Don't Make It Too Easy....

 

Given the recent shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, in which an 8 year old boy was critically injured and paralyzed from the waist down,

Six weeks after getting shot at a Fourth of July parade, an 8-year-old left paralyzed feels 'hopeless' and angry as new reality sets in

I thought it prudent to share just a tidbit of what my own family went through after Anne Marie, my daughter, was shot and also paralyzed from the waist down as a result of the Columbine massacre. I won't dwell on what she, and the members of her family went through as she went through a very long and very painful rehab at Swedish Medical Center and Craig Hospital except to say she was admitted to Swedish Medical Center on April 20, 1999, the day of the massacre, and was discharged into my care on August 15, 1999. You, the reader, can do the math on that length of time in order to better comprehend how difficult that rehab was and what we ALL went through to help her survive. During that time, my first wife, Carla, and I virtually lived with her in each of these two hospitals. It wasn't easy, but we did it....for Anne Marie. To this day, Anne Marie still does not know the full extent of what was done for her and our family to accommodate her and her disability. But that's fodder for another blog post another time.

All that being said, when it came to everything that followed the massacre, one thing sticks in my mind: The experts virtually ALL said, "Don't make it too easy." They were, of course, referring to Anne Marie and her effort to live what can only be described as an altered lifestyle given her paralysis, her healing from the gunshot wounds notwithstanding.

The first thing that came to my mind upon being told not to make it too easy for Anne Marie was how could anyone in their right mind even suggest to me not to make things too easy for her? I couldn't believe it. After all she'd been through, now I've got experts telling me not to make things too easy for her? She's in a wheelchair, for Christ's sake! She's been shot, dammit! It's a miracle she's even here, for crying out loud! Don't make it too easy for her!? What are you people thinking!? 

That was my initial reaction to being given this advice. It wasn't easy to have someone suggest to you not to make it too easy for your own child, especially given the circumstances of her being shot and critically injured at Columbine High School April 20, 1999.

But I had to listen; I had to take their advice seriously - not because of who they were as experts in their fields. Rather, I had to listen because they, themselves, often times had experienced traumas of their own; because they, themselves, were in wheelchairs because of paralysis, because of traumatic brain injury, because of Multiple Sclerosis, because of Muscular Dystrophy.

Anne Marie's injuries were serious, critical in fact. There can be no doubt about that. As her Father, I took that so much to heart, sometimes it was almost unbearable. It would, in fact, sometimes even cloud my thinking, hinder me from being as rational as I could be, or should be, about these things. But looking to these experts for help who had a ton more experience than I did with these types of medical conditions, who actually were experiencing their own life challenges as a direct result, gave me more than enough reason to heed their advice as much as possible, to finally be able to accept that Anne Marie can do this! Yes, she can, and so can we. So can I.

One such individual, a certified subject matter expert, came to our new house that would be renovated and modified to accommodate Anne Marie's disability. He was an expert in his field, that's for sure. His wheelchair was motorized because his paralysis also affected his upper body. At least Anne Marie's was below the waist, and she still had full use of her upper torso and arms. 

Anne Marie was still an in-patient at Craig Hospital when this gentleman, along with some therapists from Craig Hospital, and I met at the new house. I noted he was driving a specially equipped van with a lift. It was a mid-size van, no driver seat (his wheelchair became his seat when in the correct position), and the lift came out the sliding side door. I took note.

With some extra maneuvering, we were able to help him inside the house. The house didn't yet have a ramp for access through the front door, so we had to get him up two steps into the house. It wasn’t easy.

I don't know if my trepidation showed, or not (we hadn't yet gone through the extensive training at Craig Hospital that we would need to go through on what would be required of us, Anne Marie's family members, to accommodate her disability). He didn't indicate he was aware of my trepidation one way or the other.

