May 21, 2013

Obama’s surreal fiscal cliff speech

After a refreshing vacation to Hawaii for Christmas, President Obama took the stage this afternoon (EST) to make a speech on the impending fiscal cliff. Driving home during lunch, I listened to KSL’s Doug Wright describe the scene, and I arrived home just in time to watch the President speak.

Wright was describing the scene while waiting for the President to take the stage, and since Obama was late, he tried guessing where they were at. He could see a podium, but he after listing through the typical rooms where Obama addresses the nation from the White House, he concluded that he didn’t know where they were.

Then a prep team started to arrange people in the room, standing them on tiered levels behind the podium. Finally, Obama came in, and about then I found a live stream.

To listen to him, though, you wouldn’t have known that he was addressing a national fiscal crisis that could send America’s economy into a spiral. Or that nearly every income earning American is about to a tax hike. Or that several rounds of negotiations had failed, first with Speaker John Boehner in the House, and then between Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell in the Senate. You wouldn’t have been able to guess that his own Vice President had been called upon by McConnell to salvage what Reid clearly could not.

Nope. You would have thought that he was ready for a fun night of ringing in the New Year, the first of his second term.

At a time when almost everyone, but the most partisan on the political left, agrees that spending has got to be reigned if the deficit is going to be cut, Obama came to the stage and mocked his opponents, mocked Congress, and warned that raising taxes on the wealthy was only the beginning.

Every time he discussed a deal, Obama called for a “balanced” deal, by which he means that tax hikes must be included.

And I want to make clear that any agreement we have to deal with these automatic spending cuts that are being threatened for next month, those also have to be balanced, because, remember, my principle always has been let’s do things in a balanced, responsible way. And that means the revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester and eliminating these automatic spending cuts, as well as spending cuts.

Now, the same is true for anyfuture deficit agreement. Obviously we’re going to have to do more to reduce our debt and our deficit. I’m willing to do more, but it’s going to have to be balanced. We’re going to have do it in a balanced responsible way.

In other words, being “responsible” and “balanced” means raising tax rates. Say what you will about taxes, and I think there are fair arguments to be made both ways about their effect on the economy, Obama’s sole solution seems to be increasing tax rates without any discussion of what spending he’s willing to decrease in order to prevent the federal debt from growing.

And even the President’s own bean counters agree that raising taxes will not stop the deficit and federal debt from growing.

In fact, he all but sounded like he was trying to scuttle negotiations that were taking place across town to force tax hikes on all Americans, all so he can point at the Republican controlled House of Representatives and say: “See? See what they did? You can’t trust them.”

What he did say, after blaming the failure to reach a grand deal on the fiscal cliff on Congress, was that we should

Keep in mind that just last month Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. Obviously, the agreement that’s currently discussed would raise those rates, and raise them permanently.

That’s not the diplomacy of a deal maker or a leader. That’s just petty snubbing. Why would any Republican want to compromise when they know they’re going to have it stuck in their face before they can even pen the agreement on paper?

After spending most of his speech acting like he wanted negotiations to fail, Obama closed by joking about staying in DC for New Years, and the obviously supporting audience laughed, again.  Obama made an appeal to get past politics, then, all but ignoring that he had spent the previous ten minutes playing politics:

But the — the people who are with me here today, the people who are watching at home, they need our leaders in Congress to succeed. They need us — they need us to all stay focused on them. Not on politics. Not on, you know, special interests. They need to be focused on families, students, grandmas, you know, folks who are out there working really, really hard, and are just looking for a fair shot, and some reward for that hard work. They expect our leaders to succeed on their behalf. So do I.

It was strange, surreal, and odd, and even Doug Wright commented as such as the speech, to an adoring crowd, ended.

The campaign is over, Mr. President. It’s time to start acting like a leader, not like a guy who just won class president of the local high school. Leading doesn’t happen by demanding what you want and making fun of people who oppose you. It happens by treating them with grace and respect, seeking compromise, and recognizing their interests are as important as your own.  Like you, they are trying to do what’s best for America, and just because you see the course differently is no reason to demean and deride from the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

Guns and Social Network Reactions

I think it would be safe to say that very few of political watchers had gun regulation on the radar in the days before the Sandy Hook shootings. Since…well, it’s hard to talk about anything else (and not just because the fiscal cliff story is the least-interesting-and-most-difficult-to-understand-but-perhaps-most-important-story this year).

