Killing Anonymously

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

"Americans want guns without serial numbers. And apparently, they want to make them at home."

And I'm just asking myself.... why?

The answer seems to be they just want to be able to jump over regulation and do as they please. Isn't that what any reasonable person gets from this article? 

One of the things that sets us apart from the uncivilized is that we are above-board, upfront and state our intentions. This does nothing but say we want to be anonymous, behind the scenes and not let anyone know what we are up to... in other words, "I want to just do whatever the fuck I want to!"

I can't see this end any other way but badly. We will have victims of gun violence who won't be able to trace back to anyone because there are no records of gun ownership. And law enforcement won't be able to say to a potential law-breaker "Hey, can I get that registered gun to match to ballistics from a crime scene?" because they won't even know where to start! Printed guns that are not registered will not even be on anyone's radar to investigate! Yay! Criminals get another free pass! Really... how stupid is that?!?!

I'm not happy knowing that we do one more thing that just basically makes us more uncivilized than we were previously.

I Support Open-Carry Hugs

mastermarf.com

We've all seen the images or personally encountered people in real-life who are advocates of open-carry proudly showing us their weapons. As a person who doesn't particularly like guns, all I can try to do is understand what would motivate someone to want to be that person. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against the legal ownership of guns should citizens choose to exercise that right. But I wouldn't object if one day this country decided all guns should no longer exist here, nor would I complain if they were eliminated around the world.

What I often reflect on is the motivation and intention of those who advocate for open-carry laws. Especially when I listen to the enthusiasm with which they exclaim that right prior to and directly after getting those laws in place enabling them to finally do so. 

I consistently hear that the right to protect one's self is the biggest reason, and I would support that thought process as we do have a second amendment right to keep and bear arms. However, I would also think the desire to own guns for protection (whether one or an arsenal) and/or open-carry is motivated by fear, specifically being fearful of the intention of others. In other words, gun owners seem suspicious and not trusting; like they are thinking "someone, anyone whose actions at any time could or will potentially hurt me, so I must be prepared."

We all feel that way from time to time because we have encountered something that made us experience that emotion, but in open-carry situations it seems that is the mindset all day long. Smacks of paranoia to me if gun owners think everyone is potentially out to get them. On the outside they might say that's not true, but they are expecting something to happen otherwise why would they feel the need to be cloaked in a manner that will protect them 24/7? I guess someone needs to explain that to me if I've interpreted that incorrectly.

Living in this world, I see all the vile behaviors whether on the news, or in print and social media. Gun owners, and especially open-carry advocates, would tout this as a reason to have the right to protect themselves. Having personally encountered some unsavory situations in my past  - one when our home was broken into when I was a teenager, and another when an unwelcome visitor made an appearance in my apartment in the middle of the night when I was a young mother - I get that someone would want to have something at their disposal that could potentially protect them during acts of criminality. Luckily no one was hurt, us or the perpetrators, and no guns were involved in either situation. Both were frightening experiences, but I think they would have been made even more stressful had guns been present. Self-preservation is a factor in wanting protection, but I'm not sure that guns would have provided me with the outcome I was hoping for had I been in possession of a gun. Just as I would not like to end up with a bullet hole, neither do I want to inflict that kind of damage to another human being, even if that person was trying to hurt me. Also, data tends tell us that if a gun is in the home, the risks of violence and/or suicide increases. So, adding a potential threat, even if no other criminal action enters into my residence, tells me that guns really have no place in my life.

But I guess what I always keep coming back to is that mindset of paranoia. I remember how I felt after those incidents, and they weren't pleasant. I was fearful and I was anxious, but I still didn't want to go out and buy a gun. Maybe it would have empowered me in that moment. I'm sure that many, if not most, gun advocates would say "exactly!" and that's the point they've been trying to make all along. It's not about paranoia, but being in control rather than being at the mercy of another and their indecent intentions. It's as if they legitimize their strength (paranoia) because a gun makes them feel invincible. Maybe not to the point where they would go around pistol-whipping complete innocents, but still they scrutinize and assess any situation as potentially threatening while being rational about their paranoia. Otherwise, why carry a gun to begin with? I know I can't speak for others, only myself, but open-carry still suggests to me there is a certain amount of paranoia. 

Paranoia is a form of fear, and fear can create panic. When you have anxiety about something it is sometimes difficult to think rationally in a situation that should actually require it in order to remain calm and ensure your safety. An anxiety-filled situation can leave you with no desire to think positively about the person in this situation that you believe will do you harm. It is quite understandable. One hopes that would only be in a life-threatening situation and one where you think someone is truly out to get you.

