#KSleg You might want to read this before debating guns.

Dear #KSleg,

Psst..I’ve got a little secret.  I know you are debating the “second amendment protection act” today.

Before you continue, if you could be so kind to take a  second to read this.

Love the bill name by the way.  Talk about political spin.  Let’s rename that bill for the sake of this blog.  Let’s call it the “ignore the federal government and any gun regulations bill”.

See..spin works both ways.

OK, now that we’ve got that out of the way.  I want to share with you a little nugget of information from our fine friends across the state line in Missouri.  See Missouri attempted to exempt birth control coverage from mandatory federal coverage.  The bill went to court and guess what happened?

If you said the judge found in favor of Missouri you would be…

WRONG

Why?  It has to do with the Constitution.  That document containing the 2nd amendment. Well, turns out it does more than talk about guns.  It also talks about the federal government trumping state government in the pyramid of authority.

You can debate your ignore the federal government and any gun regulations bill all you want, but in the end you are only going to end up costing KS taxpayers a ton of money.

I am a Kansas taxpayer.  It is no secret that I am no gun lover.  However, this isn’t a blog post about my position on guns.  This is, however, a blog post on my position on wasteful tax dollar spending.  I almost sound like a Republican.  Republican or Democrat, you can’t deny that is exactly what is happening here.

My gut feeling is this is a political stunt to get re-elected.  If so, how about just posting a YouTube video saying how much you love your guns.  I think that will do about the same thing and not cost so many hard-working Kansans our tax money.

The point is – stop wasting my money.  If you need something to do I’m sure that Kansas taxpayers can come up with a whole list of things you can do besides trying to out rank the Federal government.

You will lose.  I will bet my tax dollars on it.

About these ads

One girl’s journey 13 years ago for gun control

Sad and shocking news from my side today as the Democratic leaders removed the assault weapons ban from firearm legislation.

Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to bring a gun bill to the Senate with enough support to overcome any Republican efforts to block debate. And he says he was concerned that opposition to the assault weapons ban would block passage of any bill at all. Many Democrats think a ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes.

News flash Harry – the Republicans are going to attempt to block and any all efforts to enact new gun legislation.    I think 1st term Obama can give you a little lesson in how well that works. Democrats give a little and the Republicans don’t give at all.  Works like a charm.

Anyway, as my resigned feeling of defeat was setting in, I started exploring where I had felt this kind of disappointment before.  Gun control is always something I had felt strongly about.  Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine were all terrible tragedies, but I have been passionate about gun control ever since I was a young gal starting out in Washington DC with high hopes that maybe…just maybe…I could make a difference.  (insert patriotic music)

Once upon a time there were a million moms.

Ok maybe just 750,000, but we were all moms.

Ok I wasn’t a mom, but one day I knew I was going to be a mom.

Oh hell…at that time I didn’t know I was going to be a mom…but I was there.

It was an amazing event.  The mall was filled with people and we were all passionate about gun control.

Everyone was out there on a hot, sunny day and I was chilling in the “celebrity” tent as an event volunteer.

The point was we were all there and we were all there to save lives!

Yes that’s Melissa Ethridge and Reece Witherspoon.  Courtney Love was there.  Susan Sarandon and I were BFFs for the day (ok, maybe she just posed with me for this picture).

I have no idea who is with me on that very bottom pick – this was 13 years ago.  Give a girl a break.

Before you start sending me comments – I am very aware that you can see my iPhone taking a picture of my pictures.  I need to get me one of those scanner thingys. I’m not above donations…message me for details.

As inspirational as Rosie’s speech was 13 years ago, the sad reality is that not much as changed and with what happened today with the firearm bill, I am bracing for more disappointment. The part that sucks is there are no celebrities or a bright sunny day at the mall to help soften my disappointment.  Just me looking at old pictures…

The Million Mom March in 2000

#KSleg – Holy Overreaction Batman! Guns and School Employees

Here’s the headline:

KS legislature would allow school employees to carry guns

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/12/4116802/kansas-is-contemplating-arming.html

Insert heavy sigh….