With that in mind, I asked a couple friends over at PoliticIt to take a look at what trends they saw in social media immediately before and immediately after the Newtown shooting.  (PoliticIt, if you’ve not heard of it before, is the brainchild of Josh Light and Sterling Morris. They collect data from social networks, the internet, and “the real world” to create a measure of politicians digital influence that accurately predicts electoral success.)

They showed me some interesting things. First, the number of comments on Twitter (or “tweets”) about gun laws rose dramatically.

save image

 

 

Clearly, people felt passionately about the gun laws, whether it was the need for more of them or the opposition to their proliferation. Another piece of information that came back from PoliticIt was the tone surrounding the tweets, and while tone is hard to define in the digital world, some words can tend to indicate a positive or negative tone.

save image

 

 

The PoliticIt guys noticed that while there was a slightly negative tone in tweets around “gun laws,” tweets that discussed “mental health” received more positive response.   This seems to follow an observation I’ve made during the subsequent ten days since the shooting, and that is this: while people seem to be very much divided and equivocal about what should happen with guns—i.e. how should the Second Amendment (for an interesting review of how the Supreme Court has applied the Second Amendment, see this post) be applied: to require registrations? To outlaw certain firearms? etc—there is much more support for looking at the mental health of individual seeking to acquire firearms.

That is, none of us seem to think it’s a good idea to allow the mentally ill to have access to deadly weapons. Interestingly, the chatter on Twitter remained divided, but fell in volume within only a few days after the shooting reflecting, perhaps, that our ability to retain and maintain a conversation after our initial outburst was limited.

A couple more observations from PoliticIt on their sample using the hashtag #gunlaws:

  • 52% of tweets referencing gun control were “pro-gun” while 61% of tweets just referencing guns were supportive of Second Amendment rights.
  • Despite the broadcast of President Obama’s comments over network and cable television calling for more gun regulation, the sample did not find any reference to the comments. Either people just didn’t care or they didn’t find his comments were noting.
  • Anti-gun commentary seemed to focus on the need to restrict certain guns, commented on the intelligence of gun owners, made appeals to call your local elected official, or discussed Australia’s gun regulations.

Zeitgeist? A word map from the sample: 

save image

  

 Two things that PoliticIt saw tweeted, and retweeted, several times included this quote from Ronald Reagan and an article by Thomas Sowell:

Sowell argues in his piece that those calling for more regulation are acting on emotion, not facts. The following is what I thought was a pertinent part of his piece:

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many. When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

What of the NRA?

Naturally, the National Rifle Association has come under fire for its Second Amendment advocacy. How has it been affected on social media? The NRA had just under 69,000 followers on Twitter (@NRA) before the shooting and was adding about 1,500 a day. After the shooting, the NRA added  8,989 followers, or 471% of their average growth. After Wayne LaPierre addressed reporters at a press conference on December 21, that average grew 3,100 followers a day (according to Twitter Counter).


Is there any correlation between politics and homicide by firearm?

Another question that I saw, and that the PoliticIt guys researched, was the number of deaths by firearms compared with how states voted during the recent presidential election. Here’s the graphic they created:

The graph shows which states voted for Obama versus the number of murders by firearms per 100,000 people. Nationally, 2.75 people out of every 100,000 are killed by firearms.

It appears that blue states and red states fall on both sides of the line without any clear division. Some states are far higher than the national average, though, including Mississippi, Louisiana and the District of Columbia, all of which exceed the furthest deviation below the average (Hawaii) by almost two. The District of Columbia, with some of the nation’s strictest gun laws (can one even carry a gun in D.C.?) has the highest per capita rates of murder by firearm in the nation.

Other states with strict gun laws that exceed the national average include Illinois (just barely), New Jersey, California, and New York.   On the other hand, Utah, where I live, has some fewest gun regulations and is below the national average. I’m not sure that gun regulations, or how voters vote in national elections, is the right place to look for determining what states are likely to see murder by firearm, but it is interesting.

 

So this is Christmas…

It’s Christmas. With several versions of John Lennon’s “So this is Christmas” playing on the airwaves and in retail establishments across America,  it’s a bittersweet reminder that while we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, we have not as a nation, or as practicing Christians, yet learned his message and how to apply it.