Once inside, his recommendations came at us fast and furious:

• Open up the two guest bedrooms on the main level into one bigger bedroom (that would mean Nathan's bedroom had to go into the lower walk-out level - one would need to be added because the only area that was already finished was a rec room - the rest of the lower level was storage and was huge, so adding a good size bedroom for him shouldn't be too much of a problem, right?
• Open up the wall from the main bath into Anne Marie's bedroom (that would mean Nathan would have to use the bathroom in the lower level - luckily it had a shower, but was very tiny);
• Open the cabinet underneath the sink in order to accommodate her legs while in the wheelchair (note to self - must ensure the "hot" water tap line wouldn't pose a risk to her when her legs were under the sink - remember, she had no feeling in her legs);
• Cover the opening with a cloth drape;
• The shower must have a curtain, no glass doors;
• A flexible hand-held shower head would be best;
• Don't get rid of the tub (make her work to transfer from her chair into the tub);
• A shower seat would be good, but not absolutely necessary in this case because there is a ledge at the foot of the tub that she can sit on;
• Do not widen doorways - The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specified doorways to fit the normal width of a wheelchair's base of 28". Most doorways are already 28" wide or wider. Leave the doorways as they are (make her work to get through them);
• Don't even begin to worry about scratches to the woodwork - rather, expect them;
• Carpeting is okay, hardwood floors are better (sometimes carpeting can be a problem for turning of a wheelchair if the pile is too thick. But it isn't something that should be a special consideration);
• Are your washer and dryer top loading? If so, get rid of them and get front loading;
• Furniture placement should consider spaces in between pieces wide enough to allow her wheelchair to pass between unimpeded;
• Leave the kitchen as is (make her work to use it).
• Don't lower any of the appliances or counter tops. She can turn sideways in her chair to be able to access the sink, faucet, and stove-top. A stove with controls on the front is a must; can't have her reaching across a stove-top to access anything just in case a burner might be on. A microwave oven should be face level in order for her to reach into it. Over the counter cupboards should contain only those things she won't need to access much, if at all. Everything else should be placed in the lower cabinets. The refrigerator/freezer should be a side-by-side with most of the things she needs placed on the lower and middle shelves;
• A stair glide into the lower level would be good, even if it takes up most of the stairwell (which it did);
• Carpeting in the lower level should have a very short pile;
• A ramp meeting ADA specifications would be a good thing if she plans to use the front door. If she plans to go into the house from the garage (if she starts to drive), a lift from garage floor level to main floor level will be necessary.

These are just a few of his recommendations. There were many others. Most of them were incorporated as part of the renovation. Some of them were incorporated later at my own personal expense. 

Driving instructors recommended a vehicle with hand controls, of course. They had us watch several individuals with similar paralysis to Anne Marie's where they would transfer into a car, reach out and remove one wheel from their chair, toss it over their back into the back seat, turn the chair and remove the second wheel, toss it over their back into the back seat, and recline as far back as they could to pass the seat of the chair over their chest into the passenger side seat. The instructors also indicated vehicles could be specially equipped to elevate the chair into a container on top of the car, or a van with lift would also work well. Their recommendation was, once again, to not make it too easy for her. Their suggestion was to get a smallish vehicle fairly low to the ground and have Anne Marie take it apart as in the first example. That would also require that the chair, itself, be made from materials light enough for her to be able to handle.

After several fits and starts, the vehicle she ended up with a specially equipped Ford F-250. More on how this became her vehicle of choice another time.

There are so many things to consider, and the things I'm sharing in this blog post are just a snapshot of the big picture. Throughout the entire process, I still had a lot of trouble with the possibility anything at all might be too hard for her. I wanted to make her life as comfortable as possible.

Something extremely important needs to be mentioned here, and I'll talk about it in later posts, as well:

While Carla and I purchased this house with equity from the sale of our older home when we realized that older home would not, in any way, shape, or form, accommodate Anne Marie's disability, virtually all the interior modifications made to the new house to accommodate Anne Marie were donated by organizations and individuals who wanted nothing in return, who actually, in some instances, even refused any offers of compensation for their charity. I can't even begin to express in words the gratitude I felt for their goodwill and caring. But it was, still is, and always will be deep and heartfelt. It is a debt I will never be able to fully repay.

