Has 'New Normal' Become a Trite Cliché?

Clichés.....we've all heard them. It's probably safe to say we've all used them. 

Dictionary.com defines cliché as: a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse.

So, by definition, a cliché is already something that is 'trite'? The word is right there in the definition of cliché, so I guess clichés are 'trite' by definition, right? Repetitive? Yup. Trying to make a point here.

So, what is 'trite', then? Well, Dictionary.com defines 'trite' as: lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition. Kinda what the definition of cliché is trying to say, eh? Sorry....rhetorical.

But, is 'new normal' a trite cliché? That is the burning question being posed in this blog post.

Confused yet? 

I suppose the next step might be to ask ourselves if 'new normal' fits the definition of 'trite cliché'? Is 'new normal' even a cliché much less a trite cliché?

Based on the evidence,  I'd personally say yes on both counts. But don't take my word for it. 

Let's define 'new normal' in order to try and determine if it is truly a 'trite cliché'.

According to Dictionary.com, 'new normal' is defined as a current situation, social custom, etc., that is different from what has been experienced or done before but is expected to become usual or typical.

So, have we established anything thus far....anything at all? 

Moving forward....

Can anyone deny that 'new normal' is being used a LOT these days? I can't. I Googled "is 'new normal' a cliché". Upwards of 34 million hits came back. From the hits I saw, it appears safe to say 'new normal' is considered a cliché.

'New normal' is repeatedly used in many different applications. As such, it arguably lacks freshness. It may even lack effectiveness. But the one thing it does is keep on being used...over and over and over again.

Look back at the definition of 'new normal'. Descriptors used are:

• Different...
• Usual...
• Typical...

Basically, that means normal before an event/incident is now different from that previous normal. It's now the 'new normal'. But now that 'new normal' is usual and typical but different from the previous normal. Confusing? It can be.

Living that new usual and typical 'new normal' can be, and often times is, a nightmare for some folks. By the same token, it can be a healing journey for others.

Based on a strict interpretation of 'new normal', it could be applied to someone starting a new job, right? To someone moving from one location to another, right? Or how about to someone who's suffered domestic abuse and has to go into a shelter anonymously? Maybe to a victim of gun violence?  Perhaps to someone starting out in a new school? Maybe to someone who's lost a home as a result of foreclosure, or a disaster, or - - - well, you get the picture, I hope.

Is it trite, then, for anyone going through the process of defining a 'new normal' for themselves to be told things like "get over it"? 

How about "move on"? 

Or, perhaps "you're too damaged to speak to this issue effectively"? 

Those things have been said to others in the past, and are still being said to others in the present who've had their lives turned upside down by some form of trauma. Yes, indeed they have been and still are.

But I digress.

Is one person's 'new normal' more relevant than another's? Who's to judge? We'd certainly like to believe we wouldn't judge others, but do we? Of course we do!

Truth is, we hear these kinds of remonstrances all the time. Are they valid? Should they be discounted? Should they be ignored? Do they actually serve a purpose? These are ALL questions we must ask ourselves as we go through the process of defining our own 'new normal' every single day of our lives.

For example, each and every time we wake up in the morning, we begin defining our own 'new normal' for that day. Each and every time we go to work, we define our 'new normal' for that workday. Each and every time we decide to have, or not to have, children, we end up defining a 'new normal' for our lives. Each and every time we begin or end a relationship with someone, we, and the other person involved, begin to define a 'new normal' for ourselves.

The point? Our reality, on a day-to-day basis is defined by what we do, by how we interact with each other. If we choose to stay rooted in our own utopian or dystopian views, some folks, by that very precept, have a tendency to sort of walk away from, or ignore, uncomfortable experiences other people may be going through simply because they are not experiencing the same things those other people are. When something traumatic happens to us, though, do we expect the same from those other folks that they expected from us as they defined their own 'new normal'? I mean, how far can any of this be taken? Tit for tat? What's good for the goose.....?

A long time ago, in a classroom far, far away (University of North Dakota, to be exact), there was a Latin American Studies History Professor by the name of Dr. Hart. By way of explanation, Dr. Hart was one of the more influential individuals who helped shape my thinking, my emotions, my politics, especially at that time.

One day he made a statement that resonated so deeply with me that I literally forgot it for a very long time (actually, I didn't forget it - I just buried it in my psyche over that very long period of time). I try to resurrect it here and now in paraphrased form simply because I'd fallen prey to the very blase' he'd warned me of.

Dr. Hart said something to the effect:

We are all passionate about something. Some of us are more passionate about a few things. Others are more passionate about many things. Some are even passionate about only one thing. The true test of our passion(s), however, is whether or not we actually remember what we were so passionate about 10, 15, 20 or more years down the road.

Over the years, I believe we ALL become less passionate about some of the things we held near and dear to our hearts when we were younger. It's called life interrupting....or, our own constantly developing and evolving 'new normal'. Nothing wrong with that. We all go through it. As we mature, we take on more and more responsibilities.

However, should that also preclude us from the possibility that those passions still exist within us? That perhaps those previous normals still have relevance? That they can, and perhaps should, be resurrected? Can we 'open our heads', as Katherine puts it to me so often, to the reality we do not actually live in a bubble? Rather, we choose to construct a bubble around ourselves arguably as a means of self-protection or self-defense....the 'new normal' we establish as a direct result of an experienced trauma in our lives?

Should people stop using 'new normal' as a cliché to describe their post-traumatic experiences? Maybe, but maybe not. I suppose it really doesn't matter one way or the other in the scheme of things. People are gonna people no matter what I say.

Perhaps it might be more appropriate to go with the cliché, "Time Heals All Wounds" attributed to Rose Kennedy. Just remember, there's more to this cliché than just the four words "Time Heals All Wounds" because context matters:

Time Heals All Wounds - QuoteFancy

So, 'new normal'.....trite cliché or not? Well, you're going to have to please forgive me if I cringe a little bit whenever I hear someone say we need to define a 'new normal' in response to school massacres. Yes, I went there. 

For me, personally, trying to define a 'new normal' for myself and for my family following the massacre at Columbine High School was a literal impossibility. It just did not compute. I could not wrap my head around the concept. For me, it was a cliché that was, and still is, in a word, trite.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Gun Control of a 'Different' Kind....

I think we're all pretty familiar with this phrase by now. In fact, it's kind of been burned into our collective lexicon over a period of time, especially since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School back in 2012 in spite of the fact it's been a National Rifle Association talking point way before that massacre. It just had not gotten the level of attention or use then as compared to now.

For every single action there is an equal and opposite reaction - a simple, but reality based law of physics. I believe the principle behind the law of physics also has application in other situations, as well......laws of 'logic' (or lack thereof) as just one example. 

Logic is powerful. It's based in reasoning, in thought, in emotion. It often times involves descriptors such as 'rational' and 'irrational', 'sane' and 'insane', 'ridiculous' and 'sensible' as just a few examples. Most of these descriptors are used by folks depending upon which side of a particular fence they prefer to come down on.

In the case of the guns don't kill phrase mentioned earlier, the equal and opposite reaction that can be applied is this:

But wait! There's a whole bunch of other NRA logic/talking points we've kind of had shoved down our throats. Here's another one:

I know the NRA doesn't want to hear this, but applying the law of logic here results in:

So, bottom line is for every NRA logic/talking point, there is an equal and opposite logic/talking point that can be put out there.

In blog posts past, I've stated there is no such thing, really, as gun 'control', that 'control' in and of itself, is an illusion. I'm beginning to rethink that statement.

