The system worked, but no one won

So the verdict came down in the Michael Dunn case.  Convicted on three counts of attempted murder and one count of illegal firearm discharge Mr. Dunn is going to be going to jail for a long time.  The first degree murder charge against him for the death of Jordan Davis resulted in a hung jury and mistrail.  It will most likely be retried.

The case came about after Mr. Dunn approached  a Dodge Durango filled with 4 black teens complaining their music was too loud.   Mr. Dunn was carrying a weapon as allowed by Florida law.   The teens, being teens, ignored Mr. Dunn's request and probably said some things that were rude and they shouldn't have said.

Mr. Dunn then thought he saw a gun in the vehicle which prompted him to pull his weapon and fire 10 times into the car, three of the bullets striking Jordan Davis killing him.

No gun was found in the vehicle, though it did initially leave the scene (I'm fairly certain I would've as well if some crazy person was shooting at me.)  They did return to the scene and if a gun was ever in the vehicle, there was no evidence of it.  All there was evidence of was a dead teenager and a man who ruined many lives, including his own.

We'll never know if there was a gun in that Durango and honestly I feel it doesn't matter.  Mr. Dunn was not a law enforcement officer.  He had no official capacity to enforce gun laws.  If he felt threatened, he probably should have done what most people would do and back down from a hostile situation.

But no, not in our modern American.  Not in a land where "Stand Your Ground" laws exist because those pesky criminals have too much power.

We have guns and we should be able to carry them where we wish and we can protect ourselves when we feel threatened.

Except, doesn't that kind of leave a lot of open space?   I mean, "feeling threatened."  That's pretty damn vague.  So vague that it led a man carrying a gun to fire into a vehicle with four teenagers inside.  It also allowed a man to fire at another in a theater who was texting and threw popcorn at him.

I don't mean to make my blog about guns or gun violence, but its been weighing on me heavily lately.

Lives are being ruined all over this country by America's blind love of guns in any and all situations.

Do I think Michael Dunn is some monster?  Someone who was just looking for an excuse to kill?  Of course not.  I think he was probably a pretty normal person.  However, pretty normal can change when you're carrying a gun.  Its unfortunately, but too many people view guns as some kind of panacea.

I have to wonder, as I do in most of these situations, if Mr. Dunn would have approached the Durango if he had not been armed.  Why he felt the need to be the enforcer of public decency, I'm not sure.  Were the kids being disrespectful with their loud music?  Quite possibly, they're kids, it happens.

But, so what?  Its annoying.  How many things in life are annoying?  I could start a list that never ends.  How many of them are worth killing or dying over?  List just got a whole lot shorter.

However, the gun lobby has done an excellent job of instilling fear in Americans making them think that carrying a weapon is needed to live in safety.

One can only hope cases such as this, with one life lost, and other lives mangled, will be the aberration, not the norm going forward.

What does it take?

So, today, there was another mass shooting/shooting spree/murder suicide at a mall.  Last night a shooting on a college campus.   There's almost shootings in major cities around the country.  In Peoria, IL last year, there were 65 shootings, or a little more than 1 a week on average.

I could keep spouting off stats on the number of children killed or wounded by gunfire (usually accidental from idiot family or friends have loaded guns accessible) but obviously facts don't appear to matter.

So, what is it going to take for America to understand it has a problem with guns?  The rest of the developed world thinks we're insane for our gun laws.  Before I go any farther, I want to state, I'm not in favor of banning all guns.  In fact, I'm not in favor of banning any guns (more on that in a bit).  I am in favor of putting the power back in the hands of our elected officials and out of the hands of the gun lobby.

But back to my title question: Is there any atrocity large enough for Congress to pass some sensible national gun safety laws?