Imagine a nation, hell a world, where the opposite of that mindset existed! They actually have a word for that state of mind - pronoia, enjoying the feeling that the world around them conspires to do them good. What if we all went around expecting we were going to be treated right by others? Just wow. The deep-feeling, empathetic human in me is experiencing thrills as I picture this. How could we not want to feel like this always? The imagery would obviously not include guns because living in a world where you know everyone has your back wouldn't require guns or the fear they instill. We would have nothing to be fearful about as no one desires anything but the best for us.

So, I'll start. I have an arsenal and it's called my arms. I'm prepared to use them at the appropriate time. It'll be my mission to see that sad people are to be comforted and uplifted, happy people would experience one more bonus of good fortune in their day, hurried people would slow down and enjoy the humanity. People with an aversion to touch, please wear signs. What I think is appropriate, you may not! But small problem considering this world would be a better place, and certainly the more loving place that we always talk about wanting.

I propose that what would help to change the current mindset in this country is for people to want to think well of others rather than believe other's intentions are only about hurting them. Because in reality, it's not just gun owners in favor of open-carry who feel this way, it's many others who don't own guns who have a chip on their shoulder about people who are out to get them. Of course, we know there are bad people out there, but let's not have fear or paranoia claim there are more out there on the wrong side than there are good ones.

What sends a more powerful positive message to the people around you - a warm embrace and smiles or guns at the hip ready to discharge? Would you rather be on the receiving end of a hug or a bullet? Because really, that's what it boils down to emotionally - someone either suspects an imminent commission of crime out of you or they think you are worthy of their humanity. Which mindset would you prefer?

I support open-carry hugs and less paranoia.

Some Get It

www.starautoelectricga.com

Ten easy steps to being a good person. You know, the right kind of person in the eyes of the lord. Out of these steps, three deal specifically in how you are to kiss its ass. Highly important! He is the head idol and shall be idolized... no excuses!

We don't know exactly when they were produced, but we can guess it was thousands of years ago. A time when most people didn't have an education and probably didn't read. I guess that's why it's only ten commandments. Easier to remember when you only have a few lines to process. But seriously, how was that working for us in the world when all it knew was religion? Pretty awful when you read the bible as well as history books.

Click here for full version

Fast forward to 1948, mere mortals tried their hand at defining what it means to be a decent inhabitant of this world. What they produced was the in-depth Universal Declaration of Human Rights, leaving god out of the discussion except in the idea that people were free to believe what they wanted. Example after example is listed on how to treat each other with dignity and be humane towards one another, helping to increase the quality of life during their brief stint on this planet. The desire being to lay down the requirements for a civilized society.  

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the people of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, 

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation withe the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge..."

It would seem the thinking humans not only go a lot further in understanding what it takes to be good, but they do it in a fashion that recognizes a universal goal; a fair and just world bringing together all varieties of cultures. They task everyone with the responsibility for themselves as well as instructing us that all freedoms and rights are inherently due each individual in order to achieve a world-wide peace. It doesn't require a god and kissing its ass, it requires recognizing that just as you deserve to have a quality life, so does the next guy. 

But I'd ask again, how's this working for us in today's world? We still have many countries that occupy Earth experiencing situations who certainly don't uphold the articles listed. There is still much disregard for the rights of individuals as well as the intentional destruction of people's lives, whatever the reason, even today. Are we less barbaric than we were in ancient times? I'd like to think we are, but when I see evidence of slavery, sex trafficking, wars, gang violence, gun violence, rape, child abuse, hatred and bigotry abounding... how can I think we are better than we were? What the hell is wrong with us? I'm sure it's not a simple answer, many variables contribute to our inhumanity.

One might think that superstition and clinging to out-dated traditions is keeping some of the Earth's population uneducated and adhering to religion rather than developing an understanding of the world and leaning towards reason and empathy. I would think that, as would many of my friends. Poverty being the biggest reason this cycle is hard to break. People will believe anything when you feed, clothe and shelter them. Why do you think missionaries are so important to the growth of a religion?

But it's not just being ignorant or accepting of the natural world, it's an attitude of us vs. them when you are dealing with the thousands of different religions in our world, still. That thinking alone informs me it's understandable why we still have so much strife in the world. One sect thinks they got it right and adhere only to their edicts. The expectation is the rest of us agree rather than them understanding and accepting that we are individuals with different ideas about what our quality of life looks like or how we'd like to experience it. 

I think the people who were involved with the creation of Universal Declaration of Human Rights understood so much about what would contribute to a better society and world, but we have many who just don't. I'm hopeful that more will as they drop the veil of religion from their lives, opting for education, inquiry and understanding instead. We become more humane when we truly have better insight about ourselves and our world. Empathy only exists when we can truly understand others and their situations rather than dictating how they should live their lives.

