More on Conservative Snowflakes

I wrote previously about how so-called conservatives seemingly can't get enough of the preferential treatment from the government that they routinely decry. For example, if you are a conservative who does not agree with abortion, apparently you can go get a job at an abortion clinic and not have to work . . . moral conscience you see. If you're a county clerk, it's OK if you refuse to do your job and issue marriage licenses yet continue to collect your paycheck . . . moral conscience you see. If you're a corporation (say, Hobby Lobby) that wants to take advantage of a generous tax break for providing your employees health insurance, you can still get the tax break even if you don't offer insurance that actually, you know, insures your health in the event you want to do some family planning. If you're a manufacturer of a death-dealing device, you get special laws immunizing you from the entirely foreseeable consequences of your product . . . maximal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you see.

Now, we get this story about a guy who left a loaded handgun in plain sight in an unlocked vehicle yet is immune from civil liability for this clearly negligent act. Of course, this is not due to a judicial determination but rather due to the Indiana General Assembly (where bad ideas go to thrive).

I hear about "responsible gun owners" having their 2nd Amendment rights protected all the time. Well, gun owners, what about the guy in this story? Is this the person you intend to protect? Are the dead kids just "the price of freedom" to you?

As the NRA types like to ape this photo, I can't help but ask them: "What are you willing to do about those who don't control their own guns?"

Sheila Kennedy, per usual, says it best:

If you have a tree with a loose limb in your yard, you need to take care that it doesn’t fall and hurt someone who might sue you. But if you have a loaded gun available to whoever walks by, no worries.

The Indiana General Assembly has protected you. 

Sometimes, you just tip your cap.

Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude (N): pleasure derived from another's misfortune

What gives me schadenfreude? This:

In court filings and public statements, the NRA says that a campaign by Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and the state’s Department of Financial Services has cost it “tens of millions of dollars” and left it scrambling to find basic banking services and essential corporate liability coverage. Cuomo’s reaction has been gleeful. He has called on other states to follow his lead in putting firms on notice of the risks of working with the NRA, and says he’ll send “thoughts and prayers” if the gun group does actually suffer the downfall it says it fears.

While I am generally not a fan of Andrew "Milquetoast" Cuomo, I can't help but chuckle at his "thoughts and prayers" comment, as countless Americans have only gotten "thoughts and prayers" when their loved ones are slaughtered by [checks notes] "bad guys with guns." 

Chicken Hawks

Regrettably, I allowed myself to comment on a "debate" on NextDoor regarding the NRA's supposed "Don't be a Victim" conference. One thing I have noted about the pro-gun crowd is how quickly most people are to bring up the notion that they "won't be victims" to "thugs." Formulate this anyway you want, it sounds to me like some people have seen one too many bad action flicks.

Case in point: the NRA likes to say that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." OK. Where was the "good guy with a gun" at the Broward Co. HS while the shooter was offing teenagers? Waiting outside.

To be clear, this is a person who is ostensibly trained to address "threats" such as this.

He was waiting outside.

Now, I don't mean to pile on this poor guy. For the rest of his life, he will have to look in the mirror and admit to himself that when the time came, the time that would have defined his entire life, he hesitated.

Nonetheless, I continue to hear all NRA pro-gun types talk as though, what with their 30 minutes/month on an empty shooting range, they will be the heroes that save the day. Case in point:

The president also said he would have run into the South Florida high school where 17 students and faculty members were killed in a mass shooting, even if he was not armed, and he criticized law enforcement officials who were at the scene of the school shooting but did nothing to try to stop it. He called their performances “frankly disgusting.”

Interesting, isn't it, how people get their courage up after the fact to talk about what they would have done in a particular situation.

For a small intellectual exercise, let's just contemplate a few questions:
Q1. Has Donald Trump ever been faced with a situation where he may have been required to confront a "bad guy with a gun" who wanted to shoot at him?
 A1: As it turns out, Donald Trump was alive during the Vietnam War, and he was drafted.

Q2: Assuming that Donald Trump was faced with a situation where he would have been required to confront a "bad guy with a gun" who wanted to shoot him, would Donald Trump have rushed into the situation, even if he was not armed.
A2: No. He wouldn't. In fact, Donald Trump received draft deferments in 1964, 1965, and 1966 under the 2-S (college deferment) program. He then received a deferment in 1968 for a supposedly short-term medical problem (bone spurs in his feet); on Feb. 17, 1972, he was permanently classified as unfit for medical service.