There was not only gratitude, but relief, as well. For a long time, I worried about how much of an impact the cost of everything would have on the Trust I'd set up for Anne Marie. We didn't have GoFundMe back then, so these donations, along with monetary donations into that trust I'd set up for Anne Marie's long-term supplemental needs were crucial to us being able  to survive. Now I could rest a little easier knowing the impact would be much lower than expected. I also knew that most people in similar situations to hers didn't have the kinds of resources, both financial and community, coming to their aid that Anne Marie and her family did. 

I can only hope that Cooper and his family will have the sort of resources available to them that we had in our situation.

My two cents.....

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Active Shooter Lockdown Drills on Steroids

 

Active Shooter Lockdown Drills on Steroids

In March, 2018 East High School in Anchorage, Alaska put an active shooter lockdown drill they were conducting on steroids. 

They did this by having the school resource officer of East High walk the halls of the school while firing blanks to make the active shooter lockdown drill seem more realistic:  East High active shooter drill simulates real gunfire

They also did this to try and give students and staff a way to help discern the difference between actual live gunfire and firecrackers going off.

More than a few mass shooting survivors have opined they thought firecrackers were going off before they actually became aware something was drastically wrong. 

So, from that perspective simulating live gunfire with blanks during an active shooter lockdown drill seems like a reasonable thing to do, right?

Not necessarily – especially if one listens to those advocating against lockdown drills of any kind, and they are many. 

Meredith Corley, who taught math in Colorado in the aftermath of Columbine, says: “It (lockdown drill) re-traumatizes kids who have experienced violence. Getting the kids settled back into the work of learning after lockdown drills is a nightmare. That mind-set has no place in a learning environment.” (Taken from What Are Active-Shooter Drills Doing to Kids?).

Since the massacre at Columbine, lockdown drills have become a sort of gold standard without any 'real' standards when it comes to preparing staff and students for an active shooter in their school.

Most lockdown drills do not include simulated live gunfire, though. 

Was the East High lockdown drill over the top? 

Was it too realistic? 

Did it harm students rather than help them? 

Are active shooter lockdown drills even necessary? 

What we appear to be faced with is a ‘damned if you don’t – damned if you do’ conundrum: 

• If we don’t at least try to prepare for an active shooter, our kids won’t be safe, but
• If we do try to prepare for an active shooter, our kids might suffer psychologically.

What to do? What to do?

As Will Smith once said: 

Danger is real. 

Fear is a choice.

Do not misunderstand me. The fear that lockdown drills may be causing psychological harm may be real. Right now, though, that fear is still a choice especially if it paralyzes to the point of inaction of any kind.

My two cents....

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Oh, Those Pesky Gun Free Zones....

 

Oh, Those Pesky Gun Free Zones

Well, the NRA is back at it again advocating eliminating gun free zones. They're doing it from a kind of weird perspective using citations from discredited anti-gun control advocate, Dr. John Lott. Thank goodness, Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois was around to counter the NRA idiocy:

Thank you, Governor Pritzker!!!

To me, it's comical and tragic at the same time that the NRA continues going down this road along with so many others, of course, that are so easily countered. But, hey, it's the NRA after all.

So, given the fact gun free zones still appear to be a major issue in the country, I thought I'd take a segment on gun free zones that I wrote about in another blog post awhile back, On Gun 'Control', 'Gun Free Zones', and Arming School Staff (Amended)..., and make it its own post. That's what follows.

On 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 High School. A little more context is necessary according to several fact checking organizations, but you can listen to Mr. LaPierre's 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 the Columbine massacre, 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 certain law is the Gun Free School Zones Act. This act is, in fact, a law....a Federal law. There is no gun free zone law or laws other than this one on the Federal level that I am aware of. So, what was this law's original intent? The Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) 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. Both these scenarios require the perpetrator to GET CAUGHT bringing guns into a specified area surrounding a school in order for the 'gun free zone' to be effective. Please note, I said "get caught". I did not say 'prevent'. There's a BIG difference in those two scenarios!

The law is also specific to schools. There is no mention it applies to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship. Again, there is no law or laws I'm aware of at the Federal level that apply to businesses, public venues, homes, or places of worship. My understanding is all these places have the option of posting gun free zone signs if they so choose.....at least for now. More on that later.

