Less Gunfire

Re the president's proposal:

I suppose it appeals to some people as very nice thinking on the surface: let's arm teachers at schools. Surely the bad guy will think "oh no, I better stay away."

Still, there could be a couple of problems with this reasoning:

First, the bad guys are not noted for think rationally. They might attack anyway or plan their assault differently.

Maybe it will keep them away; maybe not. Perhaps there will be a barrage of gunfire and the shooter will be killed before he gets to a total of 17 dead. Maybe only 5 or 10 kids?

Second, it's not clear if every shooter is obsessed with killing students or just killing a lot of people generally. What's to keep the bad guys from switching targets? Instead of a school, another public place with lots of people.

That's the trouble with proposals that react to a crisis after it happens. The proposed solution might have helped prevent the tragedy had it been implemented, but it wasn't--and there really isn't much of a guarantee that the belated change will prevent or limit the damage of the next mass shooting.

Instead of always reacting after the fact, we certainly could use a lot more pro-active thinking to prevent individuals from reaching such a nihilistic mental state in the first place: moral education, anti-bullying monitoring, jobs and job training, social services, mental health facilities, etc.

Unquestionably, we could pass stricter gun control laws to prevent potential shooters from acquiring weapons of mass destruction which is what an AR-15 assault weapon is.

Keeping an assault rifle out of the hands of guys like Nikolas Cruz would likely save far more lives than an armed teacher preparing to do battle with a shooter on campus.

Maybe progressive social policies in the areas of education and social services aren't as dramatic as imagining gunfire erupting and students screaming and fleeing every which way, but in the long run we need to fix the underlying issues that produce the shooters in the first place.

Arming teachers may sound like a plausible solution on the surface but that's all it is--a scratch on the surface of a very complex situation. We have a much deeper problem that runs through the very fabric of our society.

Until we find effective ways to address the social issues that produces a Nikolas Cruz in the first instance, talk of meeting gunfire with gunfire will not likely end gun violence in America.

It will only change the shape of the phenomenon in a new direction, but as for preventing all such violence before it begins? Not hardly. 

For that, we would need to create a peaceful world and rededicate ourselves to building a new America, the likes of which we have never yet seen.

Another School Shooting

ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING

I notice that gun-rights advocates with the National Rifle Association’s “mind-set” often choose to ignore the ease with which a gun can be used to injure or kill another, which I find to be disingenuous at best and criminally irrational at worst. 

The simplicity and speed with which a gun’s trigger can be squeezed absolutely must be included in any rational analysis of the Epidemic of Violence sweeping across America. 

Whether from uncontrolled anger or criminal plotting, any individual with a gun can wound, cripple, and destroy the life of another in just seconds.  No other tool or weapon is as quick and deadly as this hand-held gun, this merchant of death. 

The bullet travels faster than the speed of sound and can be released on its flight by a slight pull of a trigger mechanism that takes so little strength that even a child can do it. 

A momentary burst of anger in an immature teenager can lead to another teenager’s death.  An armed robber in fear of being apprehended can injure or kill a storekeeper, bystander, or police officer in seconds. 

A disturbed individual suffering from delusional fantasies can open fire in a movie theater, school, church or other crowded venue and stand a good chance of killing a dozen victims or more. 

Gang members battling over turf may slaughter one another in conscienceless manner, along with any unlucky person who gets caught in the cross-fire.  So-called stray bullets from gunfire have killed individuals sitting or sleeping peacefully within their own homes. 

And what is always in the hands of the shooter?  What is the weapon of choice?  A gun, always a gun.  Within seconds the murderer-to-be can aim and squeeze and create lasting, devastating consequences for all the family and friends of the targeted victim, the rippling effects of pain, sorrow and suffering traveling far beyond the immediate tragedy. 

I’m not saying that the Epidemic of Violence is an easy one to cure, but if we are to discuss the matter rationally with the expressed intent of trying somehow to reduce this out-of-control Epidemic, it would be helpful if some people would stop ignoring the ease with which guns make possible all these many, many deaths. 

To say “Guns don’t kill people” is to ignore the fact that guns absolutely do kill people!!  For anyone, including the extreme gun-rights advocates who oppose any and all gun safety restrictions whatsoever, to ignore the ease with which guns are used repeatedly, day after day after day--to injure or kill other human beings, is either disingenuous self-inflicted ignorance or criminally negligent moronic stupidity! 