Columbine happened in 1999.  Virginia Tech 2007.  NIU Shooting 2008.  Aurora Colorado 2012.  Sandy Hook 2012.   To say nothing of the day to day violence that goes on in cities across America.  Shootings in Chicago's south side happen pretty much daily, but it took an honor student who'd recently visited the White House getting shot to bring any light on the problem because, lets be honest, white America at large doesn't care much if minorities are getting shot as long as its not in their neighborhood.

Now, violent crimes in general are down over the last 25 odd years, and murders are down a lot (due in a large part to better medical facilities, especially in inner cities).  One would think this weakens the argument for an armed populace though it inevitably gets twisted into a "no, criminals are scared of robbing folks because that guy might have a gun."  Yes, because old west style shootouts over holdups are common, especially compared to accidental shootings.

The real problem is access to weapons.  It is hilariously easy to get a gun.  And once you have a gun, thanks to the fact that many states do nothing to register a gun TO the purchaser, well, who knows what you do with it.

Once upon a time it was relatively difficult for criminals to acquire guns.  Then the 80s came along and we saw the first wave of weapons designed with no other purpose than to be used in the urban combat zones some of our cities became.

Weapons like the Tec-9, Mac-10 and various others served 2 purposes: 1) to put a large amount of bullets in a general area quickly and 2) line the pockets of gun companies profiting on death and mayhem.

Eventually the situation became dire enough that laws were passed limited automatic or assault-style weapons, certain types of high capacity magazines and certain types of ammunition.  (This law has since been allowed to lapse due largely to the efforts of the NRA lobbying for the gun companies who want to sell such weapons.)

Now, we face such a crisis again.  Gun companies have flooded the market with cheap handguns, many which have magazines holding 8-13 rounds and cheap military styled rifles with clips holding 15-30 rounds.  While most gun crimes are committed with the first type of gun, numerous high profile cases have involved the latter.  (And I'm sure every citizen armed with their Glock or Springfield is going to want to go up against a nut-case with an AR-15 or SKS.)

We are allowing people to profit off mayhem. Now, I know our gov't does it every day, it sickens me there too, but that's an issue for another blog.  We, as a country are stupidly allowing a small cabal of companies to make our country MORE dangerous while promoting the idea of more guns being needed for protection.  It boggles the mind doesn't it?  Obviously flooding society with more weapons, easily accessible by the mentally ill or mentally distraught, easily stolen during home invasions, easily sold with little to no oversight by anyone in authority to God knows who.

You don't believe me?  In IL, this is what it takes to buy or sell a gun privately:



"A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.


A federally licensed dealer must contact the Department of State Police for a background check, for which there is a $2.00 fee. Any sales at gun shows, including dealers and private parties, must contact the state police for a background check.


Private parties selling firearms at gun shows must ensure the buyer has a FOID card and the buyer must undergo a background check. It is unlawful to sell or give any handgun to a person under 18, or any firearm to a person who is not eligible to obtain a FOID."



From http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/illinois.aspx


Cause yeah, that's easy to enforce.

So, here are the problems. Any sane person should be able to see them. What do I propose? Well, many things, none of which include banning guns.

1. Every gun, EVERY SINGLE GUN, is registered to the purchaser BY serial number. Now, where on the gun? That would be something to hammer out in the law because people like to upgrade/modify their weapons. If the law would cut into that sector, tough.

2. Every gun sale occurs at a licensed facility. You pay $15, $5 to the dealer to sign off on the deal, $10 to the state to register the gun in the new owners name. You have go TWICE. Once to officially start the deal, then again after the waiting period to finalize the deal.

3. All gun show exceptions shall be done away with. Gun shows will be subject to the same laws as any other gun sale. They have your address, they can ship it to you.

4. Any and all gun accessories, that pertain to the functioning of a weapon, from grips, to actions, to firing pins, to magazines, to trigger assemblies may only be produced by licensed ATF builders. Tough. Can't get a license? You can make holsters or gun cases or something.