Let’s play the fact game shall we?

Fact by the a study out of the University of Pennsylvania studying 677 shootings over 2.5 years:

People carrying guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot.

4.2 times more likely to be killed.

The conclusion was there a hyper-confidence when it came to people carrying guns that people who were not armed didn’t have.  They were more likely to put themselves in dangerous positions on purpose, increasing the likelihood to be shot.

It is more likely that my kid will be killed by lightning than shot by a mass shooter.

I know, this doesn’t work when it comes to the NRA lobby wanting everyone to have a gun.

According to the National Weather Service – 54 people are killed by lightning strikes each year.

Mass shootings by year and number of people from Alan Fox, Northwestern University Lipman Family Professor of Curriculum Law and Public Policy:

2009 –  27

2008 – 29

2007 – 23

From the American Academy of Pediatrics:

This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents.

Some more interesting stats: In 1997, 306 (7.2%) children and adolescents younger than 20 years killed by firearms died as a result of unintentional firearm-related injuries.

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full

Let’s just ignore those silly docs and all those facts showing that kids are more likely to die from accidental shootings from guns and do the opposite by adding MORE guns to places that our kids frequent – schools.  Makes perfect sense  (more sarcasm).

From that liberal and non-credible  institution called Harvard:

To begin with, having a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury and death. As Hemenway points out, death certificate data indicate that 680 Americans were killed accidentally with guns each year between 2003 and 2007. Half those victims were under the age of 25.

I’m sure that having guns in schools will in no way increase the possibility that my child will die from an accidental death from a firearm vs. a mass shooting. (sarcasm)

Now I can already feel pro-gun lobbyist typing out their response to me – “but it’s a deterrent to ward off would be gunmen.”

I’ve noticed how we don’t have any first degree murder now that we have the death penalty.  Deterrents work so well.  Also, since we have all decided that mass gunmen suffer from extreme forms of mental illness, I’m sure they are in their right mind enough to conclude deterrents when they are figure out where their next mass shooting should be.

Adding guns to schools by arming school employees actually increases the likelihood that my child will die from a shooting-an accidental shooting from school employees.  

More guns equal more chances my child will get shot.  Hey – I’m pretty good with math.  I credit great, unarmed teachers!  I understand that we all want to keep kids safe.  That is a great goal, but arming school employees isn’t the answer.  We need to keep our eye on the statistics and not over-react.  Just say no to this legislation!

 

 

 

 

 

Bank Robber Shot by Civilian – Gun Rights People Go Crazy

Dear Gun Rights Advocates:

Me again.

I know.  I’m a pain in the ass.

Likewise…

Since I have subscribed to many of your newsletters, I’ve noticed that a lot of you have been celebrating a recent “victory” that happened out of Trimble, MO last week.  Here’s a brief summary for those who didn’t follow the news.

Bank robber walks into the First Security Bank of Trimble and shows a gun demanding money.

Sounds like something taken from the Bank Robbery 101 play book.

Mr. Bank Robber gets shot in the bank.

Mr. Bank Robber gets in car.

Mr. Bank Robber takes police on a high-speed chase.

Mr. Bank Robber gets caught and is now in hospital and will go to jail.

Gun rights advocates go crazy with joy!  See good guys with guns took out bad guy with a gun – a la Wayne LaPierre.

Everyone lives happily ever after.

The end.

Now so fast my gun totting friends.  Let’s stop and think about some of these facts for a moment.

First, according to my friends at the Kansas City Star, it wasn’t exactly an armed “civilian”, it was a guard at the bank.  I know, here we go again with those silly facts.  Also, it begs the question if it was a civilian doing business at the bank, what’s the point of those silly signs posted everywhere with a gun and a slash across it?