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. So, if they're not actually required of schools anywhere, why the push by NRA, etal, to get rid of them as if they are required? That might just be a rhetorical question, eh? But I digress....

If I'm reading the law correctly, 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. That's it. That's the extent of the law as far as I can tell. The law, itself, apparently does not absolutely require all schools nationally to be a 'gun free zone' in order to comply with the law just because it is the law or just because a school is a school. Compliance with the Federal law is tied to funding. Weird, huh? Individual states are a whole different story, but we're talking about the Federal law in this blog post, and that's where my focus will stay.

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, many 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!!!!!

My two cents! 

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Stop Saying Lives are ‘Lost’ to Gun Violence!

 

Stop Saying Lives are ‘Lost’ to Gun Violence!

Here of late, I've been seeing more and more people use the term 'lost' to describe those taken from us as a result of gun violence. In the most recent mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, it became doubly tragic when it became known a 2 year old was discovered wandering alone in the area. Both his parents had been killed. I have yet to see those describing this 2 year old's plight as anything but 'he lost his parents'. That's just wrong! He didn't lose his parents. They were taken from him. They were killed. They were murdered.

Folks, we need to change the mindset. 

Ditch the habit.

People murdered with a gun do not ‘lose’ their lives. Their loved ones don't 'lose' them.

I know, I know – the dictionary defines 'lose' as “to suffer loss through the death of a person”. 

Whose ‘loss’ would that be, though? 

Yours?

Mine?

How about the person who died?

In gun violence vernacular, the word is ‘murdered’.

The very definition of murder (FBI) makes me cringe. It should make EVERYONE cringe because it's f**king CRINGEWORTHY!!! 

Murder involves a ‘taking’. It involves someone’s life being ripped away in a most violent and unforgiving manner. 

There is no sugarcoating that fact.

Old habits die hard. Eliminating clichés from our lexicon of word usage is harder.

I catch myself thinking ‘lives are lost’ more often than I care to admit upon learning of a mass shooting. But I catch and correct myself because that terminology no longer emotionally reflects how I view mass shootings. 

It didn’t used to be that way. 

Mass shootings used to cause me a lot of anxiety, sadness, and serious depression. Now, mass shootings make me angry…very angry. 

‘Lives are lost’ just does not adequately convey that anger any longer as death tolls from mass shootings are made public. In fact, hearing those words to describe fatalities in mass shootings is offensive to me now…seriously offensive. 

So, when I hear anyone (friends, family, media) say ‘lives were lost’ in a mass shooting, that’s a trigger for me (no pun intended). It’s especially so when comparisons to other mass shootings are inevitably made.

It only adds to the problem when pundits and politicians invariably offer some of those very effective (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek) thoughts and prayers to accompany the ‘lives are lost’ mantra. 

No action, but thoughts and prayers should do the trick, eh?

But I digress.

In today’s adversarial gun violence/control/reform debate, using ‘lives are lost’ to describe murder is a cop-out plain and simple.

It isn’t sympathetic.

It isn’t empathetic.

It’s disingenuous. 

It’s disrespectful. 

It’s just as bad as someone offering those well intentioned but thoroughly ineffective thoughts and prayers mentioned previously. 

Someone was killed. 

Someone was murdered. 

Their friends, their families, their loved ones were traumatized.

It is sudden. 

It is violent. 

It is, above all else, fatal.

It doesn’t get any worse than that.

Is it really that difficult to understand that ‘lives are lost’ terminology to describe murders in a mass shooting of any kind – school, movie theater, church, university, home, music venue, and most recently a 4th of July Independence Day parade – can be, and arguably should be, viewed as inappropriate? 

I see the words ‘lives were lost’ used by those keeping track of gun violence statistics.

I see the words ‘lives were lost’ used by relatives.

I see the words ‘lives were lost’ used by friends I’ve never even met on social media. 

I’ve started calling all of them out on this. Some don’t like me doing that. Others have been very accepting. 

I won’t stop.

Until ‘lives were lost’ is no longer used to describe those murdered every time there’s a horrific mass shooting, we’re fighting a losing battle to end gun violence. 