Indeed, this has not been a peaceful year. Looking at the global state of things, conflicts, some decades in age, there are at least twelve ongoing conflicts that have resulted in deaths in 2012 (according to a Wikipedia page called “List of ongoing military conflicts”), including the war in Afghanistan that killed at least 03,000 in 2012, the Syrian civil war with 37,787 deaths, and one in Burma that started in 1948 and resulted in 10,000 fatalities (bet you missed that one on the nightly news round up).  And, lest we forget, there are still American troops in Iraq, too, where over 8,000 people have died in the last two years.

If war was not enough, we’re still killing each other, too, in our own cities. The United States has a homicide rate of about 4.2 per 100,000 residents, which, while lower than the worldwide average, still resulted in the deaths of about 13,000 people last year.  And this does not account for other violent crimes: rape, assault, abuse, and so on.

Taken all together, it’s a depressing prospect. And when seen in light of the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut this month, it is perhaps more sobering and dispiriting, too.

I cannot help but ask: what can we do against such evil?

It can be easy to see the power of evil in the world in the face of such events. Indeed, it can be hard to see anything but evil in the deaths of so many innocent people. Youth is a time of hope and promise, and schools are intended to be a place of sanctuary and learning.

Yet, we look to hope. Some of the most beloved writers of the English language made it a theme of their writing, and as we heard the news of the deaths at Sandy Hook elementary, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit in movie theaters. If there is nothing else that Tolkien intended with his most innovative creations–hobbits–it was to convey the possibility of hope and life and innocence against the power of evil.

Indeed, it is not just hobbits and their love of the creature comforts of home, food, and books that Tolkien wrote of, but also the nature of evil and its corruption of the good.  Glenn Fairman, in his piece “Hobbits, Orcs, and the Human Condition” for the American Thinker posits that this is why Tolkien strike home for readers (and perhaps movie goers): “The universes of Tolkien and [C.S.] Lewis touch a spot in our hearts, not because of a one-dimensional black and white depiction of Good and Evil, but because they ring true in excavating the subtlety of what drives evil. Evil is not deemed co-equal with Good, [...] but as a corrupted end which once sought the Good.”

Through our “fairy tales,” then, runs the theme of free will and the necessity of free will to the growth of good, even in the potential for pain and death. Says Fairman

But free will or a future redemption is thin gruel to a town with classrooms full of murdered children. Is it enough to say that God did not will this thing and that despite the glib horror of the words, ripples of good are projecting out in time so that as a consequence at least some of this evil might one day be redeemed? Unlike our stories of Middle Earth, there was no convocation of Eagles to spirit those innocents away from a cruel and insane hand. Nevertheless, we are hearing now of unlikely heroes and sacrifices in the face of certain death by some who did not come home.It is in our finite reckoning of time that patience exhausts itself and oftentimes our endurance is drawn down as we despair of evil’s resolute gravity. Faced with suffering and evil occurring at an ever-accelerating cadence, it may be easier to believe that we are alone in our sorrows instead of exerting faith that a Deft Hand holds the reins. Sometimes it seems as if the free will of a broken humanity is insufficient when weighed in the balance against our cruelties. But without free will there is no love; and without love there is no impetus for a God of Love to create.

It is too early to tell, perhaps even in this lifetime, how these events will have weighted the waves of contingency and their significance for those perhaps not yet born. It is not a cliché to hold that courage and faith are needed now more than ever. They were indispensable in an age of Hobbits, elves and dwarves; how much more so in a tangible world of fragile men.

Often, we may feel as Frodo, who in the darkness of the Mines of Moria lamented, “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”

“So do I,” said Gandalf, “And so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Our hearts go out to those in Newport whose lives have been altered forever and whose loved ones will never come home, at least not in this life, and we hope that even in the dark moments that they will find solace and hope in courage and faith. To the rest of us, I hope that we can provide to them, and each other, the small comfort we can offer. And perhaps, here again, we can listen to Gandalf, the sage wizard of Tolkien’s creation:

There are those who believe that  ”it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.”

Again, this is Christmas, and it is the Prince of Peace that was heralded on this day.  Angels sang of “peace on earth, goodwill to men” at his coming and as He neared the end of His life He returned to the refrain: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

His peace is the power to stand against evil and be unmoved in a time when evil will rage, to stand at the eye of a storm and feel peace while defending and seeking to live the message for which His life was nothing short of a living testimony.

