The time is now to take on political wing of NRA - Scott Swanson - my analysis

This appeared in our local newspaper. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

-------------------

I am appalled at the NRA political wing suggesting a series of outlandishly irresponsible proposals to reduce gun violence. (Note the use of language. "Appalled." "Outlandishly irresponsible." This is the opening sentence to Mr. Swanson's editorial. Let's see if this characterization of the NRA gets justified by the author.) First and foremost, they ignore that the tragedy of gun violence is not limited to our schools. (They do? The NRA responded to the tragedy in Newton, which was the topic. Why should any other topic be discussed, and why does that constitute them "ignoring" anything? The NRA website contains numerous articles about gun violence, deterrence, crime, and statistics. Clearly they are not "ignoring" anything."  In fact, quite thankfully and respectful of the recent national tragedy in Connecticut, very little gun violence occurs in our schools which, for the most part, remain havens of safety thanks to the fine work accomplished by our teachers (It is relatively rare, but on the rise. However, giving teachers the credit for it is unjustifiable.). Placing armed guards in all of our schools is unnecessary (If so, why are schools doing so? Why have schools had security guards in place for years?), provides little in the way of added safety for students (This unsupported statement is unknowable. It is impossible to quantify what didn't happen. In addition, if this statement is true, then for the same reasons it is unnecessary to have police officers anywhere.) and the billions of dollars required to do so, if available, could be much better spent on alternatives (It seems odd to me that the price tag is of concern. Should we judge the value of Mr. Swanson's police department in the same way, since it provides little in the way of added safety).

The NRA blames mental illness for the appalling slaughter to which we become national witness. We indeed must enhance mental health support systems in our nation. Guns do not belong in the hands of persons with an illness caused propensity for violence. Yet to suggest that even a substantial minority of persons who cause harm via misuse of firearms is mentally ill is ridiculous (Did the NRA do this? Actually, no. Mr. Swanson is being hyperbolic. Mr. Swanson "enhances" his first statement that the NRA blames mental illness for the Newton shooting, which is correct, but then expands the reach of his statement. The topic is a mass murder that occurred in a school at the hands of a disturbed individual. Mr. Swanson changes it to generically causing "...harm via misuse of firearms." By changing the parameters, Mr. Swanson employs misdirection.). The vast majority of gun crimes are the result of otherwise abled persons making conscious decisions with horrible results. (A fact not in dispute.) The NRA has never demonstrated a strong interest in helping the mentally ill and I find it circumspect that they claim to do so now (This is another strange statement. The NRA is a gun advocacy organization, not a mental health advocacy organization. Why would they show a "strong interest in helping the mentally ill? But beyond that, Mr. Swanson just finished minimizing the role mental illness plays in gun violence. So why does he think the NRA should help the mentally ill when Mr. Swanson believes it's not a problem?).

The NRA wishes to blame gun violence on video games and movies that contain violent content. I note that there are no professionally accepted, peer reviewed studies that demonstrate a clear link between violent video games and cinema, and gun violence (Notice the exacting criteria: "Professionally accepted, peer reviewed." So if professionals don't accept the study, it doesn't qualify in Mr. Swanson's view. Given that professionals are conflicted over the correlation, it would seem that Mr. Swanson's assertions are safe. However, several studies have noted a definite connection between violent media and aggressive behavior. So the NRA's response is hardly "outlandishly irresponsible.). While I personally do not condone violent media, the issue as it affects gun violence to any substantive degree is nothing but a red herring. I find it ironic that the NRA political voice seems willing to propose what would be unconstitutional limits to First Amendment rights upon which the Supreme Court has ruled, while at the same time touting a host of perceived Second Amendment rights upon which the Supreme Court has not ruled (Except that the NRA did not call for government to censor violent video games. They called for society to censure them. There is, therefore, no irony. Regarding the second amendment, the supreme court has indeed ruled. "The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." You can find their decision here. Mr. Swanson is wrong.). 

In the current national dialogue about gun violence I hope that we keep in the forefront of thought that guns, guns with bullets often specifically designed to take human life, kill and maim tens of thousands of Americans each and every year (No, murderous people kill and maim tens of thousands of Americans every year.). The gun violence occurs in homes, on streets, in shopping centers, in workplaces, to friends, to co-workers, to family and, horrifically and occasionally, in schools. This orgy of violence is not seen in any other nation that we would define as anything other than undeveloped and lacking civilized norms of behavior (This orgy of violence goes way beyond guns. Ours is a violent society. Guns are but one instrument of violence, and a small part at that. Society has some serious problems, and guns are not particularly relevant to eliminating those problems.).

I am an owner of firearms. I am a hunter.(Then you're part of the problem.) I was a police officer for 30 years.(Where I sure you had no problem at all carrying a firearm.) I am respectful of the safe and reasonable possession of firearms. I defer to the Supreme Court of the United States of America to do its constitutional role in interpreting that very Constitution (Even the part that says, "...shall not be infringed?"). I also do strongly believe that it is well past time that Congress pass federal legislation that includes, but is not limited to, statutory language that requires:

* A full background check on persons, regardless of venue, who purchase a firearm.

* All persons who own a firearm to be licensed. Licensing requires a lack of substantive criminal behavior, lack of violent behavior, lack of a history of substance abuse, lack of mental illness with violent propensities, and a full demonstration in the knowledge and ability to safely handle firearms (His first two points cannot police people who purchase firearms illegally. There is no way to legislate that away.).

* Strict and accountable criminal penalties for those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or who violate other firearms laws. Use a gun criminally and go straight to jail (Doesn't that happen already? Aren't people who are convicted of a crime punished in this country? Aren't people who are armed jailed?).

* Restrictions on the availability of firearms whose possession and use is determined by Congress to have no reasonable and sane purpose in a democratic society of laws, social covenants, and, what we wish to be, civilized norms of behavior (It was only a couple of paragraphs ago that Mr. Swanson deferred to the supreme court to interpret the constitution. Now he wants congress to have the power to interpret what is "reasonable and sane.").

* Restricting the lawful possession of firearm magazines to a capacity of no more than 10 rounds (So only ten people can be killed at once. Sort of like the 16 ounce soft drink limit in New York, I guess.).

* Restricting the purchase and ownership of firearms to adults, and mandate that when a juvenile is in possession of a firearm for lawful purposes that the juvenile be accompanied by a licensed adult (And this will solve gun violence how?).

I believe that these suggestions, plus strengthening our mental health support network, would meet with approval of the majority of our fellow citizens as they seriously consider the scourge of gun violence that besets our country. I also am not naive. I know that the NRA and those who believe that there should be minimal restrictions on the possession of any type of firearm will vigorously fight these proposals, with significant financial support from the firearms industry and while waving the flag of what they perceive as their Second Amendment rights (What they perceive as their second amendment rights? What? Is their perception that the second amendment exists at issue? Or is it a matter of interpretation of the second amendment, which Mr. Swanson has not discussed? Who gets to decide what our rights are?).

Frankly, this is the moment to do democratic battle with the NRA political wing and no longer fear their wrath. I pray that Congress and President Obama will show a strength of conviction and move forward with thoughtful and strong firearms control legislation. No less than the safe and secure future of our children is at stake (*Sob* It's for the the children.").

Scott Swanson is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and served with the Santa Rosa Police Department in California for 30 years. He rose through the ranks to become deputy chief of police and now lives in Bozeman (Ah, so he has no problem with the police keeping and bearing arms, while the general populous should be deprived of theirs. I would suggest that this is a troubling thing, that a law enforcement officer actively supports limiting the second amendment. That is the beginning of tyranny. "I ask sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."  -- George Mason).