Second, if the guard/civilian did shoot the bank robber in the face, the guard/civilian is a pretty crappy shot.  Mr. Bank Robber gets out of the bank, into his car and leads police on a 25 MILE POLICE CHASE from Trimble, MO to Kansas City.  Now I’ve never been shot in the face, so I’m just guessing, but I can imagine that if I was accurately shot in the face, operating a motor vehicle correctly for 25 miles would be pretty gosh darn hard.

Again, I’m no gun expert as I’ve said in previous blogs, but if I got shot accurately in the face, I would assume I would be dead.  That’s right – probably pretty darn dead.  Now I’m also no driving expert, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say I would need a face to drive a car.  I need  two eyes, my brain, maybe even my mouth to scream, “holy shit that hurt.”  So where exactly was he “shot in the face”?

I know…I can be a total pain in the ass with all of these questions.  I was one of those kids who constantly asked why.

So before you keep celebrating your gun rights victory, take a second and think about some of these things.  I don’t consider a guard at a bank a “civilian”.  I think the Department of Motor Vehicles may want to require on our driving requirements that everyone driving have a face.  That is if we are going to be able to drive say more than 5 miles.

Anyway, sorry for interrupting your gun love fest.

Yours in annoying questions,

Aimee

 

 

Urgent: Play MO and KS gun laws- Fact or Fiction

Let’s play a fun game called Kansas and Missouri Proposed Gun Legislation – Fact or Fiction

1.  Coming from the great state of Kansas, we have HB 2199 will have that federal agents that attempt to confiscate guns manufactured in the state of Kansas could be prosecuted and face PRISON time.

2.  A bill proposed in Missouri has anyone representative who votes in favor of gun control legislation could face prison time of up to four years in jail.

3.  A bill in Missouri and Kansas that makes it a requirement that all girls 12 and younger own a shoot ‘em up Barbie and side kick assault weapon Skipper.

Let’s score this bad boy.

1.  Fact and the estimate of this baby to defend it in court $825,000 of Kansas taxpayer cash that we evidently have oodles of in Kansas.

2.  Fact.  Next up in Missouri – bills that would make discussing if Santa is real illegal.  The follow-up to that bill are more bills on the tooth fairy and unicorns.

3.  Fiction.  I had to throw one in to make this game hard.

So thanks to Kansas and Missouri, I’m book ended by cray-cray.

Let’s start with the Kansas law.  Kansas feels that any restrictions on the 2nd amendment will be unconstitutional.  So we are going to threaten imprisonment of federal agents if they decide to enforce them.  They do this by saying that any guns manufactured in the state of Kansas are excluded from any restrictions on the 2nd amendment.

Hang on federal government, I’ve got the response to this one.

Kansas lawmakers – if you decide to pursue this, I will make the executive decision granted to me by my rights as official blog writer of Pleasantly Eccentric to revoke the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.  That means you are on your own when it comes to combating drug crimes and gangs.  Your biggest fears have come true.  Kansas will become even more of a home base for funneling drugs into the US and gangs will own this great land of Oz.  Also, no response from the National Guard – so all that snow that’s coming or possible tornadoes in the spring that may require federal assistance – sorry Charlie.  No more FBI to solve crime.  Also, in the long-shot category, if a foreign enemy decides to strike, hope those Kansas handguns will serve you well.

You are on your own Kansas. Good luck and God bless!

All of this because of the federal government is trying to REGULATE the 2nd amendment?  Not do away with, but regulate.  Again to my point that we REGULATE the 1st amendment all the time.  Never mind that you are ok putting regulations all over the 1st amendment when it comes to abortion that has been found to be a constitutional right…

Not to get off track.

Missouri – don’t think I forgot about you.

Something I would like to suggest is more anti-bullying legislation.

From stopbullying.gov

Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.

Ding! Ding!   If you just change out school aged children and put in Missouri lawmakers, I think we have a match!  I would say that threatening to put someone in prison qualifies as exclusion.  Instead of introducing laws putting lawmakers in jail, might I suggest expanding on the state-wide anti-bullying definition to include state representatives?

