PURPOSE: The purpose of this topic is to make it abundantly clear that violence, school shooters, and similar issues involve addressing a (nearly) 100% HUMAN PROBLEM. Solutions will be multifactorial and balanced. I will test the soundness of taking all guns away, and briefly talk about where people can obtain information about the root causes of violent activities (criminology research) as well.
LITMUS TEST-1: CAN GUN REDUCTION AND FORTIFICATION FIX THE PROBLEM
Hypothetically, let’s say 10 Counties in California decide to create a large gun free zone, they fortify all of their schools, and surround them with guards. Are they safe? Yes, right up until a forest fire occurs, or an earthquake, or a chemical spill toxic gas fumes dissipate through the air towards the school, or pandemic influenza strikes, or there is an insider threat attack- a ceramic knife will make it through a metal detector, or someone fly’s a drone with a bomb over the playground, or an envelope arrives containing the new Russian nerve agent, or N. Korea fires a missile at the U.S. and it hits the 10 counties, or someone figures out how to poison the water supply, or the food supply is subject to a bioterrorism event, or someone charges the playground with a semi-truck.
=>This is why I have repeatedly said we must have a balanced approach. The IMPACT system and similar technologies can coordinate these balanced approaches. Having a Police substation near a school to exercise/practice responses, address various threats, and for unified communication, command and control, may be a best option.
CHARADE OF GUNS ON TRIAL:
Rhetorical question: If I said to you all today that we are going to let the perpetrator go who shot students at the school, because (instead) we are going to put the gun on trial, we will prosecute the gun to the fullest extent, and put the gun in jail until it rusts and falls apart, WOULDN’T EVERYONE EVERYWHERE SAY THAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD OF? …Isn’t that what some people are doing?
WHY IS IT STUPID TO PUT GUNS ON TRIAL?
Because guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! We put people on trial.
=>Every single person knows this, so why are some groups putting guns on trial?
=>It is a ridiculous charade, agenda driven, CRIMINALS ARE NOT GOING TO DISARM OR BE DEPRIVED BECAUSE THEY GET THEIR WEAPONS FROM THE BLACKMARKET OR STEAL THEM. People who want good Americans to disarm, will only make them more vulnerable to terrorists, criminals, subversives and other human threat vectors. The caveat here is that (yes) it is important to restrict inanimate objects that are increasingly deadly, (where possible), from the reach of bad actors [if] they can be identified and managed. However, bad actors will typically procure dangerous weapons (e.g. Ghost Guns from the Philippines and Mexico smuggled into the U.S.), dual purpose materials to make bombs, and more, no matter what we do.
THE REAL PROBLEM – MENTAL ILLNESS:
By definition, those who “murder” (distinguished from lawful kill - military), have a mental disorder, (whether schizophrenic, sociopath, temporary psychotic episode, delusional disorder, rage problem, manic, drug induced, Asperger’s, or other NOS). It is pathological to want to take innocent life and victimize others, rather than (e.g. pursue prosperity, family, friendships and happiness the way normal people are wired). Every normal person values life, and in particular most of us have an instinct to protect life and especially children. Participating in something horrendous such as a targeted killing or a random act means they have no respect or regard for the gift of life, don’t care about the risk of possible collateral damage, emotional harm and financial harm to the families, the bad-actor dishonors themselves before God, dishonors their family, puts security personnel in danger to end the threat, the place where an event occurs becomes taboo and tainted or may be shut down, and therefore further disrupts the peace and productivity in society and damages the community. Now does that sound like something someone normal would do?
=>PROBLEM WITH DUAL PURPOSE ITEMS AND SABOTAGE: The goal is always to regulate, restrict, delay, deny and limit the impact of all threats, hazards and disasters in a balanced way. But what about a common person (or mentally ill person) that can use household items to hurt people, or steal and use someone else’s gun, ram people with a vehicle, set fires, derail trains, make bombs out of chemicals, sabotage the electric grid, sabotage safe-guards or damage bridges and dams, wield a knife or machete, club people with a bat, abduct people, set traps. Therefore, getting rid of guns will not fix the threat. Limiting access to all deadly items, from the hands of the mentally ill is important, (where possible) - but whose job is at that point? Illness is on a spectrum/continuum, so at what point does one do this, and what dual purpose items does one eliminate? The “Pathway to violence” involves risk assessments done by trained professionals, but I argue, THE COMMUNITY HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE, everyone has to help reduce risk and report threats.
COMMUNITY APPROACH SOLUTION (EVERYONE IS A STAKEHOLDER): The families, the teachers, medical providers, and Police must carefully screen everyone in their purview for violent tendencies suggestive of any threat to life or destruction of property (put the pertinent information in a report, put the report in a database that can be accessed by those who need it). New education and awareness can be spearheaded first within the local LEPC or public health and safety offices, then spread to the community. The county mental health office can become a lot more vigilant, proactive, and creative in their surveillance and reporting of problems and risk factors in communities as well. Translational Criminology is focused on research studies aiming to bridge the gaps whereby the right people provide the right interventions that target the right people at the right time. Many topics on these subject are now available in one place at: