Hasty Decisions

After what happened this week at Virginia Tech, the common theme that is resonating across all forms of media is gun control. It would appear the everyone is coming out saying that we need stricter gun control, but not many are actually coming up with solutions.

It's not so much that this guy fell through the cracks of the current gun control system, but rather that the gun control and police investigation systems are not designed to find these people. The perpetrator of this incident did not have a criminal record or any previous gun purchases before he started buying only about a month ago; the only thing that separates this guy from the average gun purchaser (through reputable, legal means) is that he is an immigrant with a permanent residency visa.

The fact of the matter is that there is no simple or easy solution. Right now there are probably dozens of different gun control legislation being drafted that will attempt to fill the gaps of the current legislation and while it may be contrary to popular belief, they need to stop. The worst thing that can be done at this point in time is to hastily run to congress with legislation to attempt to plug the gaps in current legislation without knowing exactly what happened. The only thing that will result is a race to congress with inappropriate legislation full of holes that does either does not remedy this situation or it has no chance of passing. This is not something that can be approached with a hot head right after this incident. What will end up happening is you will see bills coming up that are too overzealous and will attempt to create a bunch of restrictions on gun ownership, resulting in the gun nuts and NRA coming out in opposition to it resulting in a flop. The inverse situation will also result by people being overly cautious, just wanting to get something through resulting in the anti-gun nuts coming out and decrying it as not being aggressive enough. Everyone needs to sit back and wait for a couple of months or more for the situation to calm down and let cooler heads prevail.

Additionally, when you look at what we know about the situation so far, there really is no simple answer that will solve this situation. With what we know right now, it can be broken down into two issues:

• An individual was becoming more and more disturbed and signs of what he is potentially capable of were recognized by a teacher that tried to do something about it by reporting it to the police. The problem is that the police can not investigate someone for being potentially dangerous to himself and others in the future.
• An individual with no record and nothing to raise any red flags was able to procure two hand guns over a period of just over a month

There is no simple solution. Unless comprehensive psychological exams, or personal references that can vouch for ones mental stability are required for all gun purchases then the same situation can not be avoided or reduced in the future. A simple waiting period can not be implemented either; the man acquired his armament over a period exceeding a month and clearly was willing to wait to accomplish this incident and clearly did not snap but rather was "simmering" over a long period of time.

All we have that this sort of situation is going to happen are the signals that someone sends out. Purchasing two handguns over a relatively short period of time may be suspicious, or just a sign of someone who is interested in taking up sport shooting. Buying a couple of hundred rounds at once, or even over a month, is not really a flag either since manufacturers will package these types of rounds in boxes of 100 and the purchase of this much ammo can easily be explained as being used for target practice. These are really not signals of an impending rampage. While 100 rounds and several spare magazines can do a tremendous amount of damage in a crowd, the majority of gun owners are not stocking up for a rampage and does not raise any flags.

Unless there is a way for people to report people that they believe to be potentially unstable and harmful to themselves and others then these types of attacks will continue. When a teacher realized that this individual could be potentially dangerous she went to the police; but since he hadn't actually done anything, there was nothing for them to do. Perhaps if someone can investigate suspicious people reported to a hot line or something (1-800-FIN-NUTS perhaps) then these sorts of attacks can be reduced. The problem with this is then that people may start reporting everyone that they don't get along with and are not unstable, slowing down whatever task force that would investigate.

What it all comes down to is that there is no simple solution. Something needs to be done and it needs to appropriate and not so aggressive that it doesn't pass, and not so weak that it does nothing. It needs to be able to impact those that will acquire their firearms through illicit means (black market) but we can not start sending squads of people swarming homes of people that someone thinks has a "crazy eye". This situation needs to be handled with tact and level heads. Emotionally charged legislation will not help anyone by floundering and failing in congress.

Anti-Truth

Lately there has been a trend in reporting from "reputable news sources". I am calling this trend anti-truth reporting. This is basically a method of mis-direction from the truth of the matter.


How this tactic is typically employed is by basing a report around a few select facts, which are independently benign and typically not really news worthy, and then extrapolating the remainder of the report around blind speculation and the lack of any more facts. Now, sometimes the lack of evidence is evidence of something in itself, but presenting a news report based on this tactic is ingenuine and rather unethical.


Now, you may be wondering what I'm talking about and the perfect example of this anti-truth tactic is that recently there was a story of Fox News about a certain Senator Barack Obama. Now, if the report was done in a more genuine, non-fear mongering way that was geared more towards knowing more about the man instead of making people think that he's a terrorist that has infiltrated the Legislative Branch, it might not have been so bad. What happened instead is that someone found out that he attended a Muslim school when he was younger. Now, to a normal, rational individual thats more of an interesting factoid than something to base an entire story about; what ended up happening is that they aired a story containing a lot of speculation and hearsay.


It turns out that when a competitor news network did a little . . . what do you call it? . . . ahh, journalism, they discovered that what is basically amounted to is a parochial school. So, if the school that he attended was a feeder team for the terrorist all-stars then the same logic would apply to a Catholic parochial school being training for an entire new generation of crusaders.

It seems to me that if a "news network" wants to be seen as being "fair and balanced", then they need to take a little bit of effort and do the research it takes to keep them from being embarassed when someone else finds out what they missed. Are these guys horribly understaffed, under funded, or employing a bunch of lazy bastards that think they are still in college (if they actually went) that just turn in BS reports like they did back when they were kegmaster.


Now, if reporting continues to follow this unethical and improper practice of pseduo-reporting the anti-truth instead of doing the proper leg work that is required to disseminate important or factual information to the masses that will allow them to make educated decisions that relate to the safety and stability of the nation, bad decisions will be made and everyone will suffer.

In short, Obama did not go to terrorism school, stem cell research does not kill anyone nor does it clone anyone, and sending 21,000 more troops to Iraq (without the approval of anyone) is a troop surge.