When I was a Forum operator or Sysop on CompuServe, before Al Gore invented the Internet, the sysops would discuss how to best maintain civility in our forums when the members seemed to be losing it. One thing we all noted was that for some people, it was very easy to forget that there were people on the other side of their computer screen. Many of us experienced it ourselves and learned to stop and read what we wrote before we hit "POST". It was a loss of empathy. A failure to recognize the emotional effect we could or would have on people reading those words.
Empathy is easier face to face, where the play of emotions is easier read in a persons facial expressions and body language. Where the effect of words can often be seen, and even ameliorated before much damage is done. But online, that is lost. And we often recognize the loss and try to restore it with "emoticons" or other symbolic expressions of feeling. But it's not the same.
Now think about what this does to children. The ages of 3-9 are where empathy is developed. Children learn very early on how what others do and say affect them, but at age 3 or so, their world begins to expand. and when children start interacting with other children and adults, they learn how what they do and say affects others. It is the time when children make friends. More importantly, it is when they learn how to make friends.
But more and more, that interaction is being replaced with inanimate things—computers, e-tablets, smartphones—that get between people and insulate them from that face to face contact that is needed to develop and reinforce empathy. Video games are perhaps the worst. The characters are not real. They don't die, you can't hurt them. And if they hurt you, you can make them go away. And then bring them back and start over.
But it doesn't work that way in real life. There are no reboots or extra lives. You get one chance at getting it right the first time. Every chance after that has a history. And if you can't empathize, if you can't feel what the other person is feeling, if you can't recognize what you are doing to another person, your chances of getting it right that first time are poor at best.
It is no wonder that some kids grow up feeling despised, rejected, cast out. They probably are. Having never learned how not to hurt others feelings, they are probably not very nice people to be around. So they are despised, rejected, cast out. When the only feelings that matter are your own, it is easy to be a self-centered narcissist. It is easy to see others as objects to be used and played with for your won amusement. And if they don't let you do that, it is easy to decide to just make them go away.
The rise in autism, Asperger's and ADD, (which some believe to be on the same spectrum) may play a role in this as a cause or effect or a bit of both. Isolation breeds mental instability, and Autism and Asperger's can be self isolating.
Do guns have anything to do with this? Well, they can make it easier to make others go away. But other things will suffice. Elliot Rodger, the 22 yo who killed 6 people in Isla Vista, CA because he felt rejected perhaps fits this profile of a non-empathic. He shot 3 people to death, but he first killed 3 others with a knife and a hammer, and he injured several with his car. I don't think it mattered much to him what he used. Based on what he said, it seems he was more afraid police would find out what he planned to do, not what he was going to do it with.
But children are smart. They learn from adults whether adults teach them intentionally or not. One thing children learn is that many adults are afraid of guns, and most parents are fearful for their children's safety. If you are an outcast wanting to get back at society for whatever reason, the adults have already taught you that the best way is to use a gun, and attack their children. They will notice you...finally.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Monday, May 12, 2014
Mother, may I?
Over on The High Road, a thread was started asking the question: “Should we have personal interviews, references, training, etc, for gun licenses?” That is a good question. It was prompted by this staement on yet another thread:
As human beings, we all have the same natural fundamental rights. All rights are subject to restriction or even prohibition by government, but as US Citizens, we have a privilege of having some of those rights protected from government infringement or regulation. The rights to keep and bear arms are protected by the US Constitution, as are other enumerated rights such as the rights of freedom of speech, press, religion, etc., and a host of other non-enumerated rights. But all rights do not receive the same protections.
The 2nd Amendment opens with the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the peace and security of a free state." In the context of the times when that was written, “well-regulated” meant well-trained. And who is the milita? In the words of George Mason, “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people,…” So it can be argued that the 2nd Amendment itself, in protecting the right to keep and bear arms, expressed first, the expectation of the existance of a militia which carried by default, the expectation that each person would keep arms in their himr for personal use, and the necessity and and expectation for those persons bearing arms (the militia) to be trained in their operation and use. It is part of the responsibility each person has in exercising the right to bear arms in public.