5. Any magazine holding more than 8 rounds cannot be kept in your home. Along with all military style rifles, such items can only be used at licensed ranges. Ranges will be licensed by the state. Anyone is free to join a range (and the range can be free if they want) but to take advantage of the higher capacity magazines or military style rifles, you must pay for a higher class of FOID card. Much like the license required to drive a car is different than a semi, the license required to own a .22 target pistol is different than an AR-15.

There would be a 6 month grace period for those already owning said items to register them with a licensed range. If you are transporting the weapon to a different range, you must sign it out with the range it is currently registered at and have 72 hours to register it at the new range. If you do not, you are fined. If this happens on three separate occasions you lose the right to these items.

The time period is waived if the item is shipped directly from one range to another.

6. If your gun is stolen you can be held liable for crimes committed with it if you do not report its loss. This would encourage more people to keep their damned guns locked up so that during home invasions its difficult for them to be stolen. Oh, and also means your kids can't get their hands on it.

7. To concealed carry a weapon you must pass rigorous tests on a yearly basis. ANY citation, be it seatbelt, speeding, parking tickets, etc. causes you to lose the right to concealed carry for 6 months. Any misdemeanor loses the right to concealed carry forever. Anyone found violating a private "Weapons not allowed" sign will lose their right to carry forever.

8. These are the NATIONAL laws. States can pass stricter requirements if they like.

Do I believe these would stop gun crime? Of course not. Do I think they'd be a step in the right direction to begin minimizing the gun violence plaguing our society? Yes.

It is a fact, a cold hard fact, that making crimes even slightly harder to commit causes a significant drop in crime. Making it slightly more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns, many of which are legally bought and then illegally resold on the black market would help minimize the damage.

People who like guns can still have their guns, possibly not in their home, but they can still have them. People who aren't as fond of guns can be a little more assured there is an actual process to getting and keeping a gun. Yes, it'd be more strenuous to own a weapon, but why is it as easy if not easier to own a gun then a car? Weapons for hunting would hardly be effected by this at all.

This isn't going to happen, I know it, you know it, everyone know its. But some of it NEEDS to happen in some form. We NEED to slow down the flood of guns into everybody's hands. I'm sorry, but not everyone needs or should have a gun. And making it a bit harder to get, and keep, your guns isn't a bad thing. Also it could help cut down on minor violations as well if people could lose access to their guns. People sure seem to love their guns.

Racism

"Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others." -Ta-Nehisi Coates

 Sorry America, that specter Racism is alive and well.

 I know, I know, you don't want to admit it, but sorry, its true.

 Its true in the little things you say, the little assumptions you make, the stereotypes you hold. Its there. You don't have to join the KKK, you don't have to call them N******, you don't have to do a lot of things, many racist attitudes are totally passive. Its about what you say, what you think, what you at heart believe. 

Its funny how often I hear "well blacks can be racist too."

 Ok, I agree, there is a certain percentage of the black population that is racist. They, like the vast majority of racist whites, veer towards the 2nd sentence of the quote.

 There are racist black people, some of them as bad as any racist white.

 BUT, before white folk get all justified in their own little prejudices, let me point something out, the blacks aren't the people in power.

 WAIT you cry! White america is under attack! Look at all the benefits afforded minorities and women! Its so hard to be a white man!

 No, its not.

 White men still run this country. Pardon me, RICH white men run this country.

 If you aren't one of them it isn't affirmative actions fault. It isn't NOW's fault. Its the oligarchy of good ol' boys and new money men who control most economic goings on in the US.

 Here's the thing: People of all races suck. Basically humanity sucks. We're imperfect, we're flawed, we're damaged. BUT, when the group that holds power, and I'm sorry white america, you hold the power no matter how badly you want to believe you don't, holds ideas, prejudices (it can be proven, look at prison sentencing black v. white for the same crimes), hold beliefs, its far more damaging to the country than when the minority holds similar views.

 This is NOT excusing minorities for any general "racist" beliefs they might hold. But, isn't it more understandable they would hold them when they are much more likely to be stopped and questioned by police (most often white), go to a lesser school than their white peers, and generally have the odds stacked against them?