All of this "good guy with a gun" post hoc discussion is nothing but chicken-hawkery at its worst.

"Cultural Totem"

This amazing piece from Doug Masson should be required reading for thoughtful people who have a difficult time understanding the absolute resistance to any form of gun control, no matter how modest and marginal.

A quote:

The gun-as-cultural-totem is a much more emotional issue. A totem is a spirit being, sacred object, or symbol that serves as an emblem of a group of people. So, when firearms are serving this purpose, the gun control issue bleeds into a person’s identity and their view of what it means to be an American. It becomes a marker for who is “Us” and who is “Them.” Real Americans versus The Other. Those who wish to preserve the culture of the country they love versus those who are contributing to the cultural decay in these Fallen Times. When you enact firearm legislation, you aren’t regulating the proper distribution of a tool. Rather, you’re empowering the forces of rot and ruin while emasculating the morally upright who embrace the true values of this country. With respect to this group, you can’t do a lot in the way of regulation without stabbing at the core of who they are.

In this respect, I think the NRA and other agents of gun manufacturers have probably taken a marketing cue from the likes of Coke and Pepsi. It’s tough to develop loyalty and move product when you’re selling sugar water.  But, when you’re selling an image or a lifestyle, you can transcend the utility of the underlying product by creating an emotional connection to the product. This emotional connection to firearms makes the discussion about appropriate regulations much more difficult. And, when the discussion centers on the firearm-as-tool, the discussion will ultimately miss the point since the utility of the object really isn’t at the heart of objections over that regulation.

I would highly encourage anyone to read the whole thing. 

Arming Teachers?

This might be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. I'm a former teacher; I didn't get into teaching so I could carry a gun to work. If I wanted to do that, I would've grown a mustache and joined the Army or become a cop.

As to anyone who supports this idea, I will tell you in precise detail why this is such a stupid idea as soon as you explain to me in precise detail why the gun show loophole (which, frankly, would allow the head of ISIS to buy an assault rifle at the Pepsi Coliseum, no questions asked) shouldn't be closed, and why the assault weapon ban shouldn't be reinstated.

Once you're done defending those two indefensible things, I will defend the utterly reasonable position that teachers should not be compelled to be soldiers.

Further, we know that those who suggest arming teachers aren't serious, aren't sincere, and don't mean to do anything because they (a) have not actually introduced any legislation and (b) refuse to address the actual bills that Congress could actually pass right now.

I mean, just look at what the super-majority Republican IN legislature did in the wake of the latest mass school shooting: made it so that people could bring guns into schools that share physical space with churches.

The 2nd Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I am always stricken by how many people focus on the latter part of this Amendment at the expense of the former. The Amendment could have read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." 

It doesn't.

Rule of Construction #1 is that every word of a contract, law, regulation, etc., should be given meaning. As I pointed out above, the 2nd Amendment could have been shorter, more direct, and more to the point. It wasn't and it isn't.

The next time some NRA absolutist starts spouting off about his 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps my readers can calmly (and without making any sudden moves, lest you upset the delicate snowflake and get shot) direct him to the first part about "well-regulated" and ask this NRA absolutist to what degree he feels his right to bear arms should be regulated in order to be "well regulated" and within the confines of the 2nd Amendment.

Absent the well regulated part, it isn't a constitutional issue and is instead a policy decision made by our elected "leaders."

On the FL School Shooting and the FBI

I have noticed that many of the Trump Defenders and Gun-Rights people (generally the same crowd, amirite?) have taken to furrowing their brows at this notion that law enforcement "dropped the ball" as pertains the FL school shooter.

What ball(s) did they drop? (Insert Tea Party Joke here).

Let's just play this out a bit. Say the FBI field office in Miami coordinated with the Broward County Sheriff's office and apprehended the shooter a month ago.

As of that time, he was a "law-abiding gun owner." If the FBI had taken his guns away from him, what do you think the position of the NRA/Right Wing/Trump Administration would have been? Would it have been:
a. Good job law enforcement. You guys acted on a tip and managed to prevent the needless tragedy of some guy shooting up a high school; or
b. This is just another example of why we need our guns; these overreaching, jack-booted government thugs want to come and deprive law-abiding citizens of their rights!

If you choose A, I have some ocean-front property in Speedway I'd love to sell you; and that is why I believe that all of this talk about "the problem is mental health, not guns" is just a red herring. As soon as someone wants to do something about "mentally ill" people carrying guns, the same NRA/Right Wingers immediately start accusing people of depriving others of their constitutional rights.

