“We are trying to solve tomorrow’s crime with last weeks’ laws.”

I wrote this in the wee hours of the morning on the small notepad beside my computer. I had several tabs open from the Associated Press and other sites from my attempt to make sense of the chaos that has become the routine headlines, and I had just finished answering a question on Quora asking whether or not firearm ownership was permissible by court-martialed soldiers:

You can draw your own conclusions from reading U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922, but I can spare you the digging a bit…

“(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person…”

“(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;”

Also…

“(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—”

“(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;”

“to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

My interpretation is that yes, they are indeed disqualified… but this is the interpretation of a retired service member and not the legal absolute. Might there be exceptions or other aspects to this law? Sure… but I can not (and will not) reasonably go beyond what I’ve offered.

This is the U.S. Code.

This is law – “the general and permanent laws of the United States.” 

Current law regarding murder is clear: “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” There is much more to this paragraph, but the point is clear with one word: “unlawful.” 

…

I hate writing in reaction to news, and I absolutely despise following the media bandwagon. I value my moderate stance on most issues and make every effort to understand the perspectives of friends and family on the ends of the political spectrum. However, there is a limit to the nonsense coming from both sides in the increasing cacophony of frustration that I can process in silence.

Here’s the deal and the unfortunate truth – we are not going to magically fix the problem of firearm-related violence any time soon with our current efforts on either end of the political field. Increased controls or availability will have secondary and tertiary consequences that no one is truly prepared for; the average person typically lacks the training and situational responsibility to effectively defuse most spontaneous and hostile situations, and draconian restrictions to firearms would merely empower those already determined to bypass any and all laws prohibiting the employment of firearms in a crime. More laws either way will not fix this issue and further divide the nation and society within it.

I considered launching into a detailed description of my opinions as to how we have gotten to where we are, but I changed my mind. Call it irritation… lack of interest in getting into a long and drawn-out discussion about logical fallacies… whatever. There are tons of reasons which could be attributed to today, but this highlights the first sentence of this blog:

We are trying to solve tomorrow’s crime with last weeks’ laws.

Rather than looking at how these senseless crimes could have been avoided by what laws the criminal was clearly not going abide by, we need to look at how we approach the situation in general.

The media is, in my opinion, a culprit in these events, but not the biggest contributor. By carefully sensationalizing the event, they provide inspiration for the next perpetrator to be more efficient, deadly, and infamous. Selective reporting of a shooting at a Starbucks in Chicago, while ignoring the growing firearm-related homicide rate within the city limits, descriptive narratives of the actions of the first responders in the San Bernardino shooting, or the details of the lives and actions of the evil in the hearts of teenagers who engage innocents in schools… all of this news is in the spirit of “information” but offer an uncanny blueprint of how to achieve notoriety in today’s public eye.

Our elected officials and other public figures are also at fault for politicizing exactly what they accuse others for politicizing or fueling the fires of violence by antagonization or glamorization of the issue. Pushes for legislation based on emotion and ignorance often delay any action and frequently result in the adoption of restrictions or permissions which are more divisive than effective. Outcry from celebrities who have made their fortunes with firearm props erodes whatever foundation of credibility they have with most people and turn their stance into a comedy of irony with little else to show for their efforts.

The main fault lies much closer, however.

It is the face of the person in the mirror who has had enough. Whether it is “enough” bullying, workplace stress, domestic abuse, physical aggression, outrage on social media, exposure to traditional media, desensitization from entertainment, or a long list of other motivations for wanting to restrict gun ownership or allow for more permissive access to firearms. The person in the mirror is at fault when it comes to these breaking points; alternatively, that person is the same one who will be the solution for this growing problem.

The way to make it better?

Listen to what is being said, think of the motivations behind the statements, and learn how to communicate constructively. We cannot keep thinking that we are all right in our opinions and insist that everyone thinks the way we do. On either side of the argument, our facts are cherry-picked to suit our beliefs and perspectives, and this is not going to help us listen. Our motivations are the result of very distinct and separate experiences in our lives, and what might make complete sense to one person is alien and illogical to another. Tying it all together, however, is the effort to bridge those widening chasms of ideas through educated and genuine communication – not the current art of waiting for our turn to speak or, worse yet, speaking louder and more accusatory in an attempt to validate our own personal truths.

You want to solve tomorrow’s crime? Don’t do it with last weeks’ laws… do it by making your own sphere of influence better. Do it by fixing the person in the mirror.

[Update -10Jul21]

Years later, it turns out that I was a bit more accurate in my speculation than I originally suspected.

Federal judge rules Air Force largely responsible for 2017 Texas church mass shooting

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/07/judge-air-force-largely-responsible-for-2017-texas-church-shooting-.html

I guess there is some rationality when it comes to the irrational evils man is capable of inflicting.

[Update -7Mar22]

Pay attention.

I found it interesting how the weapons used were described:

“…[I]n a span of seven minutes and 24 seconds, the gunman […] fired 450 rounds using an AR-556 rifle.”

“…[T]he casualties came after he sprayed bullets at the congregation inside before he fled the scene and later died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/08/us-air-force-texas-church-shooting-compensation/

So… nothing about Stephen Willeford and Johnny Langedorff?

In case memory fails, Willeford engaged the shooter with an AR of his own, and the two hits he landed forced the gunman to break off his attack and flee in his car; Langedorff was summoned by Willeford and became the driver as the two followed the fleeing gunman’s car. That additional information can be found here.

Again. PAY ATTENTION – you are the product to be bought and sold for political points.