None of us want to live in such times, but in such times we all retain the power to choose. It is in the small deeds of ordinary kindness that keep the darkness at bay.  As the children’s song goes, “so I say to myself, remember this: kindness begins with me.”  Imperfectly applied, perhaps, but it is a lesson we can all seek to apply just a little better in the coming year. If we do, perhaps then each of us will find a way to bring peace, and good will to men, to the Earth.

As we all mourn the lost, at Sandy Hook and in many other places, I hope that we can realize that we are not powerless against great evil, but that it is in our every day acts that evil can be held back.

A brief history of the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court [contributor]

Congress is again considering an “assault weapons ban.”  The call is for compromise, reasonable restrictions and common sense gun control. I could go on a lengthy diatribe that was comprehensive in nature regarding the proposed legislation, but others have already responded thoroughly.

Owing to the nature of this blog, I will instead offer a perspective taken from previous court opinions that may be relevant to the proposal.

Our journey begins with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.  The law imposed a tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, sound suppression devices and other destructive devices.

ShotgunThe NFA was challenged before the Supreme Court in 1939.  Jack Miller and Frank Layton had transported a double barrel shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches from Oklahoma to Arkansas.  The firearm was not registered nor was there a tax stamp affixed order for the gun as defined by the NFA. The District Court struck down the NFA on Second Amendment grounds.  On hearing the case (United States v. Miller) the Supreme Court overturned the lower court and held the NFA to not violate the Second Amendment.

The primary reasoning of the Court was that automatic weapons and short-barreled weapons bore no relation to the needs of the common infantryman at the time.

From the ruling:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.  Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Further, the Court found “that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense… And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

In subsequent references to Miller (of which there are seven), the Court has repeatedly held this basic principle.  The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess those guns that would be used by infantryman to defend our freedom.

There have been challenges to the nature of the right Miller defined.  United States v. Warin and United States v. Oakes are most prominent.  The Court’s rulings had painted a picture where the Second Amendment was meaningless.  Under the rulings of Miller, Warin and to notes in Oakes, the Court protected neither a right to keep arms for personal defense nor a right to keep arms to be used in a citizen militia. I am hard pressed to understand what exactly the Second Amendment was protecting in the years leading up to 2008.

In 2008 the Second Amendment received its first direct review since Miller.  District of Columbia v. Heller challenged the District of Columbia’s handgun ban.  The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to guns for self defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

Beretta M9Heller, however, left the question of incorporation open.  This was settled two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago when the Court extended the individual right to all citizens of the United States via the Due Process clause.  The ruling struck down the Chicago gun ban and cleared the confusion regarding Heller’s application to the states.

Taken together, we see that the court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right (Heller) of all citizens (McDonald) to guns relevant to self defense (Heller) or guns that bear a relation to individual service in the militia at a given time (Miller).

AR-15

AR-15

At the time of Miller, the official primary infantry arm was the United States Rifle, Cal. 30 M1, commonly known as the M1 Garand.  This gun had an 8 round magazine and was a gas operated semi-automatic action.  That is, for each time the trigger is depressed, one round (shot) is fired.  While officially adopted in 1936, it was not fully deployed until 1941.  Many soldiers at the time of Miller were still issued the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle.  Both of these guns sported barrels in excess of 22″ of length.

Today, the modern infantryman is equipped with M4, which is a derivative

M249

M249

of the M16/AR-15 line of guns.  The M4 is a carbine with an overall length of 33 inches and a barrel length of 14.5 inches.  The stock is adjustable for length, it is issued with a 30 round detachable box magazine and a flash hider.  The gun has three fire control modes:  safe, semi-automatic and 3-round burst.  The M4A1 which is issued to certain squads has a different trigger pack: safe, semi-automatic and fully automatic. In addition, in a ten-man squad, you will see two men equipped with M249 Squad Automatic Weapons System, a light machine gun.  General officers, medics, and other non-combat personnel in a combat zone are issued a Beretta M9, a high-capacity 9mm semi-automatic handgun for personal defense.

If the description modern infantry guns sounds familiar, it should.  They are the very weapons at the top of the list that certain members of congress want to ban.  But, they are also the very guns called out by the philosophy of Miller, as protected by the Second Amendment.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Larry Correia on gun regulation and arming teachers

imagesThe more I hear, the more I think we need not only need a conversation about guns and mental health, but we probably ought to learn more about what we are talking about before we go around maligning them. In the last couple days, I’ve heard people in the news attack “semi-automatic” weapons (newsflash: almost every single gun in the world is a semi-automatic weapon–it just means that after you fire a round, a new round is pushed into the cylinder so you can fire another round) and “assault” rifles, a term that didn’t really exist until the mid-1980s and which creation only served to popularize the Bushmaster.