Also, as a small aside, don't the same people who continually try to push the blame for these shootings on mental health simultaneously, deliberately, and ceaselessly attempt to defund public health programs?

I, for one, am tired of being bullied by a small sliver of our population that has somehow equated hatred of your own government with love of your country. I am tired of being bullied by people who continually operate in bad faith. I am tired of being bullied by people who refuse to read the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment; who refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of their willful misreading.

Perhaps the next time society approaches gun control, the gun owners of America will attempt to show at least half as much respect for those of us who (a) don't want to own a gun and (b) don't want to live in a society that requires gun ownership as we have shown for them (and their misguided fetishization of lethal weapons).

Senator Todd Young's Response to Mass Shootings

I was told that Sen. Todd Young, a Marine (as he would never let anyone forget) was a man of action. He would keep Hoosiers safe! I am starting to wonder whether that safety is only important when the potential perpetrator is a brown-skinned man of a different religion from a different country. Heaven forbid that Senator G.I. Joe do something, anything, to protect his constituents from the depravities of mass shooters here at home.

(As an aside, why are these mass shooters not called "terrorists?" The only thing I can think of is that "terrorist" has come to imply "muslim" in our popular discourse, but I would like to think I'm wrong about that.)

Anyway, my wife and I emailed Sen. Todd Young and pleaded that he do something, anything, to make the procurement of military grade assault rifles more difficult. Below is his vacuous response, annotated with the thoughts of yours truly:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun violence and the 2nd Amendment.  I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

Senator Young, we do not appreciate contacting you on this issue. We are forced to contact you on this issue, over and over again, because you refuse to do anything about it. You're more than willing to impose onerous requirements for people to vote, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence whatsoever that in-person voter fraud is a problem in IN; however, you refuse to do anything about assault weapon proliferation, notwithstanding the monthly mass shootings using such assault weapons.

          As your Senator, I respect that Hoosiers have strong and diverse feelings on how to prevent gun violence while protecting the 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm calling bullshit. You don't respect my feelings on the 2nd Amendment, nor do you respect the actual text of the 2nd Amendment. You respect a lowest-common-denominator version of the 2nd Amendment that races us to the bottom.

I strongly believe in upholding the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, and I know we all share a common desire to prevent acts of gun violence, such as through strengthening mental health, enforcing current gun laws, and fully funding our existing background check system.   

Notably absent? Any discussion of banning military assault weapons for civilian ownership. Where does Sen. Young stand on my right to own an M-60? My right to landmine my front yard? My right to own a tank? Given his stance on assault rifles, I think my questions are reasonable. Sen. Young, does the 2nd Amendment protect my right to build and possess a hydrogen bomb?

And Sen. Young, you weren't elected to "share a common desire" to do anything. The difference between you and me, Sen. Young, is that you have 1 of 100 votes in the U.S. Senate. I don't. You are a member of a very elite club. Did you seek to join that club to be a senator or to do something with the power that being a senator carries? It's one or the other, and I suspect it is much more of the former than the latter.

          As criminal investigations move forward in the recent Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs attacks, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on firearm accessory regulation and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System on December 6, 2017. Although I am not a member of the Committee, please be assured that I will continue to support efforts to prevent violence while upholding the 2nd Amendment right of law-abiding Americans.

Criminal investigations? We know who did it. We know who died. We know the type of gun used. The perpetrator has been charged. There is no "investigation" to speak of. The only question that remains unanswered is why "we" (by which I mean You, Sen. Young, and your bought-and-paid-for cronies) cannot or will not do anything to stop it. What will you do Sen. Young, other than cash your campaign check from the NRA? "Continue to support their efforts?" Spare me.

          Again, thank you for contacting me.  It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.

You're not welcome Senator. It is a shame and an embarrassment to be represented by you in the United States Senate. I recall when we had senators of whom we could be proud . . . Richard Lugar, I turn my lonely eyes to you. Governor Holcomb, you're our only hope.

Counting Freedom

I hear lots of discussion of gun ownership as a function of "freedom." I suppose that "freedom" is the "freedom" to own a device capable of killing multiple people per minute?