Kansas and Missouri – since I basically straddle the state line, could you please go more than a week and not introduce legislation that embarrasses the hell out of me?  Even if you could just avoid making national news where the journalists don’t roll their eyes or sigh heavily when reading the story that would be a huge start.

 

 

 

From my WTF file – Bill of Rights Engraved on Guns.

I’ve been writing about gun control a lot and have been fortunate to debate gun control on Darla Jaye’s 980 KMBZ show (shout out to my favorite Conservative – woot, woot).

Most of the opposing views expressed have been summed up like this – “People who don’t understand guns are the ones who want to prohibit guns.” And loving comments like “you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.”

This feedback had me thinking – what do I really know about guns?

In full disclosure, I have shot a gun once. It was a long, long time ago in the desert of Arizona. My family decided to take a tour of Phoenix. Our tour host was an old-fashioned cowboy complete with the handlebar mustache. While we were out admiring how dry the desert actually was..he showed me and my brother his gun. It was something similar to the picture in this post.

The cowboy asked if my brother and I wanted to shoot it. Curiosity got the best of me and I said yes.

He handed me this gun and told me to aim far in the distance. We were standing on a slight hill in the middle of nowhere. I aimed out to the horizon and shot the gun.

Way off in the distance I heard “hey” shouted.

Now I’m sure the gun had blanks in it (I hope), but it was enough to scare the crap out of me. That was the first and last time I ever shot a gun.

I think my cowgirl experience is enough to call myself “experienced” with guns or should I say…a gun. (sticking tongue out in a very mature matter to all those gun-rights people out there).

I have been researching a lot about guns lately to help support my points.

Sen. Feinstein introduced new legislation to ban 157 different types of assault weapons. I did a Google search to see if that is a large percentage of the guns manufactured in the US or a small percentage. 157 sounds like a lot if the total number of guns manufactured is say 250…I think you get my point. I do know that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said that in 2011 there were about 6.1 million guns manufactured in the United States minus the exports. http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

How many of the 157 brands are there out of that 6.1 million? I can’t answer that.

However, on search, I found this little gem: http://fmkfirearms.com/index.html

It’s a pistol with the Bill of Rights etched in the gun. In the manufacturer’s words – “Model 9C1 pistol. Putting the Bill of Rights where it belongs.” And they go on..

Each FMK Firearms 9C1 pistol is engraved with the Bill of Rights to remind Americans about our inalienable rights, and pay tribute to those great leaders who have fought for our freedoms, while some ignoble ones have endeavored to undermine them.

First, how small must the font be on that pistol? Second, the inalienable rights include the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I guess maybe they are focusing more on the liberty and pursuit of happiness part and less on the life part.

• What about all those killed by accidental gun shots?
• What about all those people killed by mass shootings?
• What about all the women murdered in domestic violence assaults?
• What about all those killed in homicides?

Don’t all those victims also have a right to life? Maybe these pistols are manufactured by someone in the Gen X generation. It has been coined the “me generation”. Maybe it’s this type of selfishness that has made America great, but also our own worst enemies.

I guess the flip-side of the argument is that guns can be used to protect your life and not just take someone else’s. So then I searched for how many people save their life from having a gun per year. Not so simple – one can’t assume that every home invasion is life-threatening. Maybe a thief is only after your flat screens, Macs and espresso machines. For as many statistics that show that guns make people safe, there are statistics saying more guns equals more homicides and suicides.

Then I found this from the same article referenced on Factcheck.org -

There is work the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could and should be doing, she said, but has not since the late 1990s. CDC has been wary of studying gun issues after NRA lobbyists convinced Congress to cut into its funding after a series of studies in the mid-1990s were viewed by the NRA as advocating for gun control.

Thanks NRA and CDC – my search for facts to help support my argument has stopped….(big sigh) I guess I’ll go off the argument that guns should be prohibited cause I said so. So there.