If you read nothing else, you should set aside a few minutes and read author Larry Correia’s (see a review of his first book, a best seller, here)  two-bits. A former gun store owner and a Utah Concealed and Carry Weapon permit trainer, he provides some interesting insights to the debate. He says that

It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.

So if you’re willing to step past your ignorance (the wise man will humbly do it every day) and learn something, click on over to his post and read.

Among the other things I learned, or that I thought were insightful:

  • There are actually quite a few regulations in place right now. Most of what has been, and will be, proposed is not effective at deterring crime and homicide.
  • Compare to the about 10,000 homicides in America each year, about 2.5 million crimes are stopped by a person with a gun.
  • Mass shootings where a civilian confronts the shooter have substantially fewer deaths than shootings where police stop the shooter.
  • Only the Giffords shooting did not occur in a Gun Free Zone.
  • Assault rifles aren’t really assault rifles, and are notoriously difficult to define and regulate.
  • Chicago, a Gun Free city, has nearly 600 homicides a year.
  • During the years of the “assault weapons ban,” criminals continued to use assault weapons.
English: New York Times Bestseller Larry Corre...

English: New York Times Bestseller Larry Correia at WorldCon 69: Renovation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Among his more interesting suggestions is that we arm teachers, something that may already be happening in Utah. Correia explains:

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.

So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.

As they say, “when it’s life or death, the police are only six minutes away.”

[Larry Correia]

Is it about the guns? [KSL]

shooting-range.jpg

The following is a piece I wrote for KSL.com, posted on December 19, 2012.

____________

It’s hard to understand why people kill other people. Perhaps I have grown up in a time, and in a culture, when war is something seen in movies or on History Channel documentaries. Perhaps I was raised in communities where crime was low and where death was more likely to come to the elderly, in a hospital, or by auto accident. Always a tragedy and sad affair, but natural.

Murder, though, is not natural, and why people kill other people is difficult for me to understand. Even more difficult is why someone would kill the vulnerable, especially children. As we reel with shock over the deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary, intellectually I know it is not the first time a monster has killed the young and innocent. In fact, history is full of evil men who have wielded power against children. Whether it is Herod’s massacre of children of Bethlehem two thousand years ago or Hitler’s “Final Solution” that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in the last century, innocents have been killed by evil men.

But not in America. In this land, founded on principles of freedom and equality, we are supposed to be different. Children are our future, and schools are supposed to be safe havens for learning. It’s why we have created them to be, in many places, gun-free zones. We want our children to be safe, and so we’ve limited the ability to let them be hurt by making it criminal to possess a gun at or near a school.

In some states, malls, parks and other public places are also classified as gun-free zones. They are places where we can “feel” safe because we can assume that it is against the law for guns to be carried.

Ironically, Sandy Hook was a gun-free zone. The 20 children and six faculty members who were slain there were killed by a combination of several guns, including one semi-automatic commonly called an assault rifle because of its similarity to the rifles used by the military. None of the laws in Connecticut, though, prevented Adam Lanza from entering the school and killing.

Which brings me back to my question: why do people kill each other? Why would Lanza, raised in an affluent upper-class home, decide to kill so many people? Or anybody at all?

It’s a question we may never be able to answer, since Lanza ended his own life before he was taken. By all reports, Lanza suffered from mental illness, reportedly some form of Aspergers, a disorder similar to autism which causes sufferers to struggle with social interaction and the development of relationships. He was assigned his own psychologist, and his mother went to lengths to keep him out of public and to compensate for his illness.

And perhaps therein lies part of the answer. As a nation, we’ve jumped quickly to the conclusion that we need to attack the weapons that Lanza used to end the futures of so many. It’s easy to point at guns — in the hands of the likes of Adam Lanza, like in the hands of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, they take the lives of our most vulnerable members — our children. Within hours of the shootings’ news hitting the air, pundits began calling for restrictions of gun sales, making no bones about their intention to use the tragedy for passage of long-sought gun restrictions.

But will more laws limiting the sale of guns accomplish the end we want? Maybe. Maybe not.