Before getting into this discussion, a note about the 2nd Amendment. As the reader of this blog knows, I am an attorney; I have taken constitutional law; I have read the Constitution and its amendments more than once. Insofar as we discuss the 2nd Amendment, any argument that takes the general form of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not warrant a response from me for this simple reason: If you, Mr. Pro Gun Rights, can read out of the 2nd Amendment the part about "well-regulated militia," then I, Mr. Gun Control, might as well read out the part about "not be infringed." Pure and simple.

Moving on.

People talk about "freedom" a lot. What about my freedoms? What about my freedom to send my kids to school, here in Speedway, and not have them come home with bullets in them? What about the freedom of those high school kids in Florida to get their education without getting shot at in the process? What about the churchgoers in Texas and their freedom to worship freely without being shot? Concert goers in Nevada? People in Orlando who simply wanted to go out for some drinks and dancing? Parents to send their small children to school without being slaughtered? People to go see a Batman movie without someone using the theater to "shoot fish in a barrel"?

Why is it that some guy's right to own a mass killing device (no doubt to compensate for the sub-standard size of his genitalia) trumps all of these peoples' right to simply live their lives without fear of being slaughtered?

Rights are constantly balanced. My right to due process is balanced against the State's rights to swift justice. My free-speech rights are curtailed in numerous ways . . . an obvious example is that I can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, thereby inducing a panic. The old saw is that my right to swing my fist through the air ends as soon as my fist hits your face.

Well, the gun ownership fist of society has repeatedly hit the face of society's citizenry that merely wants to live its life in peace. As a reminder, while there are more guns than people in America, only about 1/3 Americans own a gun and 3% of Americans own 50% of its guns.

I am tired of this. I am tired of seeing slaughter so often that I can't even remember all of the ones in the past year. I am terrified of having to explain to my 5-year-old son why he needs to be prepared for someone to walk into his school and try to shoot him.

My generation has allowed this debate to go so far off the rails. We expected our Baby Boomer parents to be able to do something about this. We were foolish. Our Baby Boomer parents have solved precisely zero problems during their tenure in charge, and they need to be replaced.

We are the adults now. We are the ones responsible for the direction of our community. If we continue to do nothing about the proliferation of guns in our society, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves as these mass shootings happen again and again and again and again and again and again . . .

I will have more on this.

On Guns (Again)

How many times are we going to do this?

Step 1: Guy kills a bunch of people in horrific fashion.
Step 2: People ask, "Why does this keep happening?"
Step 3: NRA types blame it on mental illness.
Step 4: People point out that America doesn't have a higher mental illness rate than other countries and that the only outlying stats are (a) gun ownership and (b) mass killings.
Step 5: NRA types offer their "thoughts and prayers."
Step 6: NOTHING HAPPENS.
Step 7: Repeat cycle.

Amazingly, when you do nothing in response to a repeating problem, the problem continues to repeat. This year is 36 days old, and we have had 24 school shootings.

This is shameful.

Not for nothing, this May, Speedway H.S. will graduate a new cohort of students. Not a single one of them will be old enough to buy a beer. Every one of them will be old enough to buy an assault weapon.

Does this make sense?

A(nother) Moment of Silence

Maybe some day we as a society will actually do something about this:

A 15-year-old student opened fire with a handgun inside his rural Kentucky high school Tuesday, killing two classmates, injuring 17 others and sending hundreds fleeing for safety.

While it is fortunate that the 17 wounded students have survived, let's not forget that at least some of them will have life-altering injuries and medical expenses that will probably bankrupt them and their families.

Hug your kids extra tight today. You never know whether you'll get to tomorrow. 

Gun Control - 2 Modest Proposals

I have very mixed feelings about the issue of gun control.

I sympathize and respect someone who lives in the inner city and is tired of seeing handguns being as easy to obtain as hairbrushes. I get why that person would want to see guns harder to obtain, and I completely agree.

I also sympathize and respect someone who lives in the same inner-city neighborhood and wants to get a gun to protect him/herself and his/her family from the gun-toting would-be thugs roaming the neighborhood. I get why that person is thankful to have a gun, and I completely agree.

I further sympathize and respect those who live in rural areas, and for whom gun ownership is a cultural thing and a rite of passage. Look, both of my grandfathers were gun owners and hunters; my father learned to hunt growing up in eastern Michigan in the 1950s and 1960s.

I get it.

However, I also get that America is the only developed nation on Earth that has this problem of serial mass shootings. Canada, England, France, Spain, Australia, Germany, Poland, etc. don't have fewer crazy people than America does. They don't have fewer frustrated "ticking time bombs" than America does. They have fewer guns.