Announcement – new company to provide gun background checks

Dear American people,

I am submitting a proposal that I hope you will take into consideration as a possible solution to our gun problems in America. As the gun debate continues, it seems like Democrats and Republicans are all agreeing that background checks are necessary when it comes to purchasing a gun. All too often there are places like the internet and gun shows where guns are purchased without a necessary background check. If there is anything I think our representatives can come to agreement on, it’s expanding the background checks to apply everywhere a gun is purchased.

The next question is…where is the money coming from to fund this proposal and is this something better handled by a private company?

I don’t usually agree with Republicans on much, but I think in this case there is a private company can do a very thorough job at conducting background checks. That is why I am officially endorsing eHarmoney as the company who can provide the most comprehensive background checks this nation needs.

“Wait, isn’t eHarmoney an online dating site?” you may be asking.

Correct…eHarmoney is an online dating site.

Allow me to explain.

Once upon a time there was a women, a very, very young woman, who was looking for love. She decided that in order to find love, she would do as millions like her have done before – she was going online looking for a “lasting relationship”. That eHarmoney commercial with the gray-haired man talking about love kept popping into her mind. Pictures of the cute couples who “complete each other” were something that attracted this young woman to pick eHarmoney as her online dating match maker.

So, this young woman took the “free personality profile” to get set up so she could find the love she so longed for. 29 questions was all it took. She read the directions and noted when it said to answer to the questions as honesty as possible to find your love.

So she did…

On a grading scale of “never” to “always” she answered questions like:

1. Do you like being the center of attention? (she writes a blog that she hopes people will read) Always

2. Are you kind? Depends on the day she thought, but she answered slightly right of center towards the always mark.

3. Do you want to be sexually compatible with your mate? Who the hell would answer no? So she answered “always”. If “hell ya” was an option, she would have written that in.

4. Do you want to have more kids? Wait, wasn’t the first question what’s my, I mean her, age? Do the math eHarmoney – Advanced maternal age at this point is an understatement. Hell to the no.

5. List 3 things you cherish: her daughter, her blog and a good game of craps and yes in that order.

For about a half an hour she answered the questions honestly. Does she work out? Sometimes. Do you care if your mate is physically attractive? What type of question is that? Totally in the eye of the beholder so that falls on the middle of the “care-meter”.

The answers flowed so quickly she was almost giddy at the end when she would hit submit and all of the potential matches would come flowing onto her computer screen.

SUBMIT

“We are sorry, but we are unable to match you at this time. This is not a personal reflection of you. blah blah blah blah blah”

Wait..what? No match? No “you complete me” couple. Nada..zero..zilch…no love.

I, I mean she was rejected by an online dating service.

Rock freaking bottom….

She tried to go back and “soften” her profile. Maybe she didn’t always have to be the center of attention. Maybe she is nicer than she gives herself credit for. Maybe sexual compatibility is over-rated. She could just live as good friends with her love match. I mean aren’t there some religious sects that do that? You know they call each other “brother” and “sister”. Or is that Mormanism? She gets confused.

The back button only confirmed her sudden panic- locked out. The same humiliating message came up. It should have read, “You only have one time to make a good first impression. So sorry you old maid. Now go pet your many cats.”

This sad story is why I believe that the best possible company to profile and accept new gun owners are the same people who hold the keys to love. eHarmony – the name alone is peaceful – Harmony (insert angels singing and playing harps).

Harmony is something we all strive for with gun ownership. We hope to never actually have to use the gun we buy for protection. Who better to profile potential dangers to our society then the same online dating system that can dump potential online clients in a half an hour and reject their willingness to give them money to set them up. Whatever eHarmony’s secrets are to matching love, lets apply those same tactics to weed out dangerous criminals trying to buy guns.

Gun background checks could just be the beginning for eHarmony….maybe terrorist profiling is next. The options are endless. Hell, for all this woman knows, answering these questions may have put her on some list and not the one that eHarmony advertises.

eHarmoney – the American people will be in touch regarding this proposal.