Not that it's wrong, necessarily, but to perhaps bring a little more clarity to what it means.

Would it be fair to state that when the issue of gun control comes up in a discussion or debate, the perception of most on the word 'control' as it applies in the conversation is for restrictions on ownership and use of guns? Don't know? OK, then I'll say it:

When it comes to use of the term gun control, I believe it applies directly to those who believe it restricts both gun ownership and use, and that there is no other way to define it.

If that's the case, and looking at the 'equal and opposite' reaction, then I also believe those who favor a more flexible approach to the issue of gun violence in our nation and how we should address that issue, need to go in a new direction themselves, to try to move people into a sort of paradigm shift in how we view gun control, in general.

Bearing this in mind (a little 2nd Amendment reference there - did you catch it? 'Bearing'? Pretty good, huh?), in this blog post, I'm going to put forward a little different perspective on this issue, something I call 'Gun Control of a Different Kind'.

For a very long time now, the pro-gun advocacy side of this issue, I'll call them the 'guns everywhere' folks, has couched their vested public persona position in 'no new gun laws' for any number of what I consider to be flawed reasons. For example:

• 'Criminals don't obey laws', 
• 'You're punishing law abiding citizens',
• 'If you pass gun control laws, the only people with guns will be criminals',
• And so on ad nauseum.

The battle royale, the shit storm so to speak, that's been going on between 'guns everywhere' folks and those we call 'anti-gun violence' advocates (also going to be called 'folks' from here on in) ever since has been furious, controversial, adversarial, and downright nasty.

'Guns everywhere' folks haven't budged at all, not one little bit, in asserting the same talking points they've put forward since, well....since forever. Neither have anti-gun violence folks for all intents and purposes. And therein lies the problem.

What to do? Oh, my, what CAN we do? Well, we can look at the issue from equal, but opposite sides of the 'labels being used' for starters.

Labels are powerful. With just a few words, labels can pretty much define a person or a movement. Otherwise, why do businesses and corporations, churches and ministries, groups and organizations all develop and use slogans? The only reason I can come up with is to help define themselves in such a way as to make them distinct in their field of endeavor, to separate themselves from others in that regard.

Since this whole shit storm gained momentum arguably following the massacre at Columbine High School, the 'guns everywhere' folks have quietly, and surreptitiously evolved and have slowly taken a different course while maintaining their public persona of no new laws. 

Oh, yes, yes they have. 

While appearing outwardly to remain steadfast in their 'no new gun laws' stance, they've been actively working to roll back existing gun laws, toward getting their own version of 'gun control' passed and enacted by state governments across the country.....a 'guns everywhere' type of gun control.

What kinds of laws, you ask? 

Well, laws that quite literally force the 'guns everywhere' folks' views of what I'm going to label as 'gun utopia' on everyone else: i.e., codify into law the right to open and concealed carry by anyone and everyone anywhere and everywhere, including schools, churches, bars, public buildings, businesses, etc., etc. This is what I will now call it for what it is:

And it's seriously running amok!

There's been some opposition, but not enough.....not by any stretch of the imagination.

Those who've been steadfastly resolute in trying to look at logical, sane, and rational methodologies to help address the issue of gun violence in this country have pretty much been rebuffed at almost every turn by this group of 'guns everywhere' fanatics! Oops, I said they were 'folks' earlier. Now I'm going to call them exactly what they are.....'fanatics'. So, not really an 'oops' after all.

I've seen other descriptors for these kinds of folks, too. Things like 'gun humpers', 'ammosexuals', 'gundamentalists', and much worse. And most of them take very serious umbrage with anyone labeling them as such.

The thing is, the majority of gun owners who are responsible and who also would like to see something get done to help curb the public health epidemic of gun violence we are suffering from do not, I repeat do NOT, fall into this group of fanatics.

So, why is it these fanatics have such a loud voice and wield so much power? 

I believe it's because they make the most noise, grab the most attention, and then they attempt to intimidate their opposition into submission, be it in public forums or in public demonstrations (Open Carry Texas as just one prime example).

There is a LOT of legislation wending its way through multiple state legislatures as we speak that would allow concealed and/or open carry in places not forced to do so in the past. Some of it has already been passed. Some of it is still being considered.

As the President of the University of Nevada at Reno said awhile back in response to this type of legislation being pushed in his state to force the university to comply with 'gun control of a different kind':

"They aren't doing this for (emphasis mine) us. They're doing it to (emphasis mine) us".

In other words, legislative efforts to try to provide for safer schools (in this specific instance), while well intentioned, are quite simply emotionally based and are an over-reaction. Nothing more.

Oh, by the way, it's also a potential cash cow for gun manufacturers, too. Think about it. 'Guns everywhere' means more guns. More guns everywhere.

What they literally are doing is taking a low probability type of event regarding mass shootings and trying to use the high consequences that inevitably follow to their advantage. In other words, they prey on people's fear and paranoia. And there are many who buy into that fear and paranoia. Oh, yes, there are many. Even some who've been victims of gun violence, themselves.

Where is the logic? Where is the sanity? Where is the reasoning?

Truth is, it is absent. It is based solely on two of the most fundamental, basal emotional characteristics of humankind - fear and paranoia.

How to counter this? For starters, those who support gun reform (not control, not confiscation, not doing away with the 2nd Amendment) need to call 'guns everywhere' fanatics out on their efforts, to call it what it is - 'Gun Control of a Different Kind'.

It would certainly be a start.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Caregiving vs Servitude - There IS a Difference

As I'm sometimes wont to do, I've reprised, amended, and am re-publishing a blog post originally written in 2013:

Would it be accurate to say we all live in little boxes? Think about that.

Back in 1962, Malvina Reynolds wrote a song called "Little Boxes". It was also used as the theme song for a Showtime TV series called Weeds. What's striking about the song is how the lyrics fit so timelessly and so well in today's collective psyche even as they did back in 1962 and, arguably, even way before that.

Weeds starts out with  "Little Boxes" playing while showing what can only be taken as business people in lock step backing their virtually identical black four door sedans out of their driveways simultaneously to go to work, all in sync, all in one direction, all of them filing out the gated community one after the other, sort of representative, as myth would have it, of lemmings on their trek to the cliff ledge high above the jagged seashore, waves pounding relentlessly on the rocks far below.

Later episodes would show something similar but along the same lines - things like joggers...all of them timing their heart rates, holding their wrists, taking their pulse while running in-place on residential street corners waiting to cross the busy intersection, people all out mowing their manicured lawns, washing their cars, etc., etc. In other words, depicting the 'normal' routines so many of us buy into virtually every single day of our lives.

We become inured to this routine whether we want to admit it or not. It is, after all, representative of our daily lives. It really doesn't matter if you live in a more rural community, a more metropolitan area either urban or suburban, or somewhere else like on a farm or a ranch. We ALL live in our own little boxes, our homes. It doesn't matter where. The routines each of us have are similar to the routines of others, but different, too. Even within nuclear families individual members construct their own little boxes that reflect their own routines, their own schedules, their own activities, their own perceptions, their own biases and prejudices.

For example, some of us like our jobs. Some of us love our jobs. Some of us learn to like our jobs. And, some of us learn to eventually love our jobs over a period of time.

Others of us hate our jobs - we can't wait to find something else that might work better for us - we're almost always on the lookout. 

Some of us stay in our jobs simply because, although we despise the work, the pay is good. But, if something better comes along, some of us do just about anything in order to land those kinds of jobs. Some will get those jobs - others will not. Some will be disappointed in their failure. Others will get on with their lives as if nothing happened.