Now, some would say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I would alter that just a bit to say that guns don't kill people, bullets do. Nonetheless, point well taken.

It is in light of the above that I propose two seemingly simple policies:

1. Barcode Firing Pins

When a gun is fired, the firing pin strikes the bullet, igniting the gunpowder and sending the bullet out to its fate, be that a sandbag or a skull. We have the technology already whereby we can take a bullet and a gun and determine whether a particular bullet came from a particular gun. Why can't we mandate that gun makers place a microscopic barcode on the firing pin of the weapons they well, thereby imprinting the bar code on the bullet? Imagine, if you will, a situation where as soon as the bullet is discovered, we (the people) know which exact gun fired it. I believe that this would go a long way in solving violent crime, and it would not infringe on the right to own a gun whatsoever.

As my grandfather often told me, don't aim at something you don't want to shoot; don't shoot at something you don't want to kill. If you have a problem owning that you shot that bullet, then perhaps you shouldn't shoot that bullet.

Seems pretty simple to me. As an added bonus, it actually helps us delineate between the so-called "good guys with guns" and the "bad guys with guns." Once we find the bullet, we'll know whether the gun owner is a "good" or "bad" guy.

2. Mandatory Insurance Premiums Upon Bullet Purchase

If you drive a car, you have to carry liability insurance, just in case you injure an innocent third party. If you shoot a gun, shouldn't the same liability insurance requirement attach? 

Let's say, hypothetically, that my neighbor wakes up to find an intruder in his house. My neighbor then picks up his Saturday Night Special and blasts that intruder straight to hell. The only problem is that he shot three bullets at the intruder, and two of them either missed or passed right through the intruder and wound up in my gut.

Now, assuming I know who shot the bullets, I suppose I can sue someone for the untold damages this gunshot wound to the gut would inflict on me. I support my entire family with my job, but if I'm laid up in a hospital for 4 months, it's a bit hard to litigate, no? What about my exorbitant medical bills? Should I have to bear that cost?

Let's assume for a moment that the shooting was something less noble. Let's say that there were two cars on Moeller Rd., and one of the drivers had road rage. They then shoot at each other, and one of the shots misses and again lodges in my gut. The damages are the same. Do I just suck it up and call that the price of freedom? When I am not a gun owner; I didn't shoot anyone; I didn't do anything to incur this risk?

If the purchase of a bullet automatically results in the payment of an insurance premium, at least there would be a pool of money with which to compensate the very real innocent third parties that are harmed by inadvertent, negligent shootings.

As it sits right now, the cost of such inadvertent or negligent shootings are borne privately by the recipients of the bullets involved in the shootings. Why should they pay? Why not the category of people who have the greatest ability to avoid the harm . . . the shooters.

Finally, the cost of this insurance premium could be directly proportionate to the risk. Perhaps .22 caliber bullets don't represent the same risk that .45 bullets do. Well, premium goes down. Perhaps bullets bought from Store A have historically wound up in cadavers. Well, premium goes up. Along these lines, I suspect the increased cost for one bullet is minimal whereas the increased cost for the person who wants to fire 1,000 rounds/week would (hopefully) be prohibitive.

Conclusion

These are just a few thoughts on what to do about the prevalence of gun violence in our country. I recognize that some people don't think this is a problem. I recognize that others have determined that the best way to address gun violence is "do nothing." I am not one of those people. To detractors, I would say that unless you have a better idea, you don't have any ideas, and talking about how "we need to get God back" in XXXXXXX (insert classroom, govt., etc.) or how "we need stronger families" is not a solution; it is lamentation.

As a final note, I would say this to our elected "leaders." As long as your policy prescription to this problem is "nothing," you have made a legislative determination and policy decision that the lives of those who have died from gun violence are an acceptable price to be paid in service of something (what that something is, I can't begin to imagine).

Gun Control & Mental Health

Sometimes, I wonder if The Onion is still satirical or, rather, the only publication with the guile to accurately describe the world in which we live.

Take, for example, this mock-op-ed by "Paul Ryan":

The simple truth is, mass shootings like this aren’t about gun control we refuse to pass. They’re about access to mental health care that we will continue to gut.