Ten demands from a god does not a humane person make, we know that because of our human history. Thirty articles from a concerned group of humans does not a humane person make either, but at least they were on the right track. Where we get better, eventually... hopefully... is when we drop this insistence that a god, who we are to adore, is somehow responsible for how we care for each other in this world. Only we are responsible for the quality of this world and its people. And sadly, only some get it.

***11/5/13 

The American Humanist Association really gets it! Thanks, Adam Brown, for posting this gem today.

A MUCH better ten commandments to live by...

Humanist Ten Commandments
(American Humanists Association)

1) Thou shalt strive to promote the greater good of humanity before all selfish desires.

2) Thou shalt be curious, for asking questions is the one way to find answers.

3) Harm to your fellow human is harm to humanity. Therefore, thou shalt not kill, rape, rob or otherwise victimize anyone.

4) Thou shalt treat all humans as equals, regardless of race, gender, age, creed, identity, orientation, physical ability, or status.

5) Thou shalt use reason as your guide. Science, knowledge, observation, and rational analysis are the best ways to determine any course of action.

6) Thou shalt not force your beliefs onto others, nor insist that yours be the only and correct way to live happily.

7) If thou dost govern, thou shalt govern with reason, not with superstition. Religion should have no place in any government which represents all people and beliefs.

8) Thou shalt act for the betterment of your fellow humans, and be, whenever possible, altruistic in your deeds.

9) Thou shalt be good to the Earth and its bounties, for without it, humankind is lost.

10) Thou shalt impart thy knowledge and wisdom gained in your lifetime to the next generation, so that with each passing century, humanity will grow wiser and more humane.

Killer, Hero... Dead

topoften.com

I learned of his death recently in the Time piece "Killer ~ Healer ~ Victim", where Mark Thompson glorifies Chris Kyle for his heroic actions on and off the battlefield. I would say somewhat rightly so, but it would depend on what you feel should be considered heroic.

It is tragic and sad that Kyle's life was cut short by Eddie Ray Routh, the man who gunned him down; the man that Kyle was trying to help. However, frankly spoken, I think we should be talking more about his recklessness for bringing a mentally unstable man to target practice. Even a retired Army colonel piped in that it seemed crazy to bring a troubled young man to a firing range.

My intent isn't to malign Kyle in this forum, but rather to question his decision-making processes and hopefully learn from this tragedy. I've not stepped into this topic very deeply or discussed it at length previously besides posting a few images on Facebook that reflect my sentiments, but this piece struck a chord for me. This story highlights the crux of the gun violence debate, specifically the ones that are the most devastating.

Routh was unstable. He had a history of steadily deteriorating mental health, battled with drinking problems and his inability to maintain steady work only compounded his situation. It was very evident that he had problems coping after his four-year stint with the Marines, one incident clearly demonstrating this was the attempt he made to kill his parents in September 2012.

As much as Kyle has been glorified for his past actions, privately and work-related, wasn't using some common sense in this situation in order? It would seem that he was a smart man, what with his history and all. Did he possibly just misjudge this situation or are we to believe that he just thinks that guns are appropriate in any and every situation? Either scenario tells me that there was something lacking in Kyle's critical thinking skills when he made the decision to bring Routh to the firing range.

We've all heard the suggestion that guns don't kill people, people kill people; at least the NRA and many of the loud gun owners proclaim this to justify holding onto their guns. Why did this exact line of thinking not cross Kyle's mind in this situation? How does bringing Routh to the shooting range for treatment, this potential killer with training and someone Kyle knew was mentally unstable, even become a viable option? How does Kyle not stop to think of the possible deadly outcome considering what he was aware of with Routh? It seems a little common sense was in order.

Guns do kill people, especially when we put them in situations that give them license to do so, and in this situation, it was obviously to Kyle's detriment. I understand that no one really knows what set Routh off and why he chose to act out the way that he did, but how did Kyle not stop to think that putting a gun in the hands of someone disturbed wouldn't make it all better??? Again, no common sense.

"Kyle was a killer who became a healer. How could he so suddenly be transformed again, into a victim?" He died because he felt that "shooting was a key part of the process of treating troubled soldiers. He felt this helped them be "treated like they men they are: equals, heroes and people who still have tremendous value for society." His heart may have been in the right place, but his head really needed to be there as well.

Yes, guns don't actually make the choice to kill someone; it takes someone to pull the trigger. But can we at least all agree that keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people is appropriate and in the best interest of those around them. The disturbed might not be the best people to hand guns over to when we don't really know what they feel themselves capable of doing.

Can we use some common sense? Please?