It's probably pretty safe to say most of us unabashedly love our families. But, it might also be safe to say some only like their families. And, some might even feel trapped with their families, right or wrong.

Some of us get really frustrated with members of our families - kids in particular....doggone kids! Babies wonderful. Terrible twos....not so much, but certainly tolerable. Just wish they'd grow up. They grow up way too fast. They go brain dead upon reaching their teenage years and puberty. When they get to twenty-something, they suddenly just seem to magically get smarter. As they get older, their parents can even become much smarter to them. Who'd a thunk it?

Some kids love school. Some kids hate school. Some like it, but are also sort of ambivalent about it. Others grow to embrace it. Everyone is different.

Some of us have more patience in dealing with these kinds of frustrations than others. To some, family is everything. To others, family is secondary to their job.

No two individuals can really be classified as having the same perspective about family, home, or job because they live with their own family, in their own home, and work in their own job, and they are different from everyone else. After all, their family history helps define who they are more so than just about anything else in their lives. That's what makes humanity unique in and of itself.

So, we get accustomed, we fall into a routine, we live in our own little box, our home, and life goes on.

Our world becomes limited, if you will, to our work, our family, our jobs.

Some of us attend religious gatherings, church services - all faiths, all religions.

Others view nature as their only spiritual need.

Some of us take vacations. Others consider a trip to a used car lot, or a mall, or the movies, or even a day trip as a kind of vacation. Others claim they don't have time to do any of these things...that their jobs are too demanding that way.

The truth is the degree to which we survive, at least in this consumer driven economy we've kind of had engineered for us by design, depends on how much we make, whether we are a one-income or a two-income family or whether we even have a job, whether or not we are a single parent, how many children there are (if any), and so on. Some of us work weekends. Some have weekends off. Some work the night shift. Some work part time. Some are executives. Some are laborers. Others are somewhere in between.

It's the same, but different. Make sense?

We also tend to think of others as leading similar lives to our own even if we can visibly see minor differences in how we live. We don't generally recognize the differences in each of us that also makes us unique. "People should just think like me" can become a very pervasive mentality if we aren't careful. So can "I'm right and you're stupid" if we don't agree with something someone else believes. Judgment, sometimes very harsh judgment, of others becomes a sort of norm for some. Opinions become more important than factual information.

We've all heard the cliché, "thinking outside the box". What exactly does that mean, and how does it apply to each of us? Is it only applicable in a business sense with related ideation....profit motive? Or, are their other applications? Something perhaps along the lines of  what happens when our individual routines are disrupted? What if the disruption just happens to be a trauma of some kind - say, a physically debilitating trauma?

In the show, Weeds, the main character's husband dies suddenly from a heart attack. She is then literally forced to think outside her comfort zone, her little box. She chooses to start a business growing, and selling, weed from her home. The series expands from there. She involves members of her own family in this business including her children and her brother-in-law. The journey they make is a rough one. As the business grows, others are brought into the fold...neighbors, business associates...friends. Meanwhile, life goes on as it always has for the vast majority of everyone else surrounding this particular little box. These people acknowledged the trauma suffered by the family of the main character, but that particular trauma did not stop them from carrying on with their normal routines.

If a trauma occurs in our lives, does it force us to think outside our own individual box like the main character in Weeds? Might this be another application of something that actually requires us to think outside our own box? Of course it is. But, we must also ask ourselves whether or not it allows for personal growth. Perhaps we let it restrict our personal growth instead. It all depends on the individual. Does it involve family? Maybe extended family? How about friends? Neighbors? Business associates? Does it even consider that life goes on uninterrupted for the vast majority of everyone else surrounding the issue of our own trauma in our own little box? We must then also reconcile how much, if at all, we wish to keep our own individual trauma 'out there' for others to be able to see, to feel, to experience.

When the trauma is more significant, more long term, like a disabling injury to someone in the family, a new life paradigm arguably must occur, not only for the person with the disability, but for others close to them, as well. Whether this new paradigm becomes a festering sore or a new opportunity for those involved is an inherent risk based on the family's strengths or dysfunctions prior to the event, itself.

A 're-education' must take place, an adaptation, if you will, to life after the trauma. The re-education/adaptation isn't something limited only to the person suffering from or injured by the trauma. It's something everyone close to them must undergo as well. In other words, learning how to cope, how to understand, how to adapt, how to survive, how to live again isn't limited solely to the individual disabled by the trauma itself.

Physical disability, mental impairment, age related mobility, birth defects, special needs, post traumatic stress disorder, and so many more...are all things that require us to adapt right alongside those affected by the trauma itself.

Closeness to the trauma, however, must be put into its proper context, as well. For example, the individual injured in the traumatic event is, by virtue of their condition, obviously the person most directly affected - ergo their struggle to adapt to their own new paradigm for living within their own new little box.

By the same token, those closest to the person injured, by virtue of the effect the trauma has on their loved one and on them, personally, and how they are now required to interact with the injured individual, must also adapt thus creating their own new little boxes.

The dilemma then becomes one of how much must all these new little boxes all look the same. How far must those closest to the person injured bend their own new life paradigm, their own new little boxes to accommodate the person injured?

Does the injured individual now command center stage? Should what they want be lumped in with what they actually need and be put first and foremost? Is there a clear separation between the two? Should there be?

At what point do the needs of the other members of the nuclear family get shoved aside or diminished, or once again be brought to the fore? Is this a gradual, almost imperceptible process? Or can it be something much more sinister over the long term?

How do the wants and needs of the community at large surrounding this trauma factor into this equation?

Attempting to concurrently develop a 'new' world view based upon, and now required by, their individual situations as a direct result of that trauma may become problematic for some, a challenge to overcome for others, a defeat for still others, and even a conscious choice for others. It all depends upon the individual's personal makeup and the choices each of them are willing and/or capable of making.

And, therein, lies the problem faced by loved ones attempting to help, support, nurture, and love those who've been injured by the trauma itself.....that person's caregivers, if you will.

Those caregivers may face anger, temper tantrums. They may face reluctance. They may face defiance. They may face refusal to do things necessary for healing, both physical and emotional. They may face selfishness like they've never seen before. They may face unalterable choices made by their loved ones, both physical and emotional. In fact, most caregivers will face these kinds of obstacles in some form. That's simply an undeniable reality.

They, right alongside their loved ones, may face further trauma:

Multiple surgeries...

Depression

Anxiety

Frustration

Paranoia

Threats of suicide

Attempts at suicide

Successful attempts at suicide

And so much more. 

The question then becomes one of how to deal with all of these issues?

How hard does one 'push', especially knowing just how much the victim of trauma has already been through...already endured...already suffered? 

How much should one be willing to sacrifice their own needs to accommodate the wants and needs of their loved one still struggling with their injuries, both physical and emotional?

Must everything be put on hold to do this? 

Must everything be sacrificed in the all consuming effort to ensure the recovery of the victim of the trauma.

At what point does the use of the term 'victim' become problematic?

Or will these individuals always be a victim?

Should they be allowed to remain a victim, or should they be nurtured toward being someone who won't let their victim-hood define who they are or who they will be?

When is enough enough? Where does the pain begin to end and the healing actually, truly begin?

Caregivers (from Facebook)

The photo above has no attribution other than the note at the bottom: "Lessons Taught by LIFE". There is a Facebook page that shared it, in addition to the one I linked to below the photo. Here's the link to that Facebook page: Caregiver quotes.