You can already hear the calls from the left. In the aftermath of this mass murder, millions of people are once again pushing for an assault weapons ban that I won’t allow lawmakers to give even a moment of consideration, let alone bring to a vote. If these folks actually examined the realities of the issue, they would see that the real culprit in these incidents is, and always has been, our country’s inadequate mental healthcare system that leaves troubled, potentially violent individuals without the support they need, and which my colleagues and I have spent most of our careers seeking, often successfully, to defund. 

The reason we have tragedies like this is because of how our healthcare system that I am dead set on undermining fails to serve Americans in desperate need of psychological treatment. Not because of a lack of gun ownership regulations, the slightest toughening of which will never even receive a single second of debate on the floor of the House on my watch.

Sometimes, all you can do is tip your hat. Please read the whole thing for perspective.

Psst, hey buddy, how much for the Congressman?

Courtesy of the New York Times, the Congress Members who have received the most from the NRA:

Senate

1.		John McCain Ariz.	“Cindy & I are praying for the victims of the terrible #LasVegasShooting & their families.”	$7,740,521 FROM THE N.R.A.
2.		Richard Burr N.C.	“My heart is with the people of Las Vegas and their first responders today. This morning’s tragic violence has absolutely no place here in America.”	$5,902,968 FROM THE N.R.A.
3.		Roy Blunt Mo.	“Saddened by the tragic loss of life in #LasVegas. My thoughts are with all of the families affected by this horrific attack.”	$4,551,146 FROM THE N.R.A.
4.		Thom Tillis N.C.	“Susan and I send our deepest condolences and prayers to the families of the victims of this horrific and senseless tragedy in Las Vegas.”	$4,418,012 FROM THE N.R.A.
5.		Cory Gardner Co.	“My family and I are praying for the families of those injured and killed in Las Vegas last night.”	$3,879,064 FROM THE N.R.A.
6.		Marco Rubio Fla.	“I’m praying for all the victims, their families, and our first responders in the #LasVegas #MandalayBay shooting.”	$3,303,355 FROM THE N.R.A.
7.		Joni Ernst Iowa	“My prayers are with all of the victims in Las Vegas, and their loved ones affected by this senseless act of violence.”	$3,124,273 FROM THE N.R.A.
8.		Rob Portman Ohio	“Jane & I mourn the loss of innocent lives in this horrific attack in Las Vegas last night. We are praying for those taken from us, their families & all those injured in this attack.”	$3,061,941 FROM THE N.R.A.
9.		Todd Young Ind.	No statement released.	$2,896,732 FROM THE N.R.A.
10.		Bill Cassidy La.	“Following closely the horrendous act of violence in Las Vegas. Our prayers are with those who were injured, killed and their families.”	$2,861,047 FROM THE N.R.A.

House

1.		French Hill Ark.	“Martha and I are praying for the families and victims of this senseless act of evil. […] We must continue to work together to stop this kind of terror.”	$1,089,477 FROM THE N.R.A.
2.		Ken Buck Co.	“I'm praying for all of those impacted by the evil events in Las Vegas last night. Our country must stand together in support of the families of the victims and the community.”	$800,544 FROM THE N.R.A.
3.		David Young Iowa	“My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and friends of the horrific and evil tragedy in Las Vegas.”	$707,662 FROM THE N.R.A.
4.		Mike Simpson Ind.	“Though no words can heal our hurt, and no explanation will ever feel sufficient, I pray that all involved may find comfort as we process this devastating tragedy.”	$385,731 FROM THE N.R.A.
5.		Greg Gianforte Mont.	No statement released.	$344,630 FROM THE N.R.A.
6.		Don Young Ark.	“Anne and I are praying for all those involved or impacted by this heinous act of violence.”	$245,720 FROM THE N.R.A.
7.		Lloyd Smucker Pa.	“Horrific act of violence in Las Vegas. Cindy and I pray for the victims, their families, and the first responders.”	$221,736 FROM THE N.R.A.
8.		Bruce Poliquin Maine	“My thoughts are with all those effected in the horrifying attacks in Las Vegas. The nation is with you.”	$201,398 FROM THE N.R.A.
9.		Pete Sessions Tex.	“My deepest sympathies are with all who were harmed by this horrific tragedy.”	$158,111 FROM THE N.R.A.
10.		Barbara Comstock Va.	“I am heartbroken by the mass murder that took place last night in Las Vegas and I am praying for the victims, families, and first responders.”	$137,232 FROM THE N.R.A.

It saddens me to see two members of the great state of Indiana on this list. I will not be voting for either one, but that is no shock to anyone who has read this blog.