 Blacks in this country have had the deck stacked against them since the late 19th century. The gains made immediately after the Civil War, well, many of them died with Lincoln and others have been destroyed since, whether maliciously by blatantly racist laws or inadvertently by misguided social policy (see the Great Society, though, I sometimes wonder how inadvertent LBJ was really...).

 We are generations deep, in all honestly we are almost 10 generations deep of black families being destroyed, first by slavery, then by economic factors, then by social engineering factors. Its unfortunate that so many black Americans have no idea how to live "normal," healthy lives.

 I'm not even saying that they have to live like middle class Americans because frankly, I'm not sure that's healthy. But the violence that pervades so much of their culture, the lack of a father in too many young black men's lives (and anymore, that's certainly a white problem too), its tragic.

 And while it does not excuse the eventual behavior, it helps to explain it. Instead of fearing, instead of holding prejudice, instead of viewing them as parasites (which so many people do, listen to how people talk, facts don't matter, there are millions on welfare doing nothing to support themselves....right..) maybe view them as fellow human beings. View them as fellow Americans, who just want to live their lives. Maybe you could support them, even third party, through groups trying to help the less fortunate.

 White America, I'm sorry, but you're still horrifically racist. You need to start accepting that, because if you don't, if you, the majority race, don't, why on earth would any of the minority races attempt to do the same?

Two Wrongs are Not Right.

I'm not sure when America started believing two wrong make a right?

After 9/11 we certainly did, starting two wars in our anger over being attacked. One passed the "ok" test, if war is ever ok, on a slim end around technicality.

The other, as unjust as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a decade before.

No, we've long believed two wrongs make a right, even though it goes against anything the Bible states. And you know, we are a country founded on Christian values.

The "war against terror," much like any other war, has proven once again why you don't want to fight wars. Stories about war are nice and simple. There are good guys and bad guys. Heros and villians. Good versus evil.

Lies.

Real war is horrific. Instead of dark and light its mostly a muddled field of gray, occasionally stained with the blood of innocents and warriors alike.

True war is murky, and try as "civilized" man might to put rules towards it, they are cast away in the heat of battle. Adrenaline fueled brains reacting on impulse and fear. The basest of human emotions bared daily, causing scars both physical and mental on all normal people who touch it.

Do not think I'm attempting to equate us with those who attack civilians around the world. The cowards who kill and maim in some twisted believe their "god" desires this.

However, I cannot and will not be silent when my country does wrongs. President Obama ordered as singular a wrong as possibly any President has: he ordered the cold blooded murder of an American citizen.

Don't think I find Anwar al-Awlaki a sympathetic figure. The man incited violence and hatred that has contributed to scores if not hundreds of deaths.

However, what kind of a country do we live in where the President can order a citizen of this country killed, without trial, without due process, without any legal proceeding whatsoever, merely because of "treasonous" acts against our nation?

If we are supposed to be an example to the world, an image of what nations should be (and trust me, I don't think we are that at all) what does this show? That due process, a judicial system, laws, are nice? EXCEPT when things are dirty and inconvient. Then its ok to just kill the person because well, they are "bad."

I'm not a crazy talking conspiracy nut now. I don't think government death squads are going to be formed hunting down dissenters. No reliving of the "Red Scare" only with suspected insurgents gunned down instead of taking to court.

But the precedent, to say nothing of the havoc we've been creating in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, set by this is bad. Very bad.

Being President has to be one of the most difficult jobs on earth. However, no matter how difficult it was to say yes to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, apparently saying "no" was even harder. President Obama needed to say no. He needed to uphold the ideal that American law is sufficient (though we still kill our citizens yearly in a highly inequitable legal system) no matter how imperfect it may be.

Killing begets more killing. While a nation cannot turn the other cheek, it does not have to respond to a slap in the face with a machine gun.