As soon as I saw the photo, I knew I had to include it in this essay because it resonates with me on a very deep personal level. 

The message in the photo prompted a question in my mind I've long sought an answer to with little to no success:

At what point must one also make a conscious decision to back away, to let some of the chips fall where they may, and to hope for the very best for the individual being cared for?

There will be no owner's manual for caregivers, especially in my own situation. All there will be is the individual caregiver's own sense of right and wrong, of caring, of unconditional love being offered with no strings attached. Decisions made are decisions that must be lived with and reconciled individually. Not everyone will agree with those decisions. The lengths to which those who disagree are willing to go to prove their point can be either uplifting or devastating to others.

Of course, there will also be the knowledge there are professionals whose job it is to try to help guide each person's journey based on their own personal and professional experiences, and the hope those professionals know what the hell they're talking about.

Counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, members of the clergy, community organizations, government agencies - all are a part of the mix. Add to that mix the possibility these professionals may not even have an owner's manual on how to respond to certain traumas and a recipe for disaster can begin brewing in the background behind all the external influences, beyond the comprehension of anyone involved including professionals in their areas of expertise.

How much should each and every single family member be involved in reconstructing their own little boxes right alongside the individual injured by the trauma? Should they be forced to help in the re-construction of the victim's little box? If they choose not to be actively involved, is it their fault? Should they be given some slack? What if they snap? What if they lose it? Who suffers then?

What about extended family members? Blood relatives - brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents? What about step-brothers, step-sisters, step-mothers, step-fathers, step-grandparents, step-aunts, step-uncles, and step-cousins? Whose wants and needs should be placed first and foremost? Or, should they be at all? How are each individual's wants and needs to be balanced in this equation?

Again, no owner's manual. Walking a tightrope like this can, in and of itself, be a traumatic experience, especially if the caregiver loses their balance, or if they have their balance knocked right out from under them as a result of their efforts to help and they must then depend upon others as their own safety net to fall into.

Finally, there's always a possibility a kind of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario will rear its ugly head at some point in the re-construction process.

Regardless, we will re-construct our own little boxes based on our own life experiences and the choices we make from then on. Choices made by others are outside each of our own individual control and purview.

We can, and often times do, reflect with concern over some of the choices others make, but in the end, we have little or no say in how those choices will manifest in results over the long term re-construction of someone else's little box...especially if they construct something for themselves while refusing to even acknowledge that their specific trauma has affected others who might just be making their own life altering sacrifices in order to help as best they can given the hand that life's circumstances have dealt them. In these types of instances, the only real control we have is of our own making and that reflects how we choose to respond to those circumstances.

For those readers who've experienced something similar to what's in this post, you'll know exactly what's being put forward herein. For those who've yet to experience their own personal trauma, whether to yourself or to a loved one, the intent here is to give you some food for thought, some advance knowledge of questions you may want to consider asking yourselves.

In case you, the reader, haven't surmised it already, this essay encapsulates my life as a caregiver, both pre-Columbine massacre as caregiver for my first wife, Carla, who was diagnosed with, and suffered from, delusional paranoia with psychotic episodes, and post-Columbine massacre as caregiver for both Carla and my daughter, Anne Marie, who was critically injured in that massacre and was disabled as a result of her injuries. My journey as a caregiver for Carla ended October 22, 1999 when she completed suicide 6 months after the massacre. My role as caregiver for Anne Marie effectively ended on less than amicable terms around Christmas of December, 2009. My journey of healing is ongoing.

And so it goes. Life does go on. It's all in how we choose to let life shape us that will ultimately define who we become, no matter what life might have in store.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

On Gun 'Control', 'Gun Free Zones', and Arming School Staff (Amended)...

Originally, I published a blog post back in 2012 that addressed the talking points in the title of this rather long missive. That essay followed the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The issues of gun control, gun free zones, and arming school staff were front and center topics of discussion following that massacre. All three talking points were, and still are, serious school safety issues. Since that time, there have been I don't even know how many more mass shootings both in schools and in public venues.

In light of all those massacres, I felt it would be appropriate to revisit my original post and to revamp and revise it accordingly. The more I studied it, the more I realized it really needed an almost complete re-write. In that vein, here's the amended/re-written version. I hope it's better than its predecessor.

With that, I offer these observations.

Observation 1....Gun Control:

The issue of 'gun control' perhaps shouldn't be presented as an issue at all. The term 'gun control' is really nothing more than a play on words, a misuse of semantics if you will. In fact, pro-gun advocates tout gun 'control' as being how well they can control the weapon while aiming and firing that weapon. Now THAT's twisted semantics if ever there were any!

There are quite a few folks who advocate for 'gun reform', but an even better term might be 'gun regulation'. After all, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes reference to a 'well regulated militia', does it not?

The meme above purports that back in the day when the 2nd Amendment was written flintlock muskets only fired one ball at a time with serious reloading time and effort required in between shots. While some would argue the 600+ cyclic rate for an assault style weapon is inaccurate, the implied message is that we're talking apples to oranges with past technology vs today's more advanced technology.

While that is true for the most part, there were repeating muskets in existence at the time of our Founding Fathers. Surprised? I know I was.

NRA Family - Throwback Thursday: Isaiah Jennings Repeating Flintlock Rifle

The rifle in the photo above, my friends, is a genuine Isaiah Jennings All-Metal Flintlock Rifle capable of 12 shots without reloading. Pretty advanced technology, eh? Well, perhaps it was for the time anyway.

That being said, it's also of interest to note, the author of the article I'm sharing here, A Close-up Look at the Ellis-Jennings Repeating Flintlock Rifle,  shows a little different design than the one above....sort of like 'new and improved' perhaps?

While the author didn't go specifically into how fast these repeating muskets fired, a round per two second rule might not be too much of a stretch. While I've never been accused of being a mathematical genius, extrapolating that out to one minute translates into 30 rounds per minute not including reload time according to my calculation. A safer bet might be a whole lot fewer rounds per minute given gunpowder was used for each round, and I think you get the point.

Several authors in the article, What is the firing rate of an AR-15, assert rate of fire depends largely on expertise of the individual using the weapon. Depending on accuracy desired, rate of fire can range from as low as 12 rounds per minute for sustainable more accurate firing up to 100 rounds per minute for more skilled shooters. A semi-skilled shooter could fire at a rate of 60 rounds per minute according to one author. Bottom line is these early repeating rifles maximum delivery rate is still a very far cry from the maximum delivery rates of an AR-15.

Add to that the fact none of the authors I've researched placed any degree of  reliability or accuracy with any of the early repeating rifles, and we have a sort of a conundrum. The author did say, "Very few have survived, for what I would consider obvious reasons", so, perhaps this solves that conundrum, eh?

Bottom line? In this instance the 'whataboutthis' argument used by so many pro-gun advocates to dismiss the 'technology' position when it comes to weaponry then vs now has no merit, nor does it have any validity in reality.

The two technologies, the flintlock repeating musket and the AR-15 semi-automatic assault style rifle, have one thing, and one thing only, in common that I can see....they both have a 'repeating' capacity.

And, for the record, the reason I'm even mentioning the repeating flintlock musket is because a pro-gun advocate on a Facebook page I follow tried to use this primitive weapon as his example in a comment on someone else's post of how the AR-15 is not new technology....that a repeating function was in existence when the 2nd Amendment was adopted. While that may be true in a literal sense, that's also the point at which any other comparisons render that position moot.

