Lunacy: a Real Cause for Concern

      Yesterday at work I sliced two of my fingers pretty bad with a razor knife, and one slice is right on the tip of an index finger, so typing right now is a real trick - and painful.  With that said, let us move on to the glorious spectacle that is The Journal of Sundry Wonderments.  

      Today's topic is crazies, i.e. crazy people, people who are nuts, off their rockers, several fries short of a Happy Meal, complete whackatrons, off their chumleys, people whose satellites are orbiting a different system Loony Tunes.  This is in no way meant to demean people who are suffering from mental illness, or to to poke fun at them.  Mental illness is serious, comes in many forms, and should definitely be dealt with and treated in some way shape or form. 
      I bring this up because in the US right now there are a lot of people lobbying to pass many different forms and degrees of gun control.  This is a response (and a natural one I'm sure) to all the weird and tragic episodes of someone going off and shooting a lot of people.  
      Some people on one end of the spectrum want all private ownership of guns to be completely banned (and there are some groups that want a ban on the ownership and use of all projectile weapons - this would include all bows, arrows, spears, atlatls, and even throwing knives and tommahawks).  They look forward to one day reading a headline in the paper that reads something like "The People Are Now Safe: The Government Has All the Guns!"  I have a big problem with that view for several reasons.  The first one being where that headline was actually seen once.  It was the headline in papers across Germany during the dictatorship of Hitler.  That headline was the beginning of hell on earth for the poor German people, no matter what racial stock they came from.  Every citizen there suffered because of it.  
      The second reason is because that view removes a major deterrent to national invasion by an enemy army.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, even warlord psychos like Tojo, Mao Tse Tung (and his cronies), and Stalin (and his cronies) never wanted to even think about daring an invasion, because they knew how well armed the American people are.  Besides having to face a regular army, and organized, legal, government sponsored militia (such as the National Guard), they would have to face a well armed, undisciplined (they would probably not be in the mood to give quarter, mercy, or take prisoners), and angry populace.  The last time a foreign army launched an attack on American soil was the British in 1812, and because of the aforementioned reasons, they soon learned that this was a huge mistake.  I like that deterrent.  That same deterrent kept the French, English, and later the American governments off the backs of the Ojibwe People.  According to traders' documentation, as early as 1675 the Ojibwe people already had more guns than the British, French, Dutch, and Spanish combined.  

                                                    Armed Ojibwe Warrior
                     
      On the other end of the spectrum are the people who are insistent that gun ownership is their constitutional right (which according to the 2nd Amendment, it is).  They do not want to see any infringement at all to the ability to procure and own arms.  
      Understanding the reasons behind the 2nd Amendment is crucial to understand its meaning.  It does not say "the right to keep and to bear deer rifles."  Nor does it say, "the right to keep and to bear duck shotguns."  The key word is "arms."  Because of this clear wording and the reasons for this amendment laid out by the founding fathers, this is where even the NRA gets it wrong.  We understand that our government here is made up of three branches, so as to have three different checks and balances to the actions of the government.  Well, the government has three branches, but there are four checks and balances to it.  The fourth one being a well armed populace.  And that's exactly what people like Thomas Jefferson said.  They made provision in the founding documents to at any time they deem necessary, the well armed populace can replace the government, should it become too corrupt.  At the time this was written, the top of the line military hardware was either a flintlock rifle or a flintlock musket with bayonet.  According to the concepts behind the 2nd Amendment "arms" today could mean not only assault weapons, but even rocket launchers, bazookas, Bradleys, tanks, or even a fighter aircraft, could you afford one.  Also, remember this: the reason there is a US in the first place is because their government then tried to take away their guns.  Their arguments with the the home nation about taxes, and adding American seats to Parliament could have gone on for decades, but the attempt to confiscate weapons started a civil war.  That's what the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about.  