I don't know where or when it will end, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

America the Stupid

I'm going to post on two completely separate topics, yet ones I feel illustrate just how dumb the average public is. Yes, I just called most of the people in our country dumb and I believe it. You can be highly intelligent and still be dumb sometimes. I'm living proof.

Anyway, first. Why do middle class Americans feel this desperate need to protect the wealthy from higher taxes? I understand, no one likes taxes. I can accept that.

I also understand we cannot tax our way out of our current spending problem. Ok.

I do not understand why average people, people who's real wages have been steadily declining since the 60s, are protecting those who are making them have less money. When the super-rich, not the 500k-1 million a year people, the REALLY REALLY rich, pay less taxes than ever, and our economy is still spiraling downward with rising unemployment, why can they not see that cutting taxes has nothing to do with spurring economic growth anymore? In the pre-global economy maybe that worked (I don't know) but I KNOW it is not working now.

I'm fairly certain that raising taxes on the ultra-rich, changing capital gains laws and trading laws so that big brokerage firms can't just churn stocks to make fees, and creating true incentives for job creation in the US would all do more to benefit the economy than anything currently being done. If you knew the government was going to take 70% of your income in taxes, might you not lessen your income? Might more of it be available to pay employees and hire new employees?

Maybe stocks would go back to being used to raise capital for companies instead of currently being used as a gambling tool and a way to make $10 off someone else's $1.

But no, apparently a vast segment of middle class America thinks this is bad. They appear to think that the relatively small cabal of ultra-rich that do essentially control our economy (this is NOT crazy conspiracy talk, its a simple fact that a tiny percentage of 1% of our population controls the VAST majority of wealth, hence, they essentially control the economy) is a good thing, that they should be left alone, and that all of them deserve every last penny they made. Sure many of them didn't make it by building factories or doing anything more than coming up with a new way to shuffle imaginary money around inside computers, but hey, that's something right?

Now, an interesting thing I've noticed about many of these same people is a dislike of immigrants and a borderline (if not outright) racist attitude towards certain minority groups, usually hispanic and black. They blame the hispanics for illegally coming here to take our jobs, traffic drugs, and ruin our health care system. They call blacks lazy, gang bangers and worthless.

Well, let me point out a few issues with those thoughts.

First, the reason illegal immigrants come here is because for years now jobs have been made available to them. How do you think so many of those massive homes were built so inexpensively during the housing boom? Union labor? HAH. Much was with cheap, and often illegal, immigrant labor. Same with farming, landscaping, meat processing and a large number of other industries. To keep prices low, use cheaper labor! Its not that Americans won't do the jobs, its that American's won't do the jobs for the wages the companies are willing to pay. Nor do I blame them. The rush of illegals has slowed during EVERY economic downturn as there are less jobs. The vast majority don't come to mooch, they come to work. And if there is no work, they don't come.

Second, to drug and gang violence. Mexico is currently in the midst of a war. The drug cartels kill thousands every year and some northern cities are practically under siege. Now, often, it is Mexicans or other hispanics bringing the drugs in and distributing them. But who's buying them? White people.

White people are the biggest consumers of most drugs out there. Partially its because there are more of them, but its also because they can afford them. Cocaine is pricey. Good weed costs money. Its supply and demand. There is a demand for drugs in America, therefore someone is going to supply it. I'm not condoning the drug trade, its horrible, but if you want drug violence to stop, stop buying drugs. Pretty dang simple really.

Finally, the "black" situation in America. Its far from simple. I'm not going to excuse the behavior of too many blacks in America. However, I can understand it. We have treated them as second class citizens, then created well meaning laws that enabled them instead of helping them. There are no simple solutions here, but it is far beyond a "black problem." It is an American problem and prejudice and blame do nothing to move our country forward.