We actually need to get, and stay, angry about use of that label.

Then we need to turn that anger into positive action.

Some are already doing so. More need to be.

Perhaps it’s time to start advocating eliminating the words ‘lives were lost’ from our descriptions of mass shooting victims, and consistently and persistently say what it is – PEOPLE WERE MURDERED!

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Wagon Train Advocacy

 

Wagon Train Advocacy

Wagon train advocacy…what the heck is that?

Bear with me.

At a social gathering at my sister’s residence a few months out from the massacre at Columbine, one of her friends remarked if they heard one more word about Columbine they’d puke! 

We were all talking about Columbine at the time. 

The silence following that remark was deafening.

I wanted to use some pretty ‘choice’ words in response, but being the nice, kind, polite kind of guy I am (you’re just going to have to take my word for it), I restrained myself.

I said nothing. My glare pretty much conveyed what I was thinking though.

Given the devastation that the Columbine massacre had inflicted on my family, the repugnance of that person’s remark was not lost on any of us.

Needless to say I’ve had no contact with this person for many years. It’s likely that will never change.

So, where am I going with this?

In the months following the Columbine massacre media coverage was constant. So were the solicitations of advocacy groups that seemingly popped up out of nowhere. 

Those groups came at us from every direction imaginable.

Some of these advocacy groups took advantage of the ‘notoriety’ of this incident. Media coverage did not help.

Most of these groups were legitimate. A few were not.

Most of these groups had noble aspirations. Some did not. In fact, some of these groups’ solicitations were pervasive.

After awhile, the sheer number of advocacy groups got to be more than a bit overwhelming for some folks…like the person I mentioned earlier, for example.

Some folks simply had had enough. 

Given what’s going on in this day and age, I gotta ask has anything really changed since Columbine. 

There’s been a significant up tick in the number of mass shootings. 

Has anyone tallied the number of advocacy groups that correspond to each of those mass shootings? 

Can’t answer? Neither can I.  

From the February 15, 2018 issue of Westword: 

“The Parkland incident was at least the 208th school shooting to take place in Columbine's wake.”

So, we can answer how many school shootings there were between Columbine and Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD). But we can’t definitively answer how many advocacy groups formed in that same timeframe?

A few of the advocacy groups that sprang up following the MSD massacre:

• Fred Guttenberg’s Orange Ribbons for Jaime. His daughter, Jaime, was murdered.
• Andrew Pollack’s Americans for Children's Lives and School Safety (C.L.A.S.S). His daughter, Meadow, was murdered.
• March For Our Lives.
• Stand With Parkland.
• Families vs Assault Rifles (they do not have a website - the link provided is to their Facebook page. They also have an Instagram account by the same name).

Those are only a few that I could find….for one massacre…only one.

Following mass shooting incidents that gain national notoriety on some level, new groups form trying to raise funds to advocate for their cause. That's a statement of fact.

Many of those groups couch their fundraising efforts in trying to make a difference in gun violence prevention and/or school safety. That’s a statement of fact, as well.

Many of those groups view their own efforts as ground-breaking. They’re not. In fact, they’re not the first to go down that road. Sadly, they won’t be the last.

That is not meant to disparage. Nor is it meant to discourage.

It is, however, a mistake on their part to try and go it alone in my humble opinion.

Many have no clue how difficult their mission(s) will be.

According to the executive director of Families vs. Assault Rifles, Matt Gohd, in an article from the Miami Herald :

“None of us had a grasp of how difficult this would be,” Gohd said. “We needed more resources, more people.”

According to the article, Families vs. Assault Rifles is “regrouping”.

That’s really too bad, but it isn’t the end of the world for them.

I've been saying for decades now post-Columbine that gun violence prevention and school safety advocacy groups need to stop going it alone following these massacres and band together. 

Think of it like a wagon train wending its way through hostile territory and dangerous environments. Survival of the community of wagon train members relied on their support for each other. After all, there’s strength in numbers.

Wouldn’t that same principle apply if gun violence prevention and school safety advocates were to wagon train together and use it to their advantage? 