The woman wanted me to share her parting message to eHarmoney as she logged off her profile.

Go fuck yourself eHarmony. Now move that middle of center “kind” answer all the way to the NEVER mark. That other question about her temper – she is working on it.

Sincerely,

Aimee

OUTRAGE – MO Senate proposing adding NRA curriculum for 1st graders

In response to the nation’s Sandy Hook school shooting, the Missouri Senate introduced a bill in December 2012 to provide gun safety instructions to Missouri’s first graders.  

SB 75 – This act establishes the Active Shooter and Intruder Response Training for Schools Program (ASIRT). By July 1, 2014, each school district and charter school must train teachers and school employees on how to respond to students with information about a threatening situation and how to address a potentially dangerous or armed intruder or active shooter in the school or on school property. Training must be conducted on an annual basis. Initial training must be eight hours in length and continuing training must be four hours in length. All school personnel must annually participate in a simulated active shooter and intruder response drill conducted by law enforcement professionals, as described in the act. Program instructors must be certified by the Department of Public Safety’s Peace Officers Standards Training Commission. (Section 170.315)

 

Each school district and charter school must annually teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program to first grade students, or use a substantially similar or successor program of the same qualifications. The purpose of the program will be to promote safety and protection of children and emphasize how students should respond if they encounter a firearm. School personnel and program instructors must not make value judgments about firearms. Firearms are prohibited from the teaching of the program. Students with disabilities will participate to the extent appropriate. (Section 171.410)

Meet Eddie Eagle and dreamy 90210 heartthrob – Brandon Walsh from 90210 a.k.a. Jason Priestley.

The Eddie Eagle gun safety program is brought to you by none other than the National Rifle Association.

What’s so wrong about teaching 1st graders gun safety?  Nothing if “stop, don’t touch, leave the area and tell an adult” was an effective message.  Turns out that a study done by the National Institute of Medicine in 2004 comparing Eddie Eagle  and another behavior change curriculum on gun safety found that Eddie’s gun safety message didn’t do much more than teach kids to recite the snappy tune:

RESULTS

Both programs were effective for teaching children to reproduce verbally the gun-safety message. The behavioral skills training program but not the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program was effective for teaching children to perform gun-safety skills during a supervised role play, but the skills were not used when the children were assessed via real-life (in situ) assessments.

CONCLUSIONS:

Existing programs are insufficient for teaching gun-safety skills to children. Programs that use active learning strategies (modeling, rehearsal, and feedback) are more effective for teaching gun-safety skills as assessed by supervised role plays but still failed to teach the children to use the skills outside the context of the training session. More research is needed to determine the most effective way to promote the use of the skills outside the training session.

To read the entire study click here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14702451

Oops…turns out Eddie Eagle isn’t flying high when it comes to effective gun safety training.

MO Politicians – in a time when vital school programs are being cut due to budget constraints, does it make sense to carry out a program that has no evidence-based results?  If all my child is going to learn from Eddie Eagle is to sing a gun safety song,  how about if you fund better music programs so my child can learn other valuable music lessons and sing other fun songs?

A bill like SB 75 is nothing but a cosmetic fix that adds insult to injury, because it is sponsored by this nation’s most powerful gun lobby.  It embeds the NRA into our Missouri Schools.  This is not a fix, but a PR ploy by the NRA and sponsored by MO lawmakers.

I demand more from our representatives.  I am against teaching about gun safety in our nation’s schools, but I am even more against adding behavior-change curriculum that shows no concrete results for actual change.  Call your MO repesentatives and urge them not to vote for this bill.  Demand that any curriculum added to our children’s schools should only be added when evidence shows it can actually reduce gun accidents in children.  While you are at it, remind them to keep funding our school’s music programs.