"The Right Time"

I don't care to be lectured that yesterday or today are not the right times to talk about our nation's gun laws.

I similarly don't care to be lectured that it is "insensitive" to discuss global climate change in the wake of repeated tragic hurricanes.

When we see a building collapse, the first thing we do after mourning those killed therein is discuss how to improve building codes to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

When a (foreign) terrorist attack happens, the first thing we do is discuss ways to make our foreign policy more aggressive so that we can ensure that every last person with even the tiniest amount of sympathy for terror-related causes is killed (dead as a door nail).

When a bridge collapses, we again address building regulations.

When insurance rates skyrocket we have a spirited (if ill-informed) debate about why it happened and what we can do about it.

Why is it that the only time we can't talk about (1) the cause of a tragedy and (2) the appropriate response thereto is when an American decides to use a weapon of war for its sole designated purpose: killing human beings en mass?

On Las Vegas

Pardon me as I rant here.

This happens too often, and I am not gullible enough to believe that anything will change because of it. This is the society that we have built, one with more mass shootings than any other society in the history of mankind.

This is the society that we have built, where a country music concert becomes a killing field.

This is the society that we have built, where a black man shooting up a crowd of people is a "thug," an Arabic man doing so is a "terrorist," and a white man doing so is "crazy."

This is the society that we have built, where my initial fear after the Las Vegas shootings was that they were done by someone named Yusef Mohhamed and that crackdowns on our civil liberties would surely follow. What happened to being a nation of laws? What happened to judging the action, not the actor?

This is the society we have built, where people piously offer their "prayers" after each mass shooting and then refuse to do, literally, anything else about the problem. That strikes me as the person who apologizes for wronging you and has precisely zero plans to do anything to avoid wronging you again in the future.

We have seen the problem, and the problem is us. We will all have to answer to our maker for this someday. I don't know how I will explain myself other than to look at my shoes in shame.

Happy Taco Tuesday. Hug your kids.

UPDATE: I wish I had good news. However, upon further review, I don't.

The five years since a gunman killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have seen one of the most intense bursts of gun legislation in U.S. history—almost all of it intended to ensure that more guns can be carried into more places.

. . . . .

A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun restrictions by 75 percent in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature.

This may explain why gun advocates insist that the immediate aftermath of a spectacular massacre is “too soon” for the gun discussion. They want the pain and grief and fear to ebb. They want ordinary citizens to look away. Then, when things are quiet, the gun advocates will go to work, to bring more guns to places where alcohol is served, where children are cared for, where students are taught, where God is worshipped. More killings bring more guns. More guns do more killing. It’s a cycle the nation has endured for a long time, and there is little reason to hope that the atrocity in Las Vegas will check or reverse it.

Guns, Self-Defense, and Yosemite Sam

I have a friend who worked as a consultant for the oil industry for awhile in Texas. When I asked him what Texas was like, he told me that it was the easiest place in the world to fit in . . . if you ever wonder what you should do, just ask yourself, "What would Yosemite Sam do?" His guiding principle.

In light of that, I noticed this story lately about a shoot-out between two neighbors down near Greenwood.

Now, I am not a big gun rights guy, nor am I a big gun control guy. You could say I own a "handgun," but since the day my grandfather picked it up off a dead German soldier in Europe sometime in the 1940s, I don't think it has been fired. Perhaps its more of a "decoration" than a "firearm," but nonetheless.

It occurred to me that gun-rights advocates are absolutely correct - guns don't kill people. Along the same lines, gasoline doesn't burn anything. They both, however, tend to accelerate already dangerous situations.

Here is the gist of the Greenwood story:

Security video released earlier this month shows the violent clash between Weigle and neighbor Dean Keller, 49.

Weigle can be heard insulting Keller and his wife, then is seen driving a riding mower off screen. Weigle backed up the mower and returned to the camera’s view, when he raises a handgun toward the sky.

Keller pulled a handgun and fired. Four shots struck Weigle in the chest. Weigle fell from the mower and fired shots back toward the Kellers.

This can only be described as tragic. What should have been a neighborly disagreement turned into a life threatening situation. Both parties will forever be affected by this one moment of lost tempers.

I heard a story shortly after moving in about how two of my (former) neighbors had a fistfight in the middle of the cul-de-sac. While a fistfight is assuredly not a preferred outcome, it is infinitely preferable to a shootout. If two people decide they want to fight, at least there aren't any stray bullets whizzing through my daughter's bedroom.

A thought.