Wagon trains – strength in numbers – stronger advocacy – it could work.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

God, Guns, Guts, Glory: Part 1....."GOD"

God, Guns, Guts, Glory: Part 1....."GOD"

Gotta wonder how some people think sometimes.

When discussions on the issues of religion, gun violence, gun safety, gun rights, war, peace, the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, movies on snipers, patriotism, arming teachers, eliminating gun free zones, concealed and open carry, and so many more go in the direction of God, Guns, Guts, Glory, and one sits back and really takes stock of that very short, very concise, very glib statement, how should it make one feel?

God, Guns, Guts, Glory....How does that statement make YOU feel?

Comfy? Cozy? Safe, perhaps?

My question to you if you feel any of these is why? I mean, really look inside yourself to answer that question. Why? 

Why does God, Guns, Guts, Glory make you feel comfy? 

Why does God, Guns, Guts, Glory make you feel cozy? 

Why does God, Guns, Guts, Glory make you feel safe?

Conversely, does God, Guns, Guts, Glory make you feel uncomfortable?

Does God, Guns, Guts, Glory make you feel squeamish? 

Does God, Guns, Guts, Glory make you feel a little less safe, perhaps?

Would God, Guns, Guts, Glory make you feel uncomfortable, squeamish, or perhaps a little less safe....even a little bit....especially if it could be proven to you there are people who buy into this concept, the concept of God, Guns, Guts, Glory? Perhaps hundreds of them? Perhaps hundreds of thousands of them?

Truth be told, the numbers are more likely in the millions of people buying into the concept of God, Guns, Guts, Glory.

That so many buy into the concept of God, Guns, Guts, Glory makes me feel a little uncomfortable, feel a little squeamish, feel a little less safe. How does it make YOU feel?

There is actually a website called God, Guns, Guts, Glory. There are also multiple Facebook pages by the same name. Some leave guts out - others do not.

Twitter? Yep.

Pinterest? Oh, yeah.

Online stores? No problem.

An example of the image you can have put on a t-shirt, coffee cup, fridge magnet, or anything else you might be able to think of:

Good thing there wasn't an image of Guts included - that could get kind of gross, eh?

Yep. They're all there. Except the only God in this entire menagerie appears to be the Christian God. No God of anyone else - just the Christian God.

So, let's start with GOD - Christian GOD!

Damn, but there are a lot of people that seem to have this perception that Christian God is a man - a white man - a white man with a beard - a white man with a beard who seems to love and hate all at the same time.

This deity has, according to the Bible, been kind of a genocidal maniac at times. I mean, he's ordered men here on Earth to kill thousands, to spare no one, not even the women and children. Is that why some people of the Christian persuasion today don't seem to have a problem with killing others in Christian God's name?

And yet, to hear tell, like in Sunday School, church services, Bible School and the like, this deity is kind, benevolent, and will save us if we only follow him (or could it be her?).

Don't you dare follow any other God, though, or there'll be HELL to pay!

Well, DAMN, but that just kind of rankles now, doesn't it? If it doesn't, it probably should. After all, envy just happens to be one the seven deadly sins. Christian God isn't envious, now is he? If it's good for us, shouldn't Christian God also follow his/her own rules? I mean, c'mon!

But, how many Gods are there? I mean, really? How...many...Gods...are...there?

How can we follow only one God when there are so many Gods to choose from?

I've been told there is only one God - the Christian God. If that's true, then why do so many people in so many places, of so many ethnicities, of  so many cultures, of so many denominations, of so many sects worship Gods other than the Christian God? Think about that.

For those Christians following this blog, in my last post Religion - Uses and Abuses, I provided research data on somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 different denominations within the Christian faith alone. Adding to that confusion by pointing out that Allah, Yahweh, and Christian God are all the same God, the God of Abraham, and what we have here is a failure to communicate - between and amongst faiths, denominations, and sects.

Could it be? Could it possibly be that the problems we see today regarding religious extremism are part and parcel of that failure to communicate? Not only between faiths, but also denominations and sects within those faiths?

Take Christianity. It's already been noted there are somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 Christian denominations. 

But, what about Islam?

