Firearms Friday: Blame

Once again, we end the week looking back on another cowardly tragedy committed by a clearly unstable individual. Unfortunately, it was also no surprise that the shooting was politicized before the suspect was even found… the calls for more gun control range out louder than the shots fired early on Wednesday morning. Another heinous act blamed on inanimate objects and those who own them rather than the individual who committed the crime.

It wasn’t long before posts from my liberal friends on Facebook began filling my feed and with quotes posted my conservative friends following this initial deluge. The most commonly used of which was a quote from then Governor Ronald Reagan when he addressed the Republican National Convention in Miami Florida on July 31, 1968 amid a time of tremendous racial turmoil which erupted in riots. The excepted says simply “We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Essentially, violence is an individual act and must be treated as such… the idea of railing against a group of people because of the acts of an individual must be rejected.   

Yesterday, the coverage continued and, of course, the calls for more laws intensified. While there was plenty of political banter, the quote that really crystallized the debate for me was that of Senator Marco Rubio who was quoted by the New York Times at a campaign stop in New Hampshire having said “It’s not the guns, it’s the people who are committing these crimes. What law in the world could have prevented him from killing them?” And that is what this all really comes down to… we must hold individuals accountable for their acts especially those with premeditated plans who would have followed through with this act regardless of means. In the end, this is why there are more knife attacks and beatings in the UK… people find a way to accomplish their goals regardless of whether they are good or evil.

Lastly, the other part of this whole equation that is being overlooked is the fact that even when bills are passed, they are not being enforced and/or the funding is not being spent (i.e. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System). The NICS Improvement Amendment Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2008 with the explicate mission to improve the background check system in this country. The law, endorsed by the NRA by the way, allocated Congress $1.3 Billion to improve record keeping in states which would allow greater transparency and improve the Federal gun background check system. To date nearly 90 percent of funding has never been spent and the Obama administration will further reduce spending from its peak in 2015 of $78 million down to $55 million in the President’s 2016 budget request.

Why don’t we focus on the real issues at hand instead of the hype and politicization of tragedy? Instead of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by gun control groups (keep in mind that I am well aware of the money spend by gun rights advocacy groups in response to various proposals and campaigns calling for the stripping away of our rights), what if we focus and put our money elsewhere that would really have an impact on the issue at hand. What if we committed hundreds of millions of dollars to mental health? What if we actually improved NICS and spent the $1.3 billion? We don’t need more laws and we definitely don’t need to prosecute and entire group of people in this country. We need to improvements in mental health in this country and we need to improve the effectiveness of the background check systems already in place. This is not a debate… this is the solution!

Another Year, Another New iPhone

Picture via @Apple Twitter account.

In the not too distant future there will be lines wrapping around the block of people waiting to get their hands on the ‘latest and greatest’ Apple product to hit the market. As with previous releases, Apple held a massive marketing meeting launch party to announce the iPhone 6 yesterday. I would say that this is an exciting turn of events for me but I honestly wasn’t even aware of it until I turned on the radio last night on my way home. Oh course, my immediate thought upon hearing the broadcast was “didn’t they just release the iPhone 5?”

I have never been one to eagerly adopt the newest technology. I am surrounded by many such products on a daily basis at the office as clients roll out new innovations and reporters discuss their most recent conversations but, personally, I am perfectly happy being a little behind. In this instance, my iPhone 4S is still functioning (for the most part) and my computer can handle all of the basic tasks that I need it to process. With that said, Windows 8 still sucks.

I guess the most interesting part for me during this perpetual upgrade cycle that most people have bought into is the ebb and flow of expectations that people have for these products and the lengths to which they are willing to go to be one of the first people to own one. And all of this so they can have a sleeker design and a slightly larger screen or, for those unwilling to hold their phone, a watch that goes beyond the boundaries of James Bond and into the realm of unnecessary functionality. It's a freaking watch people. Screw the Jones’, this is more like keeping up with the Jetsons.  