EVERY TIME THE TRIGGER IS SQUEEZED

IT SHOULD BE APPARENT TO ALL THAT

GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE!!! 

In less time than it takes to read or write the three capitalized lines above, you and your whole family could have been killed by one angry, selfish, or deranged person with a single gun. 

That is our reality and it is not to be cured by NRA slogans of no intrinsic value whatsoever; it won’t be cured by such wishful thinking or by pretending that tens of millions of guns--and the very ease of their availability—has nothing to do with thousands of people dying annually from the deadly use of guns.

To those who still wish to say that guns and bullets don’t kill people, isn’t it time to wake up and assume the mantle of reason given to every adult human being as the greatest gift of all? 

How much longer must we put up with the ridiculous pretense, the mind-boggling denial, that guns are not part of the Epidemic of Violence?  

The ease with which guns can be acquired and the ease with which they can be used to deal mayhem and death, must be addressed as part of any larger effort to reduce and eliminate needless deaths from the midst of our democratic peaceful society. 

This Orgy of Gun Violence is not something to which we must capitulate or accept as inevitable: we have the power and we have the right to take those steps necessary to make our nation and our neighborhoods safe places to live so that we may ALL enjoy the greatest promise our country ever made:

“THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.”

Judge Aaron Persky

JUDGE AARON PERSKY

I have three questions for friends.  I would love to hear your response!

1.      Did Judge Aaron Persky impose too light a sentence? 

2.      Should people upset by the sentence have the right to recall the judge?

3.      If the recall is successful, is the independence of judges being threatened?

THE STORY:

Normally I’m on Facebook for fun, to exchange comments, pictures, and quip with friends.  Occasionally a stinging barb or two gets through but this is not a website for put-down or acrimony.  People tend to be friendly and avoid insults, at least in my circles.

Once in a while a real disagreement breaks out.  The cause of this dispute is a legal case.  The defendant was Brock Turner, a student at Stanford, and what he did on Jan. 18, 2015 to an unconscious 22-year-old woman.  Mr. Turner was indicted on five charges: two for rape, two for felony sexual assault, and attempted rape.

The first two charges were dropped for lack of evidence.  He was convicted of the other three charges of “felony sexual assault”:

·         sexual penetration (by a foreign object) of an unconscious woman    

·         sexual penetration (by a foreign object) of an intoxicated woman       

·         assault with intent to commit rape

On March 30, 2016 he was found guilty on all three counts.  The prosecution asked for six years.

On June 2, Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in jail.  He was released after three months.  He is on probation for three years, must register as a sex offender and take part in a rehabilitation program.  (Both men are white and Persky attended Stanford).

A recall movement began to remove the judge for being too lenient in his sentence.  Enough signatures have been gathered to place the issue on the ballot. 

The controversy centers on two issues:

1.      Whether the sentence was fair: 6 months for three felony sexual assault charges.

2.      Whether it is fair to recall a judge who acted legally in imposing this sentence.

When I first heard of the recall effort, I did not support it. I felt it would set a dangerous precedent if a judge were recalled; whether I approved of his sentence or not, he was acting within his rights to impose it. 

I tried to take this high moral road for as long as I could, which lasted about two weeks.  Then anger overcame me at what I considered to be a ridiculously lenient sentence.  Many others feel the same way and we signed petitions to demand a recall election: let the voters decide.

On Facebook, another judge posted a defense of Judge Persky.  That’s the controversy!

One side maintains the sentence was fair, which the other side disputes.  Was six months an appropriate punishment for conviction on three counts of felony sexual assault? 

There is a second issue: those who defend Judge Persky’s sentence believe that a successful recall could impact the independence of the judiciary (imagine a judge second-guessing himself for fear of recall). 

In rebuttal, those outraged by the sentence feel there is no other way for people to push back against such unwarranted leniency.  They suspect race and class privilege to be part of the mix, too.  (Imagine the sentence for a Black man accused of the same thing). 

They maintain that citizens in California have the legal right to avail themselves of the recall process.  They are concerned with one case and one judge; they are not trying to limit the rights of judges to carry out their duties.  If the recall is successful and serves as warning to the next judge to think twice before imposing such a light sentence, so be it.   

 That is how matters stand at present.  Here are the questions again:

1.      Did Judge Persky impose too light a sentence? 

2.      Should people have the right to recall a judge?

3.      If the recall is successful, does it threaten the independence of the judiciary?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this matter!