                                             Lexington and Concord

      Those who hold to what they see as the middle ground want to see things like bans on handguns, assault weapons, or both.  They want to see waiting periods, and/or evaluations.  Everyone who wants the bans, or limits to gun ownership cite the statistics for deaths due to firearms.  What they fail to know is that of those firearm related deaths, something like 60% or so (I can't remember the exact percentage - it may be even higher) are suicides.  From bitter experience I know that when someone is determined to take their own life, they will, with or without a gun.  Just last week someone without access to a gun chose to end his life with carbon monoxide.  In so doing he killed three other people (I'm NOT saying, however that if someone is suicidal you should hand them a gun!  What they need is some serious counseling - and fast).  Of the remaining percentage of the statistics, the majority is crimes of passion and gangbangers.  And I seriously wonder how those gangbangers ever hit their targets, seeing as they hold their guns at such a weird angle.  
      If there were stricter laws to prevent people from acquiring guns, like more background checks, do you think that would really limit the criminals and the criminally insane from owning guns?  Would they say, "Oh well.  I've got a police record as a criminal, so I can't own guns."  The criminals will ALWAYS own guns.  If they break the law about entering your home for robbery, kidnap, or rape, do you really think they will obey a law restricting the purchase of a gun.  Breaking laws is what they do.  
      A couple incidents of the past couple of weeks should cue us in to the real problem.  A week ago two young men who had gotten religiously radical to the point of insanity blew up two bombs made out of pressure cookers, and then went on a short spree of murdering a cop, and throwing bombs and shooting at others.  The week before that a man ran through a college stabbing and cutting people up, armed with a disposable razor knife (this is a graphic arts tool, much like an exacto knife).  When captured he stated that he "just wanted to kill people."  They guy in Newtown "just wanted to kill people."  The movie theater shooter "just wanted to kill people."  And the two brothers from Chechnya "just wanted to kill American people."  Do you see the pattern?  Do you see the real epidemic?  The real problem is an epidemic of people who just want to commit mass murder.  
      There is an epidemic of crazy people.  They have a bizarre desire to kill lots of total strangers, and they will do it whether or not they have a gun.  They will use knives if they have to, or even pressure cookers.  What can be done to prevent that?  Will they ban exacto knives, or pressure cookers?  I have a couple different sized pressure cookers and I use them all the time.  I use the big one to can vegetables or soups, and the little one I use for potatoes, or stewing hens, among other things.  Will someone have to form the NPCA - the National Pressure Cooker Association to lobby for the right to keep and to bear pressure cookers?  
      What events like this show us is that law abiding citizens need even more to be well armed for their own protection.  They also show us that the real issue isn't to limit gun ownership, but to limit crazy people from walking around without their leash.  In what are often called "the good olde days" crazy people were locked up (and usually in shackles) in the attic, or cellar, or the funky little room under the stairs.  

      I don't advocate that, but I definitely advocate treatment for the mentally ill.  We can't wait for the crazies to come in by themselves and say, "hey I'm going nuts, you gotta help me."  They try to hide it, especially from their own selves.   It has to be noticed, reported, and there needs to be a constitutionally secure way to go about demanding their treatment.  Just like in the present legal system, many reports might just be wrong or a misunderstanding, and the reported person will be allowed to go on their merry way, but sometimes they will discover someone who has the potential to become real dangerous.  
      We also need to limit organizations that recruit crazy people for their own benefit.  This includes people who see themselves as a future dictator somewhere, the gangs that recruit people that are depressed (probably clinically - see above), neo-nazis, and those who are religiously radical to the point of insanity. 
      Don't limit guns, limit crazy people. 
      ______________________________________________________________________

     B.T.W.  I see that although there are many people reading this blog, nobody has had any comments at all.  As far as I know, the option for adding comments is not blocked but open and free to anyone.   I would like to know what you readers think.  I would like to know what posts you like, and what doesn't work so well for you.  
      My posts are extremely varied.  There are history posts, living history posts, science posts, primarily paleontology and astronomy, crafts/rustic living posts, and posts that are generally just rants about something or other.  
      The rant posts tend to be injected with humor throughout, whereas the academic style posts are pretty much humor free, with the occasional sarcasm or very dry joke that most people would miss completely.  I also use a lot of colloquialisms and since most of my readers are actually not from around here I wonder how you deal with those, especially those of you from another country or culture.  
      I would like to hear some of your feedback.