Liberals and Progressives Against Gun Control Hysteria

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/members/phillyimc/sites/phillyimc.org/web/sites/all/modules/mailhandler/mailhandler.module on line 855.

New title:

Solutions not Hysteria as a Response to Gun Violence and Related Issues


The word reasonable gun-control means attempts to make small changes that may or may not relate in a few less gun deaths. Illegal guns and illegal Oxyconone keep getting harder to get. There is at least less people taking illegal Oxocodine less often, and may have one not several illegal guns. Anyone who uses an illegal gun obtained years earlier would likely manage to get another one in a few months if he loses it. Almost everyone who wants to will get to try illegal Oxicodine at least once.

The word reasonable is being misused when it comes to guns. It is actually almost senseless to think that someone who got a gun illegally in 2010 wouldn’t have one by now anyway, so the recent headline where a buying turned the purchaser to get even, then committed suicidal mayhem to get even with everyone else shouldn’t be a lesson in the need for gun-control


Hysteria has pervaded much of the US justice system, and the media’s reporting of incidents in the most alarming way, the most recent in Wilmington. Once hysteria against booze, later communism, then drugs, then terror. Finally the overcrowding of prisons seemed to be ending (suddenly less 'three strikes and you're out’ convictions), less drug arrests and less Islamophobia). But now comes hysteria against guns and the NRA to reinvigorate the US prison pipeline.

Thoughtful People in General Against Hysteria Based Laws,

Old but well-documented cooling against hysteria info,


Both sides of the gun control debate agree on one thing, most mass killers want a lot of a certain kind of excitement (not just any kind of publicity). Many on both sides of the political spectrum are giving the advertisement that mass murders want. President Obama having children testifying in prime time, pleading for gun control is the kind of publicity many of them craved.

It was different in Norway, the debate over whether or not Andes Breivik was criminally insane was the last thing he expected or wanted. Somehow his lawyer managed to contradict the soapbox Breivik wanted without getting in an argument with his client. In Norway there wasn't media frenzy about why he was allowed on a secure island just because he had on a police uniform, or condemning his parents for being divorced or dwelling on the right-wing party he finally rejected as not extreme enough. Anger at the right wing occurred far more in Germany than Norway. One disturbing site claimed he won. I disagree with it but hope the reader looks at it, it helps one think over the issue.

I disagreed that he got his way by finally being declared sane. The many days of discussion over the sanity issue took away from what Beivik wanted to prove, more important in discouraging copycats than the final decision. If Breivik was found innocent to be sent to a mental hospital instead of jail, he would have immediately condemned his lawyer and then the internet would have been filled with right wing extremist claims that 'No' he wasn’t insane. I think everything that happened since Breivik's arrest made it less likely for copycats to follow. I wish the Sanity Debate would have been of central focus of all US mass murder discussions. Killing someone one is particularly mad at, then a bunch of bystanders, then oneself is a new pattern of murder. We should ask why?

One small part of it is the number of people whose almost entire life is the screen, both computer and TV. As for what is being watched James Holmes spent far more endless hours playing Guitar Hero where a canned audience would cheer him playing on a silent guitar than watching Batman movies. It is obvious that something is going very wrong when it comes to emotional incidents involving US gun crime and it might mean some subtle changes in how they are reported. We had past mass excitement with one focus, such as with the Black Panthers, but now the expanding problems are in a multiple direction. Reactions change with each massacre. In the Columbine High-school Massacre, (unlike at Newtown) a deputy sheriff was on full time duty so there weren't calls for police in the schools. Back in 1998 Andrew Golden age 13 and Mitchell Johnson age 11 hid in the woods and shot at the school after one pulled the fire alarm. There first attempt to get guns was with a blow torch on the grandfather’s safe, so the debate on how they got guns didn't happen. The intense discussion was over whether or not sometimes children should be tried as adults. Now, in extreme instances, this can, and has done nothing to stop heinous crime.

A rhetorical question is: Why is the reaction to high profile mayhem always such in the US as to encourage copycats? I think the answer is that this is an illusion, news that discourages copycats isn’t reported clearly. After Army psychiatrist Hasan began shooting at Fort Hood the ideal response was a female officer shooting him in the spine (not a male officer) making him permanently paralyzed. After the underpants bomber was arrested, his father who had come to the US embassy begging them to save his son from a suicide death, after a phone call from him saying 'You will never see me again' being part of the grilling of him, the discussion about him and his father pervading the media, was ideal both in the US and in the Muslim world. Some wanted a military trial and a death sentence (not the reaction that would encourage future relatives to come forward.)

