GUN CONTROL
Tuesday
March 6, 2018

We've had yet another mass shooting and, as in just about every instance, we're once again placing the focus on creating new gun control laws. But is this where we should be concentrating? There's no doubt that people have used guns to carry out some horrendous acts of violence, not just mass shootings, but individual murders, robberies, and rape. If a gun could be used to help penetrate the crime, it was. But for some reason, it's the mass shootings that have drawn our attention like moth to a flame. Anything less than two people killed and we pretty much tune it out, probably because murders are a daily occurrence.

There are a lot of proposals on how to stop mass shootings, most of which seems to be centered around eliminating assault style weapons like the AR 15. But would this really make a difference? Does not having (legal) access to an AR 15 make it impossible for me to take out an entire neighborhood of innocent people? If you think so, then you're living in a fantasy world.

If you ask me (and no one has, yet I'll volunteer my opinion anyway), the problem isn't guns, regardless of the types they are. It's with the people who wield them and their frame of mind. Maybe instead of trying to dictate the responsible do's and can't's for law-abiding citizens, what we need is to try to devise a way of stopping acts of violence—all acts of violence—before they happen as opposed to dealing with the aftermath.

While watching TV, I noticed something. We have laws for just about everything you can possibly imagine, from archaic laws which used to tell us what positions we could have during sex, to laws mandating how many fractions of a cent we have to pay when buying a gallon of gas. We've even got laws mandating that our students be taught how to recognize victims of sex trafficking yet, somehow, we don't have any laws dictating things like conflict resolution, alternatives to violence, etc. Why not?

Our children are in school being taught things that, chances are, they'll never use once they graduate. Yet the one thing they need on an almost daily basis, we've left completely out of the equation. Tell me, does that make any sense to you? Instead of teaching these things to our children, when they're young and impressionable, we wait until they're arrested and sent to prison. By that time, their ways are pretty much set in stone and we're trying to force it down their throats.

Something interesting I've noticed is that when it comes to sex offenders, we take a much different stance. If a man (or a woman) is convicted of a sexually based offense, instead of being released, the state attempts to confine him in some sort of mental facility indefinitely. While I'm not trying to minimize the trauma that a victim of a sexual assault goes through, the victim is at least able to make an attempt to recovering. When it comes to murder, there is no such ability. Once you're gone, you're gone—plain and simple.

Now, I'm not implying that we should be incarcerating anyone and everyone who might commit an act of violence. The potential for abuse is simply too high, not to mention the fact that you're violating their civil rights for incarcerating them for nothing more than a suspicion that they might act. But with that said, why can't we at least mandate some sort of intervention by someone trained in conflict resolution? I'm not saying that we should force them to accept mental health counseling, just that it would be a nice thing to have someone trained in conflict resolution go over there and meet with them. Find out what the problem is, offer some potential solutions, like a referral to someone for additional counseling (free of charge), referral to someone for psychiatric medication (again, free of charge). Maybe even a referral to some sort of mediation specialist (yep, you guessed it: free of charge). And yes, these expenses might add up—especially over time—but wouldn't it be well worth the expense: to prevent who knows how many acts of violence?

Another point to ponder: in almost all situations, the shooters went online far ahead of time and posted their plans—or at least left some sort of clue as to what they planned on doing. And in almost all instances, law enforcement failed to take proper steps, particularly with this latest incident in Broward County, Florida. While I don't condone violating people's right to privacy, keep in mind that none of these warnings were posted privately. They were all posted on social media or publicly available discussion boards. Twitter, etc. No search warrant has ever been needed to review something someone posted publicly, which makes me wonder: why were these warning signs ignored?

Perhaps, in some cases, they were recognized as warning signs only with the clarity of hindsight. In this most recent instance, he was crystal clear about his intentions. He wanted to be a "professional school shooter." Yet law enforcement failed to even make an attempt to investigate. Now that he's acted, instead of protesting them, we're protecting gun ownership.

There might not be a solution that solves all of the problems associated with violence—or even just gun violence. But one thing we can be sure on: ban the guns and only the criminals will have them. Well, criminals and law enforcement. We've all seen how reliable they are when it comes to gun use.

As always, I appreciate the feedback, positive and negative. In fact, I welcome it. I'd love nothing more than to be able to debate this issue with someone. So please, feel free to leave a comment or contact me directly at the address below:

Shawn L. Perrot CDCR# V-42461
CIM C-Butte Upper: 246L
P.O. Box 500
Chino, CA 91708