Muslims apparently don't go by the word denomination. Rather, they go by the term 'sects'. Seems there are only five Islamic sects according to World Atlas. Seems a little odd, doesn't it? Sorry....rhetorical.

So, Christianity: up to 40,000 denominations. Islam: five sects.

Now let's see how those of the Jewish faith compare. Doggone it! They don't have denominations either. Sects, yes. Denominations, no. And only five sects at that.

What's wrong with that picture? Nothing, when you come right down to it. Numbers mean nothing in the final analysis. What matters is ideology and rigid dogma. Why? Well, in the end, it is people, not Christian God, not Allah, not Yahweh that actually write and then interpret religious documents. Could it be the people who do that, the men and women who wrote/write and then interpret religious documents are the problem? After all, they are only human.

And therein lies the dangers associated with extremist groups within every religion of the world.

My two cents.....

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

Religion - Uses and Abuses

While this blog post doesn't specifically address the issue of Roe v Wade and abortion rights, indirectly the things I'm offering herein do. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to overturn Roe v Wade, I'm hoping what is being presented  will bring a little bit of perspective as to why so many folks appear to be focusing in on how religion and religious beliefs appear to be guiding at least some of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in their decision-making process. 

Some people say everyone needs religion. Others say not so much. When does it become problematic one way or the other? I believe it becomes very problematic when someone tries to force-feed their version of religion onto others.

I read somewhere there are something like thirty to forty thousand denominations classified as part of the Christian religion worldwide. Think about that for a second - or take as long as you need to digest this nugget of information. It's actually pretty intimidating on its face.

Why are there so many? Are their beliefs really that different from each other? Within each denomination there are other sub-denominations. Why is that? This is just so very confusing on so many levels. And it's not unique to Christianity, either.

Each and every religion teaches some form of peace. And, yet we have war between and amongst these religions - vicious all out atrocity filled genocidal war. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I saw a cartoon that illustrated this conundrum perfectly:

Slogans like the following are commonplace:

God, country, guns! Yeah, baby! More guns! God wants it that way. You ain't a patriot if you don't believe in God, country, and guns - for some, not necessarily in that order.

God hates fags! Gotta say, this one makes me sick to my stomach.

You're going to HELL if you aren't a born again Christian! Say what?! What IS Hell, anyway? The Pope, himself, is saying there ain't no such thing.

Hatred isn't exclusively Christian, either:

Buddhists target Muslims in Sri Lanka. Buddhists target Muslims? Buddhists are supposed to be peaceful, meditation kinds of guys. This can't be right. But, it IS.

Violence in Hinduism. Hinduism? Don't they believe in reincarnation? Don't be stepping on those insects, hear. They might be a relative.

Are these truly religious values? If it is, I gotta wonder........

So, where am I going with all of this?

By now, many of you following my blog know I'm a Columbine Dad. We're a Columbine and Platte Canyon family. Our journey of healing has been long and arduous to say the least.

Following the massacre at Columbine High School, my life and the lives of my kids were turned upside down when my first wife took her own life with a gun six months later. After that, our wheels came off completely.

In my loss and confusion, I turned to religion for answers - the religion of Christianity to be specific. The denomination doesn't matter for purposes of this writing.

I wasn't a very religious person before these events, and I really didn't have time following them to be very religious either. I didn't go to church very much before, and the only time I went to church after was for my first wife's funeral.

I started reading the Bible. I vowed to read it all the way through.

Prayers became a nightly ritual for me: "God! Give me some kind of a sign, anything at all, so that I'll be able to survive this torture and still be there for my kids."

Every single night, these words, thoughts, and emotions were communicated through prayer. Every...single...night.

But, I'll be very honest here - I didn't get any answers - at least conscious answers.

There were no miracles for me, or so I believed at the time. For my daughter there were many. For my Son, his escape physically unharmed was a miracle in and of itself. For me? I still live with survivor's guilt because I was so very far away when all of this went down at their school.

There were no overt signs that God was even listening when I tried to talk with him, especially when I looked back at how our personal lives suffered following the suicide of my first wife. I guess it would be fair to say I was just a little bit angry about what had come our way. But that might also be an understatement, too.