In the end, the biggest winners in this adoption cycle is not the people buying the products. The people benefiting the most from these launches are Apple, the credit card companies, wireless service providers, and criminals looking for another way to access information. Well, this time around U2 got a good boost as well. Touché Bono!

As for me, I will stick with my now antiquated iPhone 4S until it finally dies. And when it does I will try to get another one as I don’t ever plan on spending $200 on a new phone and I don’t want to have to buy a whole new set of plugs for the iPhone 5. As for my watch, I’ll stick with my Hamilton as it does what it is supposed to do by telling me the time whenever I look at it. Thankfully, I don’t have to wait in line for either.

Don’t Assume The Translation Lost In The Debate

Recently a bill in Arizona was vetoed by the Governor, Jan Brewer. That bill, which would have made it legal for businesses to refuse service to same sex couples for religious reasons, grabbed national headlines and was a topic that was heavily debated. In this instance, the Governor was right to quash this bill in the state legislature.

However, as I have written about in previous posts, I would have like to have seen people look at all angles. Not in such a way as to change their views but as a means to try and see all of the ramifications in the passing of such a law but also how it was able to get so far in the process that it was up to one woman to take a stand and kill the bill. The above cartoon, while admittedly stretching the purview, is one of those things that does make you think about the aspects surrounding such a topic. While many would agree with the individual right to refuse service, however, that act is against the law as it would be discriminating against those whose views, while vile and hate filled, are protected.

It really does make you think about the rights of the individual business owner. So, with this topic in mind, I began looking through the law against discrimination on legalzoom.com. True, this is not the most detailed source but it did provide an interesting high altitude overview. The site summarizes the subject matter in the following way:

“Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.”

The angle that was applied in the Arizona bill sought to invoke the ideal of religious freedom. However, that really is a difficult argument to make. Basically, they were trying to assume protection not granted by the first amendment. The portion of the first amendment to which they attempted to leverage states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The amendment prohibits the establishment of laws limiting religion. In fact, many can apply this law against the proposed legislation as the passage of such a bill would, in essence, legally support the imposition of religious beliefs on others. It is an interesting aspect to think about.

What is going to be a more interesting debate is the one that has yet to come to the forefront in Illinois. In summary, the bill states that “no religious organization, including a school, is required to provide religious facilities for a marriage solemnization ceremony or celebration associated with [that ceremony if it] is in violation of its religious beliefs.” This is where there very well could be a much stronger constitutional agreement as it could be stated that the enforcement of laws supporting same sex marriage could be interpreted as violating the first amendment in this instance. It will be interesting if the state would be willing to give a definitive answer in this particular debate.

That dichotomy between the government and religious institutions is an interesting one. While the specific applications within religious institutions is one that has become highly partisan when it comes to the Arizona bill, as was reported in the New York Times, this debate is not one of partisanship. This is a subject that addresses individual views beyond the scope of party lines. It may be a fine line between what is of political and personal view but there are definitely topics of public policy that just go too far such as the aforementioned bill. The New York Times piece summed up that political line of demarcation in the following paragraphs:  

Frank Keating, a former governor of Oklahoma, said that while he opposed same-sex marriage, issues of public accommodation had long ago been settled. He said that he, too, would have vetoed a bill like the Arizona one.

“This isn’t 1964 anymore,” he said. “We’ve moved beyond that. If you open up your doors to the general public, you can’t pick and choose who you are going to deal with.”

Basically, the whole point of this post is simple. We all react one way or another to many different topics, especially one such as the bill that is being discussed above. Unfortunately, with this reaction many people make assumptions and start to generalize different groups of people. We are not all the same. There may have similarities from one person or group to another but there are limits to generalizations when the individual is responsible for their decisions, their views, and their motivations.

We have lost our desire, our drive to understand both subjects and people. Life is not that simple and even when a subject seems clear cut we need to make a better effort to try and look at all sides (many, many, many more sides and aspects then that which is discussed above). Sometimes learning about a subject is not about arguing for or against, it is about trying to see the whole gray picture that gives life its color.