In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik attacked and killed 69 students at an island retreat in Norway, injuring another 110. While guns are not illegal in Norway, the country does have a total ban on automatic rifles, and ownership of firearms is limited and highly regulated, and civilians are not allowed to carry concealed weapons. Never the less, Brievik was able to perpetrate the most deadly attack in Norway since World War II. During the trial, Brievik, a right-wing extremist, admitted that he had carried out the killings, but said he was not guilty because he had acted on necessity.

Closer to home, Utahns might remember the shootings at Trolley Square in 2007. Sulejman Talović shot nine people, killing five before an off-duty police officer at dinner with his wife returned fire, keeping Talović pinned down until a SWAT team arrived to shoot him. The off-duty police officer is credited with saving the lives of many people in the Trolley Square shopping center. To this day, it is unclear why Talović went on his shooting spree.

Were guns at fault? It’s hard not to see their role in the killing. However, outlawing guns at schools and making it difficult to get them in Norway did not save lives. If anything, it disarmed the people that might have stopped the killing earlier. At Harrold Independent School District in Texas, Superintendent David Thweatt has since 2008 made teachers the first responders to any attacks.

“We’re the first responders. We have to be,” Thweatt said a year after the program was implemented, training teachers to carry concealed weapons. “We don’t have 5 minutes. We don’t have 10 minutes. We would have had 20 minutes of hell” if attackers had targeted the school.

Ultimately, I don’t know that arming our teachers is the solution, though it may be solution. I believe that classrooms are still, in spite of the horrific events of Sandy Hook and Columbine, safe places for our children.

Perhaps there needs to be a conversation about the kinds of guns we feel are acceptable for the public to own, or the kind of training and review that citizens must undergo before owning them. It’s a conversation that can only help, both for those who advocate for more laws and those who see gun ownership as a Second Amendment protected right not to be infringed by government action.

However, no matter what or how many laws we pass, there will always be evil men. Outlawing the tools that they use will not prevent them from finding a way to accomplish their ends. It will, however, prevent good people from fighting back.

Before we jump to conclusions, pass laws with long-reaching consequences, let’s take time to take a closer look at those who are behind the guns. They are, in many respects, those who need our help the most, and by the time they have taken up deadly weapons, we have as a society missed their need for help. Restricting gun ownership is an easy, if misguided answer. Addressing how we help the mentally ill and those on society’s fringes will require more of us, but ultimately will save more lives.

 

Review | With Wings Like Eagles: A History of the Battle of Britain by Michael Korda

With Wings Like Eagles: A History of the Battle of BritainRanked among the greatest battles in British history, along with Waterloo, defeating the Spanish Armada, and Trafalgar, the Battle of Britain stands as a turning point during World War II when the Nazi juggernaut finally faced a foe that would not fall. Though few recognized it immediately, it was the turning of the tide in the war. In With Wings Like Eagles: A History of the Battle of Britain, Michael Korda brings the battle to life, both in the air above England and in the halls of government where defenses we’re planned and prepared.

Fought entirely in the air, the Battle of Britain was the battle for mastery of the skies over England between the pilots of the German Luftwaffe and the Royal Air Force. With German invasion expected during the summer of 1940, Michael Korda takes us back to a detailed look at the preparations for war, the development of new technologies on both sides of the battle–including of the all metal monoplanes, like the Spitfire and the BF-109, and radar as a detection system–as well as the key figures that had the foresight to develop the aerial defense to prepare. In vivid colors we see Neville Chamberlin, long considered an appeaser but perhaps a more nuanced figure, Winston Churchill, Reichsmarschall Herman Goring, and others.

Above all, though, this is the story of the obstinate, erudite, difficult, and eccentric Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding. His strategy of bleeding the German bomber force held off the Germans through the summer until crossing the English Channel in the inclement fall weather made invasion no longer feasible.

At 336 pages, With Wings Like Eagles: A History of the Battle of Britain is a short and fast read, but never fails to delve into the characters and issues that shaped the battle. At the time, as fight pilots died in numbers higher than could be replaced, that “Never was so much owed by so many to so few.” It’s an apt description of a time when a nation stood on the brink, and only a few stood there and held back the tide. Korda does a wonderful job of bringing it to life, providing perspective, and producing a story that is enjoyable, fascinating, and relevant. If you enjoy histories of World War II, then you’ll enjoy adding this to your collection.

[Previously posted over at AttackoftheBooks.com]