I do not claim to be anywhere near a gun 'expert'. Never have been. Am not now. Never will be. But I am willing to learn by doing relevant research. My research leads me to believe the general message of the meme at the beginning of this blog post is valid and remains relevant as far as I'm concerned....that we are comparing apples to oranges when talking about era appropriate technology. We can nitpick on details of the technology, but the underlying message of the meme is not altered by any of that in any way, shape, or form.

The 2nd Amendment has pretty much been beaten to death by both sides' interpretation of this particular amendment to our Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld "the individual right to keep and bear arms", but, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that that right to keep and bear arms is not without limits:

D.C. vs Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia majority opinion: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. 

Perhaps what we really need to be looking at is more along the lines of what actually constitutes 'arms'. There are all kinds of definitions, interpretations, and slants being offered by a variety of what I will call 'nuts' on both sides of that issue. After all, Justice Scalia used the words "dangerous and unusual weapons" in his majority opinion without going into specifics of what those "dangerous and unusual weapons" actually are. That kind of leaves the door open to interpretation as to what weapons actually meet those very generalized terms and conditions, does it not?

For the record, I personally believe assault style weapons, AR-15s specifically (and, yes, I DO know that AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle....not Assault Rifle), fall within those parameters. The gory details on why I feel that way are fodder for another blog post down the road as are some of the nuances left wide open by the vagaries in the language used by the Founders to write the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

Also for the record, just because the majority opinion in D.C. vs Heller specifies limitations on guns in a more general sense does not translate into a full on ban of said weapons. Limitations are limitations. What those limitations might look like is what is open to discussion and debate. Heck, even the National Firearms Act doesn't completely and totally ban fully automatic weapons. Those weapons are simply put into a category of weaponry that requires owners and/or purchasers to jump through some pretty significant hoops in order to purchase them and maintain ownership of same. This kind of begs the question, then, as to why at least some of those restrictions placed on fully automatic weaponry as outlined in the National Firearms Act aren't being considered for assault style semi-automatic weaponry, as well?

The AR-15 is generally considered to be a civilian version of the M16 military assault rifle. The only difference between the two that I could find is that the M16 has two firing modes - full automatic and semi automatic. The AR-15 has only the semi automatic firing mode. That being said, the fact bump stocks turn the AR-15 into a functional and virtually fully automatic weapon is just one more reason why limitations on this particular assault style weapon are, in my opinion, warranted and necessary.

Thank goodness bump stocks now fall under Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations as converting semi-automatic rifles into functioning machineguns: 

On December 18, 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger (Bump Stocks: Final Rule)

Observation 2....Gun Free Zones:

Maybe we should be looking at eliminating 'gun free zones'. After all, the NRA has had gun free zones in their metaphorical crosshairs forever, right? Well, kinda.

The National Rifle Association advocated for 'gun free zones' immediately following the massacre at Columbine. A little more context is necessary according to several fact checking organizations, but you can listen to his speech on Youtube and decide for yourselves whether more context is necessary or not:  Wayne LaPierre at an NRA Convention on May 1, 1999 in Colorado.

Context or not, it didn't take the NRA very long to morph their position into 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' mantra. The NRA, since Columbine, has consistently advocated for more guns in schools. More guns in schools would, by design, require that 'gun free zones' go bye-bye.

There's been a lot of talk in cyberspace about eliminating 'gun free zones' virtually across the board. President Trump advocated getting rid of 'gun free zones'. One of his campaign promises in the leadup to the 2016 Presidential election was to get rid of 'gun free zones' on day one if he were elected. That didn't happen, but the push to do so is still strong on the pro-gun advocacy side of the issue, and the likelihood that it will happen eventually shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. All it would require is the repeal of a certain law that established 'gun free zones' in the first place.

That being said, before we jump on the 'get rid of gun free zones' bandwagon, perhaps we should look at the original intent behind 'gun free zones' and the intent behind the Gun Free School Zones Act. This act is, in fact, a law....a Federal law. It has gone through several iterations, one of which was to revise it to make it 'constitutional'. It was originally passed in a bi-partisan effort to try and address the increasing risks associated with kids frequently bringing guns into a school environment.

But, and this is a very BIG but, I also believe this law has been misinterpreted and misused by many. In fact, my understanding of implementation of 'gun free zones' under this law is more along the lines of recourse for violations....violations perpetrated by kids bringing guns to school, or violations perpetrated by non-school staff and/or students by bringing guns into a specified area surrounding a school.

The law is also specific to schools. There is no mention it applies to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship.

I've looked pretty hard at the provisions of the Gun Free School Zones Act, and I cannot find anything at all that says a school must be in compliance with the law. I think it's almost universally assumed that the law requires compliance by schools. Perhaps that assumption is incorrect? If someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is. I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.

Carrying that thought one step further, and looking even deeper into the Gun Free School Zones Act, it's pretty clear there were no provisions included under the law for penalties that might be levied on schools choosing non-compliance with the law, itself....at least that I could find. There are quite a few provisions for penalties that apply to those who bring guns into a designated gun free zone, but penalties for non-compliance related to implementation by a school? None that I can find. Again, if someone else can find a provision for same, please show me where it is because I'd really like to get this cleared up somehow.

Why is that important? It's important because schools apparently are not absolutely required to implement this law, this 'gun free zone' law. The actual requirement, if one wishes to call it that, is a matter of funding according to the U.S. Department of Education.

In other words, if school districts wish to receive certain kinds of funding from the Department of Education, they must declare their schools as 'Gun Free Zones' under that law. The law, itself, apparently does not absolutely require schools' compliance with the law.

That then begs the question why....why the focus on eliminating 'gun free zones' entirely? Should that kind of mandate be codified into law? Should it originate at the Federal level? State level? Local level? Should it apply only to schools since that's what the original law did? Should it apply across the board to include public venues, churches, places of business, homes?

Confusing?

Well, things may be about to get even more confusing.

There are currently many states that already allow guns on their campuses. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states allow guns on K-12 campuses in some capacity as of March 8, 2019. 

Then why are so-called 'gun free zones' the big bugaboo so many pro-gun advocates make them out to be? Might it be that pro-gun advocates try to make 'gun free zones' into something they were never intended to be? The logic in that premise is actually pretty solid from where I sit.

For example, and to use the argument put forward by the more pro-gun side in this debate, guns are inanimate objects. Using that very same logic, though, signs are inanimate objects, as well. I hear it all the time from pro-gun advocates that a 'gun free zone' sign won't stop someone from committing mass murder. I agree simply from a perspective that inanimate objects are incapable of anything without human intervention of some sort. That being said, in the very next breath, those very same pro-gun advocates promote the idea that miscreants view a 'gun free zone' sign and consider it a magnet that draws them to a very soft target even though no definitive research has ever, not even once, proven this premise to have any validity whatsoever.

Carrying this logic even one step further, it might be safe to say virtually everyone has seen some version of the pro-gun argument that "guns don't kill people...people kill people" cliche'. That statement assumes the gun is an inanimate object, a 'tool' as some like to label it....and rightfully so. But, in the very next breath, those same folks blow up their own premise more often than not by trying to convince us that "guns save lives". Well, if guns don't kill people because they're inanimate objects, how can guns possibly 'save' people? They're inanimate, right? How can they suddenly be capable of an act to save someone if they're inanimate? A conundrum if ever there was one, and there are some who've had a really, really, really hard time wrapping their heads around that conundrum when confronted with it!