The right of a person to keep arms in their own home or on their own property should not be open to question, much less restriction. The right to bear arms in public, is perhaps another matter, as the bearing of arms is a militia function. On the other hand, is a person bearing arms for his one use in self-defense, performing a militia function? Perhaps not.
If we are going to interpret the 2nd Amendment as stating a condition necessary for bearing arme, and apply the 2nd Amendment in toto, I have no objection to testing firarms proficiency and basic familiarity with the law as a minimum requirement for the bearing of arms. But as the militia is the whole of the people, these things should then be a required part of the basic curriculum so that everyone who attends school receives the training.
If, on the other hand, we are going to ignore the necessity of training for personal use, or the necessity of the militia being well trained, and just hope that each person recognizes and accepts the need to be trained to minimum degree of proficiency as a personal responsibility, then that too is acceptable. But, in that case, we do need to better educate people on the responsibilities that are part and parcel of the exercise of any individual rights in a free society.
unfortunately, the trend over the past 100+ years has been to relieve individuals of personal responsibility for decisions in many areas of their lives in favor of government making those decisions for them in the form of rules and regulations...and restrictions of fundamental rights. There is little if any benefit to be gained from this and much to loose. Indeed, much has already been lost.
“But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.”None of these things should be necessary to get a permit to either own or carry a firearm because permits should not be required for the exercise of a protected fundamental right.
As human beings, we all have the same natural fundamental rights. All rights are subject to restriction or even prohibition by government, but as US Citizens, we have a privilege of having some of those rights protected from government infringement or regulation. The rights to keep and bear arms are protected by the US Constitution, as are other enumerated rights such as the rights of freedom of speech, press, religion, etc., and a host of other non-enumerated rights. But all rights do not receive the same protections.
The 2nd Amendment opens with the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the peace and security of a free state." In the context of the times when that was written, “well-regulated” meant well-trained. And who is the milita? In the words of George Mason, “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people,…” So it can be argued that the 2nd Amendment itself, in protecting the right to keep and bear arms, expressed first, the expectation of the existance of a militia which carried by default, the expectation that each person would keep arms in their himr for personal use, and the necessity and and expectation for those persons bearing arms (the militia) to be trained in their operation and use. It is part of the responsibility each person has in exercising the right to bear arms in public.
The right of a person to keep arms in their own home or on their own property should not be open to question, much less restriction. The right to bear arms in public, is perhaps another matter, as the bearing of arms is a militia function. On the other hand, is a person bearing arms for his one use in self-defense, performing a militia function? Perhaps not.
If we are going to interpret the 2nd Amendment as stating a condition necessary for bearing arme, and apply the 2nd Amendment in toto, I have no objection to testing firarms proficiency and basic familiarity with the law as a minimum requirement for the bearing of arms. But as the militia is the whole of the people, these things should then be a required part of the basic curriculum so that everyone who attends school receives the training.
If, on the other hand, we are going to ignore the necessity of training for personal use, or the necessity of the militia being well trained, and just hope that each person recognizes and accepts the need to be trained to minimum degree of proficiency as a personal responsibility, then that too is acceptable. But, in that case, we do need to better educate people on the responsibilities that are part and parcel of the exercise of any individual rights in a free society.
unfortunately, the trend over the past 100+ years has been to relieve individuals of personal responsibility for decisions in many areas of their lives in favor of government making those decisions for them in the form of rules and regulations...and restrictions of fundamental rights. There is little if any benefit to be gained from this and much to loose. Indeed, much has already been lost.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
That and that and other things...
Dumb ideas make bad laws, and “smart guns” are a really dumb idea. Here is a Forbes article on the idea of smart guns.
DIY-guy on The High Road did a really good comparison of some 46 cleaner, lubricant, protectants (CLPs)
Sierra Bullets VP of sales weighs in on the .22LR shortage.
Freedom Index offers what it calls, “a Tool for Identifying the Most Free Country in the World” I don't know how accurate it is but it is interesting to play with.
DIY-guy on The High Road did a really good comparison of some 46 cleaner, lubricant, protectants (CLPs)
Sierra Bullets VP of sales weighs in on the .22LR shortage.
Freedom Index offers what it calls, “a Tool for Identifying the Most Free Country in the World” I don't know how accurate it is but it is interesting to play with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)