and public safety? The UNM Dept. of Psychiatry IDEAS program presents Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a national expert on mental health law and policy studies from Duke University, to discuss his research on these important questions. Dr. Swanson, is a popular speaker and expert resource for the media and policy makers, is a medical sociologist with additional expertise in psychiatric epidemiology and mental health services effectiveness research.

6:00p Wednesday, February 26 - FREE public presentation, to register or for more information: or call 505.272.3592. Seating is open, first come first served.

More in the Albuquerque Journal

1050 Old Pecos Trail, Santa Fe

Friday, February 21, 2014

Catch and Release: The Saga of Judge Raphaelson, Aaron Nguyen, and Public Safety

Consult The Court for Details
Somewhat incomprehensibly, District Court Judge Sheri Raphaelson has once again given  convicted burglar Aaron Nguyen a get out of jail free pass. This is in spite of her telling him at his initial sentencing hearing, on multiple felonies, that if he violated any of the terms of his probation, he would go to jail for the full term of his sentence. Mr. Nguyen promptly violated those terms and it would seem he called Her Honor's bluff. Indeed, Judge Raphaelson is now saying ""A prison sentence for a 100-pound, 19-year-old boy is grossly inappropriate...I do not hesitate to send people to prison who deserve to be in prison ... I am not sending Mr. Nguyen to prison." So much for having a stick to go along with that judicial carrot.

It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to recognize that a "100 pound, 19 year old boy" is quite capable of wielding a gun and using it to destructive effects equal to that of someone larger and older using the same weapon; indeed, that's why the old saying goes that God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.. For those who need examples, one only has to think of Columbine or Newtown.  Presumably there is some measurable risk to society when a young man who, according to the Daily Post is reportedly bipolar, is a felon convicted on firearms charges, who was caught with a whole bedroom of stolen guns, and who unlawfully entered a public school in violation of his sentencing restrictions is now in residence at one of our state universities.  That he is residing at a college after being banned from a school should give Judge Raphaelson pause.

There has to be a balance between sending someone who can be rehabilitated to jail (or some other form of involuntary confinement) and ensuring the safety of the community.  Judges and parole boards make those calls. Many in the community, perhaps not the direct victims, might have supported the initial judicial decision had the trust not been broken last November.  Perhaps many still do, but it would be interesting to find out. I think we all hope that anyone in such a difficult position is able to reform and rehabilitate without further legal turmoil or community jitters--but few of us want to be buying deadbolts for our doors or guns for our bedstands in peaceful Los Alamos. Therefore, I think its time that the public had a discussion about that balance between lenient treatment vs. public safety in more general terms.

According to a web search, Judge Raphaelson ran unopposed in the last general election to which she stood for her office. Hopefully, next time she will have an opponent and the public will have the opportunity to weigh in on not only how we pass judgement on the defendant in the docket, but on how we ensure the safety of our community.

Finally, this whole episode calls into question the notion of passing more gun control laws. When judges run catch and release programs out of their courtrooms, its not likely that more laws would do much good because the ones we have on the books are not being enforced effectively. The message this story sends is that there is less in the way of accountability for those who are guilty of society's most serious offenses, felonies, than I'd like to see. Let's examine that problem at the next judicial election cycle.

"...The real problem here is the way in which the law looks at the crime of burglary, particularly residential burglary. It is, in most every state, considered a “property crime.” But ask anyone who has been victimized in this manner, and he or she will tell you it is, in reality, a “crime of violence.” Perhaps not a direct assault on the victim’s person but a violent assault on one’s sense of safety, security and comfort. The psychological damage can be enormous. "
--Former Sheriff's Deputy MacKenzie Allen, in a Santa Fe New Mexican Reader's View

Monday, February 17, 2014

Purpose of 2nd Amendment?

Whose Rights?

In what's apparently been an ongoing Second Amendment discussion in the Daily Post, Chick Keller asks "A careful reading shows that the (2nd) amendment uses for its justification of personal possession of guns, the necessity for a "well-armed militia.” Since we no longer have (or need) such a militia, hasn't that reasoning gone away, and haven't we returned to a state where individual possession is no longer necessary?" Mr. Keller further opines "This might not mean that people can't have guns, but it would mean that their right to "bear arms" is no longer supported by the Constitution."

Interesting question. I'm not convinced the "well regulated militia" (actual Constitutional wording) doesn't exist, as it has morphed into a National Guard. The Guard itself draws on the general population, as the Founders desired. The Federal Government established the Civilian Marksmanship Program in 1903 in the hopes that we could ensure new recruits or conscripts could shoot straight and know the muzzle from the breech of a 1903 Springfield rifle. This program has more recently been redefined by Public Law 104-106, (10 February 1996) which created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety.