Bottom line? Does anyone realistically believe for one second that a sign imprinted with 'GUN FREE ZONE' was ever intended to physically 'stop' someone intent on doing harm to others? Pretty silly, right? Or, put another way, how is a 'GUN FREE ZONE' any different, really, than a stop sign as far as the intended purpose of said sign might be?

Both signs, Gun Free Zone signs and stop signs, are there to provide notice of consequences to violators for actions taken that violate the intent of the laws those signs were created under. Unfortunately, in so many instances of mass murder, the violator's penalty is a self-inflicted suicide along with what those having little emotional attachment often times call 'collateral damage'. In those instances, the suicide of the perpetrator(s) is the penalty or consequence of their actions while abdicating taking any responsibility for their actions and also preventing society from exacting any penalties or being able to impose any level of responsibility for the tragedy. And that, to me, may be a more subtle, nuanced reason behind pro-gun advocates desire to eliminate 'gun free zones'. Yes, they want to neutralize a mass shooter as quickly as possible to minimize fatalities and injuries. But might there also be a little bit of a vigilante mentality wending its way into the psyche of the hero who takes down the mass shooter? Just some food for thought.

But I digress......

If 'gun free zones' are legislatively eliminated, will it be from a Federal level? State level, perhaps? Will local jurisdictions and/or school districts have a say in whether or not they actually want these 'gun free zones' to go away? Serious question, folks.

If 'gun free zones' are, by law, eliminated no matter the level of government doing so, doesn't that also mean businesses, public venues, churches, and homeowners who'd like to keep those locations free of guns will be forced to allow guns on their premises....against their wishes? Talk about government over-reach!!!!!

Observation 3....Arming School Staff:

Perhaps it IS time to consider arming school staff.

Dr. Jerri Mc on Twitter

I know, I know.....pretty extreme and out in left field, right? Well, hang in there with me for a bit.

Actually, preliminary research would indicate that arming school staff is a mixed bag of pros and cons, advocates for and advocates against arming teachers.

Different perspectives:

• National School Safety and Security Services: School safety expert advises against arming teachers and school staff
  
• Education Week: Teachers in 42 States to Get Training on How to Shoot Guns from July 17, 2019.
• Public Broadcasting System: NRA backs Trump’s call for arming teachers: ‘Schools must be the most hardened targets’ from February 22, 2018.

Not a slam dunk on either side of the issue.

Is it a culture issue? There are those who say it is: In Europe, fewer mass killings due to culture not guns from December 18, 2012.

Where's this going? Can't we all just get along? Apparently not.

Some have even called for both open and concealed carry everywhere. Some states have gone so far as to enact laws to that effect. Are we reverting back to the Wild West? Do we even WANT to revert back to those days?

Oh, wait....according to some historians, the Old West wasn't as free of gun control as we'd like to think.

Because we appear to be so divided on these issues, I offer the following:

Maybe it's time for us to 'think outside the box', so to speak. Would it be viable to even consider the possibility of keeping 'gun free zones' while giving permission to school staff to carry on campus? Those permissions are already currently in effect for law enforcement in 'gun free zones'. Why not extend this 'exception' to school staff?

Okay, if we decide to go that route, now we need to ask ourselves how much training should teachers be required to go through in how to handle a gun and how to diffuse a potentially lethal situation.

We also need to ask ourselves whether a school district is willing to purchase and maintain adequate liability insurance, especially if one of their armed staff makes a mistake during an active shooter incident, or forgets to secure their weapon and a student gets a hold of it, or one of their staff  loses it (from March 1, 2018) and uses the weapon in an 'unlawful manner' on campus?

Maybe we need to ask school staff if they would be willing to undergo the rigorous training police officers must undergo to become police - this might could oughta work as long as school staff are also willing to keep up with professional development in this area.

Yeah, arming school staff could work. Doing so would also be very expensive. Doing so would also place just one more 'burden' on already overburdened school staff. Plus, who's going to foot the bill? Staff themselves? The school district? Parents? Taxpayers?

Are teachers going to be given 'hazardous duty pay'. I know if I were a teacher packing heat on the job, I would demand extra pay to do so!

No easy answers. Everything must be considered. Knee jerk reactions don't accomplish anything.

Isn't it time for a rational, national dialogue?

Isn't it time we all accept there are many possible alternatives/resources available to help resolve the issue of gun violence and school safety in this country?

For the record, I have never, I do not now, nor will I ever support arming school staff unless it is as a very last resort. There are just too many negative variables with doing so. That being said, I will never tell a school district or associated community they cannot arm school staff. Those local jurisdictions and school districts need to make that decision one way or the other for themselves based on their own unique circumstances and demographics, and also based on them doing so with eyes wide open after having done a viable hazards analysis and risk assessment as part of a Multi-hazard Planning Checklist for Schools effort.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Second Amendment Conundrum(s)...in the plural

Second Amendment Conundrum(s)...in the plural

There are times when I wonder what's the matter with some people?

Not too long after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, an OpEd was published accusing then President Obama and Francine Wheeler of reaching a new low, as he put it. The link provided here is to an excerpt from the original OpEd, and excludes the worst of it. And, for those who may not remember, Francine Wheeler's child was one of the murder victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Unfortunately for me, I saw the original OpEd. That's all I'm going to say about that. The author had this to say about Francine Wheeler, a still grieving parent whose child was murdered along with 19 other children and 6 adults: 

"You and the rest of your ilk are unfit as parents and unfit as citizens."

Compassion and empathy do not appear to be the author's strong suit. And, please remember, this is a much toned down version of what he originally said.

Here's another one for your viewing pleasure: Walking in the Shoes of Our Slain Children. This one is from February 18, 2013 and talks about Tom Mauser whose Son, Daniel, was murdered at Columbine High School in that massacre. Only this article is empathetic to Tom Mauser, not the opposite.

Two totally opposite perspectives on the debate over gun violence prevention and safety. 

Has anything really changed in the interim since the Sandy Hook massacre? For that matter, has anything really changed since the Columbine massacre? 

Has vitriolic rhetoric on both sides of the gun violence prevention issue changed? Better? Worse?

Who's right? Who's wrong? Why does there have to be a right or a wrong anyway?

Where am I going with all this? 

Basically I'm trying to make the point that some will say a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is trumped by a person's right to keep and bear arms, and others will say the exact opposite...that a person's right to keep and bear arms is trumped by a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The right to keep and bear arms is arguably (more on that later) guaranteed by the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, a document many of us consider to be a  sacrosanct document. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is contained in the Declaration of Independence, also a document many of us consider to be a sacrosanct document albeit with no legal standing. Are these two points mutually exclusive. To some, they are. To others, they are not. That is a conundrum that has been an ongoing argument/debate for a very long time. 

According to MerriamWebster, conundrum is defined as: "an intricate and difficult problem". Most all dictionary websites I researched said pretty much the same thing. Ergo, the Second Amendment, and any interpretation of same, is, by the very nature of the language used by our venerable Founding Fathers, confusing and a difficult problem. 

So, where, then, do we draw the line on our own interpretations?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Think about that. These are immortal words enshrined in our Bill of Rights as are nine other amendments. All are equally important. All are inter-dependent upon each other in some way, shape, or form. So, why does, or should, this one, single, amendment get so much more attention than the others? That, my friends, is another of the conundrums we must address.

So, what are some of the other conundrums of the Second Amendment? They are many. No other amendment in the Bill of Rights uses language quite like that of the Second Amendment. A search of the Internet titled "2nd Amendment Conundrum" resulted in hundreds of thousands of hits. Here are three I chose to help illustrate this posit:

A Constitutional Conundrum of Second Amendment Commas?
Commas? I mean, really? Is this what it might ultimately boil down to?