Americans are stupid because they refuse to ever point the finger at themselves. They continue to elect crooks. They continue to allow judges to destroy our electoral system. They continue to protect the wealthy who give back a fraction of what they consume. They refuse to see why people come to this country illegally. The refuse to stop buying illegal drugs, or allowing the legalization of certain drugs to help stem the constant violence. They refuse to take accountability for past issues and see how those issues can still be affecting people today. They refuse to care about how their actions effect other countries and then are incensed when those countries say negative things about the US.

America is not a city on a hill. We aren't the pinnacle of civilization, shining for the world to see. We are a unique nation that can do much good, but we also do much harm, both inwardly and outwardly. Until we accept that we aren't special, we aren't inherently better than others and begin to work on our own problems, things will continue to get worse for the vast majority of the nation.

But, if we want to keep pointing fingers in every other direction, well, we can do that too.

Did I ramble enough here? I'm just tired of people being idiots. I'm not saying I'm always right, but I am saying too many people are never right. And they can't even see that.

Musings

Wow, I should stop reading the news. I should stop delving into stories. I should stop following links, and should just sit back and let the TV "news" channel of my choice lull me into nothingness.

America is in trouble but nobody in our government seems interested in doing anything about it. What issue in particular am I talking about?

The "economic recovery." Call me a liberal, but I see a problem with the current recovery we are having. Its only helping those who are the same people who caused the bulk of the problems in the first place?

Oh, don't get me wrong, the average American consumer (myself included in the past) is an idiot who spends way more than they can afford to. Credit card debt, along with with bad mortgages, too much on car loans, and nothing in savings helped fuel this disaster.

However, that doesn't absolve Wall Street. And Wall Street, not the average American, is who recieved the most bailout money.

Profits are up, bonuses are rolling, and millions of Americans are out of work with no prospects in the short term. Honestly, how long can a "recovery" go on if 10% (and the numbers are higher when you include people who have given up hope of getting a job) of the work force in out of work?

Without getting too deep into the silliness that is financial world pay plans, how about we put some real incentive back into the jobs?
Those people are highly trained, and frequently, doing high stress jobs. I have no issues with them being well compensated. However, "bonuses" should be based on performance, ie making money in the long term, not just "performance" which is shifting money for short term "gains." (Its not a gain if the money goes away again down the line.)

What if, and this is crazy liberal talk I know, we start breaking up companies that are "too big to fail."

Think about it? Why should any company, especially a bank, be too big to fail? That doesn't lead to healthy competition and smart business practices. It leads to making dumb decisions because you know the government will have your back when you tank.
what if, instead of rewarding US companies for moving jobs overseas (it can help boost the bottom line!) we encourage investment in factories here? Sure, I know that isn't cost effective, the way the system is set up currently.

However, it could be. Give tax credits for companies keeping jobs here or creating new jobs. There are lots of carrots you can dangle before them. Hit them with penalties every time they decide to "outsource" jobs to a foreign country. Create tariffs on goods, without actually taxing the good.

Heck, start a national campaign "Buy American for America." We are never going to be a manufacturing-centric nation again, but we do need a certain percentage of those jobs. Do they need to be as high paying as the car company jobs with their great benefits and pension plans?
No. But they should pay a living wage.

And what if, WHAT IF, some sort of cap was set on exectutive pay? Cap it at total compensation, TOTAL including stock options, deferred payments, assorted perks, and cash, could be no more than 500x the average pay of workers in a company.
So, if the average pay was 50k, an executive could recieve no more than 25mil a year in benefits. Is that unfair? Really?

I don't see how this could possibly be a bad thing.

We need to make it easier to unionize. But unions need to be smarter. There needs to be oversight of unions to insure they are looking out for the best interests of their workers.
I'm going to stop my crazy pinko rantings here. They way we have been doing things is not working. At least not for the bulk of America.

Part of the blame falls on the American people.

Much of the blame falls on the super-rich and politicians who seem to have forgetton that the average American is not a millionare.

Juggling Nukes with My Pants on Fire

Tatsuya Ishida has a direct line to God I think. Sorta like the Pope. Trust me on this.