Hysteria has pervaded much of the US justice system, once hysteria against booze, later communism, then drugs, then terror. Finally the overcrowding of prisons seemed to be ending (suddenly less three strikes and less drug arrests and Islamophobeia). But now come hysteria against guns and the NRA to reinvigorate the US prison pipeline.

Hysteria covers the criminal system. Parents suddenly discovered not only bartenders, but they themselves, were contributing to the delinquency of minors by leaving beer in the refrigerator, after a friend at their children’s party (held when they were not at home) got killed in a traffic accident. Soon an elderly parent with cancer will be transferred from the private hospital to the prison hospital after her daughter who got diagnosed with lung cancer. Or soon after a mass traffic pile up a driver will spend the rest of his life in jail from cellphone records suddenly used for prosecution texting or driving while on the phone, given a small consecutive sentence for every provable infraction on his phone records. Instead, there could be something as simple as a two dollar a minute tax on cellphone while a car is in motion refundable after a report on the nature of the emergency call, and new cell phones equipped with an emergency button, 'leave a message I am driving or busy, if you start leaving a message in 30 seconds the phone will ring me'. The message machine could be set to start playing as soon as the car wheels stop rolling, without any two dollar a minute fee. Refund for an unexpected unwanted incoming call could be had simply by documenting and reporting it,

One may think the above examples are a grorse exaggeration. But think back in 2010, then 19-year-old Dawm Nguyen was in the gun store with the man, William Spengler, who later set his house on fire and shot the fireman responding to put it out. If she had any idea that she was making a false statement she would have left and went back later to buy the guns, without him. Unless she was afraid that she would be killed if she dissented in anyway.

After 2010 the family moved away from her angry neighbor, just to get away from him. More than a few children are raised with both parents in jail due to the same circumstance. I wonder if there could be a circumstance where a neighbor reports a women is being battered which she denies but he losing his right to own a gun anyway, and she later arrested for a straw purchasable to be battered around in prison some more.

Pennsylvania just sent its mental health records to the Federal Government to determine who is now no longer allowed to have a gun. Two years from now someone who they thought privately sold them a legal gun could be arrested in hindsight after a serious gun incident.

I have an exciting idea! One law that seems to be followed is in Illinois, a concealed weapon must be keep locked up such as in a locked glove compartment. Some may cheat in tense situations but then the gun goes back to being locked up. If instead Illinois had outlawed all carrying of a concealed weapon many who own guns fearing being shot would take them with them anyway. The Supreme Court ruled that requiring all guns to be unloaded and locked up violated the 2nd Amendment. But perhaps technology could come to the rescue this time, instead of making matters worse. There are now fingerprint locks that could be worn with a small gun in a side pouch. Perhaps the Supreme Court would consider such a minimum required delay to be Constitutional. Police Officers could have fingerprint locks on their gun holsters, which they would want to set when intervening in a domestic quarrel or other close encounter (or as a prison guard) where someone might try to seize the officer's gun. However, if the holster was always locked, incidents where people even try to grab an officer gun would stop. Sometimes someone trying to grab an officers gun is an embellished incident for the officer not to get into trouble. This would change gun culture. So would someone shaking a gun bag in a road-rage incident, instead of a gun. More and more robberies now occur to steal a gun. To the extent that Obama's efforts actually seem to succeed, attempts to steal guns would be like the present day attempts to steal Oxycodone where pretty young doctors face being attacked in their apartments from someone trying to get close to them to try to steal or strong-arm pain killers from them. If the price was right instead of a sign on the door that the security alarm is linked to an alarm company a sign that guns are under a fingerprint lock to an alarm company would become very popular. Too bad such a system wasn’t in place before Adam Lanza's rampage against his mother and the school, it wouldn't have saved his mother, but the police, might have been looking for him before he reached the school.

Gun rights advocates might say criminals won't have their guns locked up, only law abiding citizens. Not true! Muggers know that they would be in a lot less trouble if they don't have a gun, but get them anyway to try to protect themselves from being shot by the victim a bystander or the police.

However if the mugging became a many years in jail crime only if the gun was unlocked, even a drug addict wanting money for a fix would have a duffel bag with a padlock on it with him during some of his robberies, maybe always when the victim is an elderly woman which he would try to be careful not to knock down and injure to also make it a potentially throw-away the key crime. We do not implement punishment is such a way that after committing one crime someone would not want to follow it with a more heinous crime. Those facing parole violations that would lead to throwing away the key are especially dangerous to the police, maybe only wanting to cite someone for a damaged bumper. I wonder how many police officer's lives would be saved if the result of parole violations discovered that way would result in tight daily contact with a parole officer instead of throwing away the key.