Is it a Fourth Amendment Exigent Circumstance to Keep a Legal Firearm in Your Home?
This one deals with 'no-knock entry'. We've seen repeated instances of no-knock raids in which innocent lives have been taken as a result of misinformation given to police by informants. We've also seen repeated instances of homes being raided by police and homeowners therein shot by those police while those homeowners, some of whom had guns, are trying to defend themselves.

The Commonplace Second Amendment?

This last one is particularly informative from a perspective of breaking the Second Amendment into its two components:

1. A "Justification Clause" or "Statement of Purpose"; and,
2. An "Operative Clause" or "Guarantee of a right to bear arms".

Pretty simple and straightforward, eh? Well, if that were the case, we wouldn't still be seeing interpretations of, and judicial rulings on, this Amendment even today. Nor would we be having this discussion/debate.

Nor would we continue to see the animosity, the vitriol, the downright hateful language some continue to use to defend their own interpretations of this Amendment. The "I'm right, and you're stupid" attitude on both sides of this issue is certainly alive and well in this day and age, that's for sure!

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Majority Opinion: DC vs Heller, even Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

There's a whole lot more to the Majority Opinion than this, so I recognize this could be interpreted as cherry picking. However, the fact this is even in there leads me to believe the debate over how far this ruling goes to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms is still very much an open ended ruling...hence the conundrum continues.

And then there are these arguments:

• "We must take the emotion out of the gun violence prevention debate."
• "New gun violence prevention legislation is a knee jerk reaction to a very complex problem."
• "We need to slow down so as to not pass gun violence prevention legislation that may have unintended consequences later on."

Once again, this list could go on forever. 

And then, there are the good old National Rifle Association conundrums to consider:

Wayne LaPierre, NRA

Let's arm everyone, shall we. That'll fix this problem, right? Teachers, administrators, maintenance staff, bus drivers. Shoppers in the mall. Movie theater goers. Workers in offices, factories, retail outlets. Churches. Courts. Public buildings. Day care centers. How about Congresspeople, themselves? Yep, that should do it! No checking your weapons at the edge of our towns. No Siree. We aren't Dodge City, Kansas or Tombstone, Arizona, so you can expect to see us packing heat anywhere and everywhere we go. Yes, Siree!

Let's arm those students, too, while we're at it. Why, if some of those kids at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and too many others to mention, had been armed, they'd have taken out those scumbags in a heartbeat, right? While this article is also one from 2013 and the study cited therein doesn't specifically zero in on schools, it did state:

Even more interesting is what the research didn’t find. “There was an expectation that we should surely find a protective value,” the study’s lead researcher Charles Branas, of the University of Pennsylvania, says. But having a gun, he says, “on average was found not to be protective in assaults.” This is the conclusion written in the study: “Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur, the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.”

 A few more NRA conundrums for your consideration:

 Hell, let's do away with all those pesky gun free zones while we're at it.

After all, they're just magnets for those wishing to do harm anyway, right?

Cold Dead Hands

Can't even bring myself to talk about this one - conjures images of Charlton Heston with musket overhead at the NRA National Convention in North Carolina one year after the Columbine massacre.

Background checks wouldn't have prevented what happened at Newtown.

This one is pretty much ongoing in that it's a common refrain after virtually every mass shooting. Thing is, though, required background checks are codified law. Problem is, background check codified law is inconsistently used/enforced. 

That being said, it's also critical for everyone to understand that a law, any law, is a code of conduct. Laws are, need I repeat it one more time, codes of conduct! That means that laws cannot prevent anything. They can help deter. They cannot prevent.

It's simply a statement of fact that little has been done in the gun violence prevention arena since well before the massacre at Columbine High School, my own bellwether mark for such things. That's not to say that nothing has been done. It has. It's just that not enough has been done to address the ongoing, and some would argue worsening, gun violence epidemic in our country.

So, where does all of this leave us? Well, a friend on Facebook (copied and pasted here with his permission) posted the following on his page:

Do it yourself gun control. 

OK, the professionals failed me. Congress was unable to pass even a watered down background check bill much less any real gun control laws. Even a class full of first graders getting slaughtered at school by a previously law abiding citizen using an arsenal bought by his gun nut mother for “self-protection” did not stimulate reason in congress. Greed wins again. I’m not really surprised, it is a fact of life in a consumer based society.  

So I’ll just do it myself. I’ll take actions over what I can control to make the world a safer place. This is what I have done since Newtown.

Stopped supporting the NRA 

Started supporting gun control and anti-violence groups with money and time. 

Sawed up and discarded all my high capacity magazines. 10 rounds is plenty. 

Stopped using Enterprise Rental Cars because they offer discounts to NRA members.  

Purchased “rubber bullets” (known as less than lethal ammo) for my home defense shotgun. If I do have to shoot someone, I prefer not to kill them.  

Permanently disabled all my curio and relic guns (stuff my grandfather gave me). If stolen from me they can do no harm. 

Bought a better safe for storage of my few remaining guns. 

Disposed of excess ammo. 

Vowed to buy no new guns. I can get by with what I have. Firearms proliferation must end. 

Organized a community project with at risk youth. (We painted up an old abandoned house, I used the time to talk to them about tolerance and peace and what to do if you find a gun.) 

Started doing Yoga. I am the worst Yoga student ever, but my teacher is patient and kind. Yoga teaches peace and tolerance. We could all use some of that.  

Dumped friends that say “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” and/or other moronic phrases. (Yep, that’s why I have not called you back to answer why you were blocked on my Facebook page) 

Became a single issue voter. If you don’t support gun control you don’t get my vote. Period. 

I know this won’t change the world or cure all violence. But it is a start. Please do your part. Don’t wait for greed to die. Don’t wait for more children to die. Do it now.  

Thank You
Gary Denton

If our elected government officials, if our Supreme Court Justices, if our state legislatures, and anyone else cannot actually once and for all solve the Second Amendment conundrums we keep on seeing, perhaps it is, in fact, time for all of us to take matters into our own hands as Gary has done - to empower ourselves.

Perhaps it is also time for us to recognize and accept the fact we are ultimately the ones who are most responsible for the safety of ourselves, our families, our friends, our communities. I guess what that might ultimately look like will be couched in each individual's perception of whether a right to keep and bear arms or a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness takes the highest priority.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

How Do You Think We Can Prevent More Incidents Like 'Columbine'?

An age old question I've been asked more times than I care to remember:  

How do you think we can prevent more incidents like 'Columbine'? 

To be brutally honest, I don't think we can. The key word in that question is "prevent".

Here's the thing....even before that fateful day, April 20, 1999, these kinds of incidents happened.

Mental illness,

Easy access to weapons used,

Mostly committed by young males,

"Bullying",

And the list goes on....

Sound familiar? It should because it's a common refrain especially following mass school shootings.

Because mass school shootings in particular were, at one time, few and pretty far between, you'd think that we'd learn how to effectively address them. I mean, we had plenty of time in between, right? RIGHT? I mean, there were final reports voluminous with findings and recommendations that were there for the asking. All that was necessary was for someone in a position of authority to decide to read those reports and then implement recommendations applicable to their own situations, right? 

But I digress...

Time was whenever I wrote about these kind of incidents, I'd try to approach things from a 'calm down' perspective. They don't happen that often. In fact, the reality was the likelihood something like that could or would happen was small...actually very small, rare even.  

That isn't applicable any longer.

I repeat: That...isn't...applicable...any...longer!!!

'Calm down' doesn't cut it anymore. There are several reasons for that not the least of which is because things seem to 'calm down' faster today than they did following Columbine....WAY too fast, in fact.

Want proof?

Ok, how long do mass school shootings stay in the headlines anymore? One news cycle? Two? How long? Think about that. Take all the time you need.

Following Columbine, there simply was no rest for the weary. The spotlight was on Littleton almost non-stop for days, weeks, months, and even years. In fact, Columbine is still referenced as kind of a bellwether baseline/comparison incident for other school mass shootings. How many events since then have commanded that kind of coverage? All of them? Some of them? C'mon....I dare you to try and name even ten mass school shooting incidents and to recall where they occurred in the years after Columbine. Granted, a few come to mind, but far too many do not.

How about the number of fatalities? Number of injured? Names of fatalities? Names of injured?

Names of shooters? Sorry....that one's a 'gotcha'. Too many folks remember the names of the shooters, but can't remember the names of those murdered and injured. 

Can you do it from memory?

Do you need to do a Google search?

Truth is, I'd be willing to wager we've forgotten more mass school shootings than we can actually remember.

Full disclosure....I'm in this group. Yup! Even though Columbine directly affected my own family, I can't begin to list every single mass school shooting incident since then without doing a Google search. Nor can I list all those killed or injured. Heck, I can't even list the names of many of the shooters, not that I would anyway.

I know this won't sit well with some folks, but I gotta ask if it's really necessary that we commit to our memories the names of every mass school shooting, the names of every person killed in mass school shootings, the names of every person injured in mass school shootings?

Is...it...really...necessary...?

I mean no disrespect. Truly I do not. I just know there are too many shootings, too many killed, and too many injured to be able to remember them all with total recall. We can memorialize them all and recognize them all on their tragiversaries. To me, that should be enough. 

These days, when the Columbine tragiversary comes around, the names of those murdered are remembered. That's as it should be. The names of those injured are rarely listed any longer. The number is provided, but the names usually aren't. So, it should surprise no one when I say there are many who don't recognize my name when I converse with them unless I reveal my personal experience with Columbine. That doesn't bother me because I don't put who I am or my personal experience out there unless I feel during the course of a discussion that it's necessary to do so. That's a rare occurrence these days because I'd rather discuss what can be done to enhance school safety and to address the ongoing and ever increasing uptick in mass shootings in general in this country. My personal experiences related to the Columbine massacre are irrelevant to those discussions. In fact, I wrote about 'Single Incident Experts' in a blog post just last month. I'd rather people accept me for my knowledge of, and experience in, emergency management.

But I digress....

As of July 6, 2021 there have been 339 mass shooting incidents according to the Gun Violence Archive. Kinda sobering, isn't it? Sorry, rhetorical question.

Granted, these are aggregate totals of every mass shooting including mass school shootings. But the numbers are simply staggering! At least they are to me.

Bottom line is that since that day, April 20, 1999, these type of incidents have been happening more and more frequently. That fact, in and of itself, that these events are happening more frequently, should tell us we simply cannot prevent them from happening. We should be able to reduce their frequency of occurrence, but stop them entirely? If we haven't done that so far, it's highly unlikely we'll be able to totally prevent their occurrence any time soon.

There simply is no panacea....something that will magically 'prevent' them from happening again.

We might be able to do some things to help prevent them, to perhaps reduce the likelihood of their occurrence, but 100% guarantee they will be prevented? That is simply an impossibility. And that is a sad and stark reality. 

Cynical? You bet! 

I'm frustrated. 

I'm angry. 

Frankly, I'm exhausted. 

And that's why I'm cynical. 

And then there's former President Donald Trump, or, as I refer to him 'the Former Guy (TFG)'.

What?

What's that you ask?

What does he have to do with any of this?

Patience, Grasshopper....patience and I will explain it to you.

During the Presidential campaign of 2016, one of the things that struck me about TFG was his willingness to buy into the rhetoric of the NRA regarding gun free zones. The link provided is on Facebook and is actual video footage of him saying the following:

First day in Office.....gone! Gun free zones....gone! First...day...in...office!

Not too long after, a site I follow called The Trace said Trump Vowed to Eliminate Gun-Free Zones on His First Day. It’s Not Nearly That Easy.

Truth is, it isn't that easy, and this organization spells it out in pretty good detail.

There is one detail they left out, though: The fact....yes, the fact....that gun free zones were never intended to be physical barriers to someone carrying a gun within the zone's boundaries. And that....that right there....is where I take issue with TFG and his vow to do away with gun free zones.

Gun free zones are not the bogeyman when it comes to mass shooting prevention.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: When someone tells me that guns don't kill people, I immediately go to the very same argument to illustrate why a gun free zone sign is not intended to physically stop anyone from bringing a gun into the zone, itself, and I really shouldn't have to explain this to anyone, but I do....more often than anyone might realize.

Guns and signs are both inanimate objects. Yes, indeed, they are.

The difference between a gun and a sign, however, lies in their intended use. A gun is designed and intended for one use and one use only....to kill something or someone, possible injuries to same notwithstanding.

A sign, on the other hand, is designed and intended to let people know there will be consequences for their actions.

No shirt, no shoes, no service....ring a bell? 

A business that puts up a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign is merely letting people know there will be consequences for violating that store policy....that they will not get served.

The very same thing applies with gun free zones signs.

Any level of discomfort patrons of a business might feel seeing someone violate a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign should give us all pause to think about the level of discomfort we would feel if we were to see someone entering a school, which is a learning environment....not a wild west shootout tableau, with a holstered gun or, for that matter, an assault style weapon slung over their shoulder. If gun free zones are eliminated, this scenario won't be out of the realm of possibility by any stretch of the imagination.

As it stands now, there are supposed to be consequences, and rightfully so, for carrying a gun, without express permission to do so, in a gun free zone. 

Oh, yes....yes, indeed. Gun free zones are not actually gun free. Law enforcement personnel are allowed to carry in gun free zones. In fact, average folks like you and me can carry in a gun free zone....as long as we have permission from proper authorities to do so.

So why the kerfuffle about gun free zones? Why did TFG say he would do away with them his first day in office? I believe it's because he, along with so many others, aren't willing to do the work necessary to help make gun free zones as effective a deterrent as they could be.

And that....that right there....could be one of the most relevant and prescient means by which we prevent more incidents like Columbine.

Where there is a will, there is also invariably a way. Gun free zones are only a part of the way, but they are an integral, necessary part of that way.

But I digress....

So, what can we do to help prevent more events like Columbine?

There's already a whole lot of stuff that's been done and that is being done even as we speak. 

I've even compiled a fairly comprehensive list of School Safety Resources anyone can access that has a bunch of info on how to help address the issue of school safety and active shooter incidents (along with a whole lot of other stuff, too).

Bottom line, though, is there must be a "will" to do something. All the resources in the world, all the expertise in the world means nothing....nothing at all....if we keep on buying into the apathy and opposition to doing anything at all to address the issue before it manifests.

A long time ago in what now seems like another lifetime for me, a group of students in some adult education training classes I was instructing in gave me a plaque at the end of the seminar that said:

When all is said and done, more will be said than done.

That one stuck with me over the years, especially since Columbine, simply because more HAS been said than HAS been done when it comes to actually using what is available to help prevent these mass shooting massacres from recurring.

Cynical? You bet!

A realistic assessment? I dare anyone to explain to me how it isn't!

My two cents....

* Comments on this blog are moderated.