Eddie Eagle can buzz off.  Brandon Walsh however…

Guns don’t kill people, cars kill people

There was a comment posted on a previous blog that I wrote CLICK HERE TO READ and in response to my gun debate with Darla Jay on Friday night. (KMBZ 980 from 6-9 p.m. – thanks Darla!)  that I think needs some attention and a reply.

I’m including the link to this comment, because the comments  are hard to find on my blog:  http://pleasantlyeccentric.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/attention-nra-and-politicians-idea-to-overhaul-mental-health-you-cant-ignore/#comments (note to self – change comments section to be more visible on blog)

Please go read it and then come back.

waiting…waiting…..waiting….

 

Dear Mr. Fisher,

First, thank you for listening to Darla’s show last night and for taking the time to respond to my blog post.  Your response was insightful, respectful and I enjoyed reading it.  It was much better than the text that came in during the show that read “SHE IS JUST WRONG”.  I really appreciate it.

You bring up some excellent points, as did a lot of the callers on last night’s show.  I think it is this kind of healthy dialog that will get real change to occur.

So let me respond to some of your points.

I’ve found that most people that aren’t familiar with guns tend to be a little uneasy around them and don’t see the need for anyone to own one. 

Mr. Fisher, you are correct here, but I would say “uneasy” is an understatement.  The word I would have used is scared.  The outbreak of mass shootings has me on edge.  I know there are statistics that you could find that could show that the probability that I would be shot in a mass shooting is almost nothing.  I get that, but I can’t help but be more than just a little uneasy about guns, mass shootings and the fact that a lot of these guns used were purchased legally.

While you were on Darla’s show a fella called in and made mention about cars killing more people than guns. You said that guns were designed to kill and cars weren’t. Going by the statistics that you like to promote it is pretty clear that cars DO kill many thousands more civilians than do guns. 

You are correct here Mr. Fisher, cars do kill many more people than guns.  I found this argument to be the most interesting in last night’s debate. I don’t know how well I made my point last night, so let me lay it out here.

You can’t ignore the fact that guns were originally designed and produced to hurt and kill.  It may be animals, it may be people, but the invention of guns and bullets was to hurt and kill.  Cars on the other hand were designed to get a person from one place to another – it is far from the same thing.

You go on to say-Lets regulate cars. You know they have a lot more moving parts that can malfunction and there you go, you have an accident. But it probably could have been prevented by better maintenance which you are responsible for or it could have more design controls that would make the car so expensive that you couldn’t afford one. Is that something you are interested in? 

We do regulate cars!  In fact, the states with the highest number of vehicle fatalities are the states with the fewest regulations.  

http://247wallst.com/2012/05/24/the-most-dangerous-states-to-drive-in/3/

We are constantly increasing the safety standards and passing new legislation to keep people safe on the roads.  I think my daughter has to sit in a booster seat until she is 21 now.  Increased vehicle fatalities means more regulations whether it be in seat belt laws and fines, reduced speed limits, no texting while driving laws and higher penalties and for drunk driving.  Why shouldn’t the same be true for guns?  By the way, remind me not to drive in Mississippi – they ranked #1 on the list for vehicle fatalities.

The 2nd amendment is not free from regulation.  Let’s remember that the 1st amendment is regulated all the time.  Freedom of speech, like I enjoy here, is regulated.  I don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, I don’t have the right to drop the f-bomb on network television (cable – well that’s another story), I can be sued if I slander someone’s name. Why do gun advocates think that the 2nd amendment is so sacred and can’t be regulated?   

You also bring up mental health - Mental health issues have been connected to a lot of the suicides and school killings. In fact if you are going to kill someone whether it is with a gun or something else you have to have some kind of mental issue. So why not address that? The money you would spend on more gun controls would be better spent on better research and help for the mentally ill. The money you would be spending would help more people and help prevent more suicides and school killings than any gun control you can dream up. 