In England the neighborhood bobbies overwhelmingly don't want guns because they know that then criminals would want guns to protect themselves from being shot by the police. The following British link is well worth reading,

To change the subject. Many say that one is a lot safer without a gun. So do insurance companies for bank employees, all chain store and ship crew workers that might be stopped by pirates, and all but small mom and pop businesses. Over and over again someone who is a hero in the eyes of the public end up losing their job due to insurance company rules. However one could also rightly argue that one is safer not to own a cell phone if they own a car or even walk and talk at the same time considering the drastic increasing in pedestrians getting hurt. It is also far healthier on the average is one doesn't own a TV or a computer, but that doesn’t mean that having a cell phone or watching a health program on TV might in some incidents incidents might not save one's life.

One might think that the NRA might jump at this article from a liberal, or the one by David Corn with impeccable progressive credentials warning that the first assault weapons ban of 1994 didn't save lives, yet cost an awful lot in derailing the progressive agenda,

However instead I got hell for wanting guns locked up. See,
http://www.dailypaul.com/268070/outlawing-guns-in-cities-requiring-cell-phones-only-locked-in trunk#comment-2884
Scrawl down to AustinDave

Gun control is an issue some want to make a liberal litmus test issue. But many people active in peace, immigration, gay, and woman's issues didn't suddenly begin condemning guns.

Many worry that the $10 million Dianne Feinstein wants to spend on police in the schools will come from programs that make poverty less of a desperation and thus end up encouraging gun crime. Others like the the Advancement Project, the ACLU and the NAACP especially the New York branch are very
upset that Obama's proposals for more police in schools would make the School-to-Prison pipeline
worse, One, (I think Advancement Project) lawyer asked rhetorically, 'What should be done
immediately about Sandy Hook, and answered 'Nothing!' 'Decisions are better made not in times of stress'. I wish a reader would post this link I can’t re-find.

Actually there is surprising little overlap in those who are peace activists and gun control activists through I am disappointed that Dennis Kuninich didn’t take the opportunity to mention that civilian gun deaths and war, or a recent war, are highly correlated,


Americans who don’t want gun control praise Switzerland and Sweden without noting that none of them were involved in a recent war. Sadly President Obama was an anti-anger candidate not anti-war candidate. Being taught to kill without anger is particularly stressful for the US troops in Afghanistan. The attack on the Sikh Temple was and old fashioned murder full of anger and rage something Obama has been successful in cooling down. However US troops being told no matter what you do we will be out in a year also discourages their feelings of self-worth, so increases in suicide is not all due being told to kill without hate.

There is a lot of local stories of successes in lessening gun crime that is under-reported such as when it is the same know community person begging people in front of the neighborhood gun store not to go in is the same know community leader begging kids at the local high-school not to listen to the military recruiter despite the fact they were told that this is the only good paying legal job available. San Francisco fought gun crime by working with the gangs. El Salvador cut gun crime and incredible 50% for over a year now working with the gangs improving prison conditions as a result and sponsorship joint work projects where completing gang members work on on the same job sites together.

When it comes to gun violence in war the biggest problem is also not paying attention. Rural Afghans don't want the modern world rubbed in their face, so much for trying to win the hearts and minds by bringing in progress. The government is supported by those who like urban values, the Shiites who fear the Taliban, and businessmen who like to trade with India. Whether is it right to try to permanently keep the urbanites in charge is a philosophical question worth asking, but trailing the US trying to train the government to be permanently in charge just gets people killed. If there are solutions to are gun problems the solution would come from paying attention. The Bobbies in London overwhelmingly don’t want guns because they know if they had them the criminals would want them too.

Pennsylvania is one state that might swing the most on gun issues. Philadelphia with a long history of gun control and rural Pennsylvania with a strong tradition of gun rights, makes if particularly susceptible to a wild swing. At the same time poor philly like poor NY and knows that gun
control means the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Let 's compromise with the Pennsylvania NRA to lock Pennsylvania's guns up if the PA NRA agrees it would be a huge step to the Supreme Court allowing Pennsylvania guns to be locked up at least with fast releasing finger-locks, ending at least children dieing from playing with guns.

Cease fire efforts work. Note El Salvador, 50% less gun crime and Northern Ireland, and Los Angles with success as well. And corner Bobbies in England without guns as well. Everyone locking up their gun could work to even though the police would have a second or less delay and a drug addict carrying a gun in a combination padlocked duffel bag to prevent a throw away the gun conviction could be over 20 seconds to unlock the combination if he gets panicky.

See also,




The Cycle of Violence can also refers to our local gun violence

A site about the cycle of violence can be helpful in in dealing with gun violence in the US