The Second Amendment has far less to do with defending one's self against crooks, blue helmets, or black helicopters, as some would assert, and more to do with the separation of powers. Some have suggested that self defense and putting food on the table are such basic human rights that the Founders would not have considered these as needing protection. The 2nd's basis was in a broadly disseminated militia to be called on in defense of the nation or state in support of a limited standing army. Its never been considered an unlimited right to own any gun for any reason, even by the current conservative Supreme Court.

So, if some folks don't think that the Constitutional context for private gun ownership is relevant due to our large standing army, military industrial complex, and drone warfare, does that mean the public's right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment is no longer supported by the Constitution?

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that we can casually dispense with portions of the Bill of Rights merely because they don't seem relevant to some of us. If the public no longer values the 2nd Amendment, it can do what is right and proper: repeal or modify it. That has been done with the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), which was repealed with the 21st. Such a mechanism is far less ambiguous to the public, the courts, Congress, or the Executive Branch.

That said, the 2nd Amendment is not only clear in its statement that the people own the right to keep and bear arms as the underpinnings of a well regulated militia, but it is symbolic of a distribution of power away from a central Federal authority. Many Conservatives value it for not only its literal empowerment of the citizen owning a gun, but in its distrust of a Federal authority owning all the guns. I don't think that notion is going to go away any time soon, and indeed, may be inflamed by thoughts of removing 2nd Amendment protections. Perhaps we need to find a less polarizing way to solve our gun violence problem than by scrubbing the Bill of Rights of one of its ten guarantees of freedom.

Monday, February 3, 2014

The Shooting Triangle

Shooting Triangle

If you get the Albuquerque Journal, you might have read Leslie Linthicum's Sunday piece, Gunfire Resonates in Roswell in Uncommon Way, about the recent Roswell school shooting.  Rare in the aftermath of these events, Ms. Linthicum tells us we have the chance to respond with "intelligence, nuance, and grace". Usually, we respond with finger pointing, accusations, and calls from the NRA to arm ourselves to the teeth or calls from their opponents to disarm ourselves and restrict gun ownership. Most of the time, the rest of us watch and listen as these opponents shout past each other.
The Fire Triangle

I had a simple thought on this topic, and it mirrors that old idea of a fire triangle. To start a fire, you need fuel, oxygen, and heat. To get a shooting, you need a gun, a gunman, and "heat", i.e., an unrestrained action that most of us would not commit. To avoid a shooting, one needs to only cut out one leg of the triangle just as you would cut out one leg of the fire triangle. One doesn't need to ban fuel just as one doesn't need to ban guns. One does need to eliminate that lethal combination of all three legs of the triad.

One can start at any apex. Start with the gun. If you don't need a gun or are not trained or qualified to use one in self defense, don't own one or keep it securely locked up for those hunting or target shooting trips. I'm not in the camp of those who say we have an unqualified need for more good guys with guns, just as we don't need more untrained firefighters at the fire station or untrained cops on the beat. Its a hard job that requires a lot of training and mental preparation. If you are not ready, don't go there.

Its a little more difficult to eliminate the more fallible human. But that goes to things like more careful evaluation of parole or its conditions and how we treat mental illness and family dysfunction. It also includes more comprehensive but reasonably administered background checks to screen prohibited purchasers from the market. It means tougher penalties and vigorous prosecution of straw purchasers, as recently discussed in the National Catholic Reporter.  It preferrably means family and individual control on access, and personal responsibility. If we had more self control, Big Government would have less to do. Unfortunately, the days of easy access to firearms, especially by schoolkids, needs to be examined critically. My brother keeps his guns locked in a safe so unqualified hands cannot reach them. That's a far cry from his and my own youth, where the school bus would drop us off and we would grab the guns and go hunting. If you are having a party where the liquor flows, its time to lock things up. If you are having a tough time of it due to job, family, or personal issues to the point of worrying about yourself, turn over your weapons to a trusted friend or family member or give them the safe key. Eliminate the human compulsion by eliminating yourself from being armed, even if only temporarily.  I don't like to suggest waiting for a restraining order to be filed, because that means the match is already lit.

Finally, the heat. Seems to me that in this day and age, the first thing a lot of people resort to when emotions heat up to a festering boil is a weapon, whether it be angry words, fists, or more lethal quantities such as a shotgun or AR-15. When the heat is on, its time instead to make sure one of the other two elements of the triangle are missing until the heat passes. One's first action should be to walk away and begin a count to ten, or make a call to a trusted friend or the family priest. Not a run to that bedroom drawer or gun case.

I'm not sure how we accomplish this gun analogy to avoiding fire, but instead of always concentrating on adding or subtracting guns, maybe we ought to look to all three corners of that shooting triangle instead of only one of the corners. Few of us have no fuels in our homes. We read newspapers, live in wood structures, and have wood burning stoves. Most of us own matches. What we eliminate is the catastrophic combination

 Eliminating guns is a hot button issue that raises rather than lowers tempers. All we really need to do is control that lethal combination. Maybe we will have more luck.