I have to admit I'm not doing well right now. There have been too many emotional setbacks this month... including some things that are so personal I cannot even write about them on this blog.
My foot that has had pain since last winter has been better since I got the anti-inflammatory shot on the 21st of last month, but still sometimes the pain returns. That's a great disappointment, and I hope I don't have to go back for another shot because I have no insurance. (Long story... I don't even remember if I wrote about that on this blog already.)
Anyhow, I'm not getting as many pages written for my income producing blogs as I wish I was. I really need to do more on that.
I think I do better when I'm using my Synergy powder, but I haven't even had my act together to use that regularly lately.
There's just too much going on. The terrible news about the shooting at the Oregon college this week really upset me... that is part of the emotional tailspin I'm in. I love that area... and at one point was trying to move to that little town in the hills, upriver, where the professor lived, before he was killed in his classroom. It is so disturbing when something like this happens. I feel things deeply and internalize the pain of those who are grieving.
Then I found out that the day before, several boys at Summerville High School planned to do the same thing... but someone reported it and their plan was thwarted. That high school name jumped out at me. I immediately knew where it was because I used to live there in Tuolumne City. Summerville High School is on the hill just outside town, along the road to Sonora, CA. It is so disturbing that a group of small town boys living in a beautiful historic gold prospecting town were thinking of killing people at their school.
I am totally against the idea that more gun control is needed. I believe what's needed is more armed security guards at the schools. Either that, or close the schools down. Every time I saw that school administrator for Umpquah College proudly say it was a "gun free zone" I felt sick at heart. If there had been armed security guards nearby, the gunman wouldn't have killed so many people. But due to her idea of having a gun free zone, it went on and on until nine people were dead.
And people wonder why I didn't want to send my kids to school? It is obvious: the schools aren't safe. They weren't safe for my children when they were young, and it is getting worse all the time. Sending children to school is looking more like child neglect. If a school can't protect the kids, they shouldn't be there.
Taking guns away from honest citizens means that only criminals and the government will have guns. I can't see where that would be a benefit for the rest of us. Criminals would have a heyday preying on people then, knowing that nobody law-abiding would be armed.
I know what you mean about things you cannot share with anyone. I feel better when I take iodine, not so tired, so thank-you for the reminder. Hang in there.
ReplyDeleteDear Linda,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that things have gotten so difficult for you lately. I stopped watching TV news years ago, because it's too emotionally trying and distracting. Lately I've been staying off Facebook, too, except for personal posts about my family.
For an alternate view to all the fearmongering in the media, consider this article. It doesn't sugar-coat anything, but I think it's more clear-headed about what can really be done (and not done) in these situations. This apocalyptic vision of gun showdowns between armed criminals and civilians is just not realistic.
http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/
"It’s provided the basis for claims that gun-free zones are, in former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s words, “sitting duck zones.” But Barker later admitted that his methodology entailed analyzing “10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere.… I honestly don’t even remember where.” And Pete Blair from Texas State notes that by definition, shootings with fewer than four casualties aren’t “mass shootings,” and incidents with as many as 18 casualties are exceedingly rare. Blair acknowledges the possibility that shooters may be more likely to seek out places they see as soft targets, like gun-free zones, but adds, “Trying to prove that is difficult to do.”
Blair co-authored a study for the FBI that looked at 185 mass shooting events over a 13-year period. It found that while around one-in-five were stopped by civilians before police arrived, in only one case was it done by a typical “good guy with a gun” (professionals—an off-duty cop and an armed security guard—used their guns to stop two others). In most cases Blair and his colleague studied, civilians ended a rampage by tackling the assailant."
I think your idea of having more armed security guards has merit too--in the study they point out that the one situation where a "good guy with a gun" stopped the shooter, it was an armed security guard and an off-duty police officer. But I don't think it's an either/or choice. You could have certain changes to the gun laws, and you could have armed security guards. This is a big enough problem that we need to try multiple approaches.
It would certainly help if the CDC had the resources to study the problem and come up with some science-based solutions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/
You're right that some schools are not safe places. But some homes are also not safe places, some stores, some movie theaters, some streets. I can't imagine shutting all these institutions down makes sense. We need to build more connections between people, not fewer.