I'd struggled with my beliefs and my doubts ever since I was a child. None of that mattered now, though. Churches of many denominations came to our aid. None of them cared that my family wasn't of their church or religious denomination. Everyone pulled together and helped any way they could.

That's not to say there weren't any controversies. The crosses erected and torn down because they included the shooters who wrecked havoc on so many lives is just one example. There were many more I won't go into here because the one involving the crosses is a stickler for me, personally. And, no, I won't talk about it here.

Still nothing from God, though. Waiting, but no word. No sign. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Extreme gratitude for what everyone did? Very much so. Some kind of sign that God, somehow had a hand in all of this? Not so much.

One could say the churches and other organizations that did so very, very much for everyone affected were acting through God in doing their incredibly generous, caring aid and assistance. I guess that would be logical. I just wasn't feeling it, though.

I looked at the people who were doing all of this and marveled at their generosity, at their caring, at their genuine concern for us. Even shed some tears of gratitude for what they did for so long. For some reason, though, I didn't feel that that was coming from God. I saw it as coming from their own hearts through that free will so many now talk about when it comes to God's relationship with mankind....that free will that allows human beings to either be kind and loving to each other as is the case with most human beings. Or, that free will that allows some human beings to commit terrible, vicious, violent atrocities against some of their fellow human beings....like the shooters of Columbine, for example. That's what I saw. That's what I kept on seeing. And that's what I'm still seeing to this very day.

Wow, this is getting way longer than I intended it to. The reason I'm posting this here now, today, so long after the actual massacre we experienced is because I still feel a need to continue to try and find answers and to try to banish my own demons somehow regarding my own Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, my ongoing doubts about so many things, and my need for some modicum of closure of some sort.

Then, my miracle happened. Her name is Katherine. She is the one most important, singular thing that happened in my life that moved me forward, personally. She brought a sense of spirituality, of inner beauty, with her I had never experienced before. It didn't rely on religion. It didn't rely on a church. It was within her. She exuded spirituality and an inner beauty, and she shared both of them willingly with anyone and everyone she met, including me. This wonderful woman did more for so many than anyone will ever know except for a small inner circle of family and friends. Expressing gratitude to her for what she did, and continues to do for so many, both inside and outside our nuclear family just doesn't seem like it's enough somehow. She leads by example. She lives the kind of life she hopes others may be able to also live. And, more importantly than that, she tries every day of her life to help others realize their dreams for themselves. She is an extraordinary woman in so many, many ways. And I love her dearly for who she is and for everything she does.

Now, I'm going to ask some questions. I hope those reading this can find it within themselves to look at these questions honestly and contribute their own thoughts, perspectives, and experiences.

Question #1: When someone, anyone, suffers a traumatic event, is it commonplace for them to search out religion in their grief and their confusion? If so, why? If not, why not?

Question #2: Is it possible that churches, themselves, sometimes take advantage of those types of situations, or are their intentions pure in helping the way they do? Again, if so, why? If not, why not?

Question #3: If mankind has free will as granted by God, do some also use that free will to do harm to others secure in the knowledge their acts, no matter how heinous they may be, will ultimately be forgiven anyway?

These aren't easy questions to answer honestly. I don't know of any churches anywhere that don't have some level of outreach and charitable activities. But, in my experience, I also know of some churches that did some pretty awful things following the massacre that has come to be known simply as one word...Columbine.

I turned to religion for help. In doing so, one might say I found my own individual spirituality. It didn't ultimately include belonging to a church or embracing a specific religion or denomination. My spirituality is still under development thanks to those who love me as much as they do - my wife, my kids, my extended family and friends. And I do thank God for all of them.

Religion can, and much of the time does, include spirituality. They are not, however, mutually exclusive nor inclusive. From my perspective, the following is so very, very true:

And all of this is why I'm so confused and worried about the current situation at the U.S. Supreme Court. It's not limited solely to Roe v Wade being overturned. There are so many other rights at stake beyond abortion. If anyone out there thinks otherwise and that those rights are safe, I would posit they haven't been paying attention.

My two cents.....

* Comments on this blog are moderated.