 

You and I agree on something!  Yes, please let’s do something about mental health!  Again, I’m at a loss for what can be except throw more money at the problem.  What I’ve heard suggested is more state mental institutions, forced institutionalization and the mental health database proposal.  Maybe this is the same frustration you share with me about guns – you are punishing the many for the acts of the few.  If early intervention is the key to prevent more shootings, then who get institutionalized?  Who gets put in the database and monitored?  Like I said last night, millions of Americans take antidepressants.  Do we put everyone in the database and monitor all of these people who take these drugs?  Do we force institutionalization on everyone who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia   How about bi-polar?  Where does it stop?  There are many people who have these conditions that lead productive lives and are not a danger to society.

I don’t think either one of us has the solutions to this complex problem.  Like I said last night, as much as I would like to see a gun-free society, even I understand that isn’t going to be possible.  I think the point of this whole thing is both sides have to give.  Maybe the gun supporters need to stop believing that the government is going to take all guns and maybe those of us who have been diagnosed with a mental illness need to not be so paranoid about being locked away.  I believe it has to be a combination of both – better mental health services and funding and more measures to keep citizens safe from guns.  I hope that maybe I have swayed you just a little.

Again, I can’t thank you enough for providing your comment.  I don’t think either one of us will ever see eye-to-eye, but I can definitely say I understand your point of view better.  Who knows, maybe some politicians in Washington will read your comment and my response and maybe they can learn something.

Sincerely,

Aimee

 

 

 

 

Attention #NRA and politicians – idea to overhaul mental health you can’t ignore

Dear 2nd amendment advocates and pro-gun politicians:

I wanted to take a quick second to talk about something we both agree on.  Yes, I know it’s amazing that there is anything we both agree on, but in a time for unity in this country, I did find something.  The mental health system in this country is broken.  Your spokesman Wayne LaPierre said it many times that guns weren’t the problem and fixing our broken mental health system in this country is what needs to be a priority.  We definitely don’t agree on the first part, but we do agree on the 2nd part.  Quick note – LaPierre used the word “lunatic” repeatedly to describe the mentally ill in this country – step one might be to stop using the word “lunatics” to describe our mentally ill.  A little sensitivity training might go a long way.

Anyway, not to get off track.  We both agree that our mental health system in this country needs an overhaul.  There was a report released from the Committee on Population that compared US life expectancy rates to those of other similar nations.  We ranked #16 in life expectancy versus other nations:

The USA ranks at or near the bottom in nine key areas of health: low birth weight; injuries and homicides; teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections; HIV and AIDS; drug-related deaths; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; and general disability.

From the Committee on Population: The result is that the life expectancy for men in the United States ranked the lowest among the 17 countries reviewed, at 75.6 years, while the life expectancy for US women ranked second lowest at 80.7 years. The countries reviewed included Canada, Japan, Australia, and much of Western Europe.

So…injuries and homicide was listed.  We all know LaPierre’s famous statement, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  I’m still waiting on my bumper sticker by the way.  What is interesting in this report is injuries – intentional injuries specifically –  a.k.a. suicide.

The number one way that men commit suicide – GUNS – handguns to be specific.

Now we will never if the men who committed mass shootings were suicidal and decided to kill innocent lives as part of their suicidal mission, but what we do know is that suicide in this country is reducing our male life expectancy.  We do know that men are four times more likely than women to have successful suicide attempts.  We do know that handguns play a major role in suicide.  We do know that in domestic violence death can be linked to homicide of the victim and suicide of the murderer.

To ignore these statistics is to be irresponsible to the commitment to “overhaul our mental health system”.  To ignore this is to ignore the big elephant in the room.  To get into someone’s head who is mentally ill to find what the triggers are, get them adequate counseling and monitor their medication to prevent further tragedies and suicides is one difficult if not almost impossible task unless effective mind reading is a new medical advancement.  Reducing the number of guns that get into the hands of people with mental illness is something that is very possible and a very good start.

Millions of lives depend on solutions like these.  You can’t ignore statistics.

Thanks for keeping all options on the table to help solve this American crisis.

Yours in keeping people alive,

Aimee