A Lot of Thinking to Do

The shootings just keep coming. We had the Buffalo racist based killing about two weeks ago, then we had the Texan school killing maybe last week, and then this week is a bunch of smaller killings: the Tulsa hospital, a cemetery, and a church. These smaller ones may be being reported because we had such atrocious larger ones the prior two weeks.

The stories coming out of Texas about the police’s response to the shooting at an elementary school is shocking and distressing. I’m going to try not to pass any judgment because we probably don’t really have all of the facts on what really happened; investigations need to be done first and reported before I jump to any conclusions.

But it’s really disturbing.

One thing that crossed through my brain when I heard that the policemen did not try to enter the rooms for about an hour (timeout here – my understanding is that the policemen were actually inside the building but were milling in the hallways outside of the barricaded classrooms for roughly an hour): how is this situation different from a hostage situation?

I always hear that in a hostage situation, police mill around outside of a building where the hostage taking is occurring, crouched behind cars with their guns out, but they don’t rush inside the building for fear of precipitating a shootout that could end up killing the hostages. Instead, they have a negotiator outside talking through the phone to convince the hostage taker to release the people and come out with his hands up. The police or SWAT team might plan on how to enter the building in a surreptitious manner to try to take out the hostage taker without getting the people hurt or killed.

Did the situation in Texas feel more like a hostage situation to the police? That might be one angle the investigative arms may be trying to determine.

Another thought that crossed my mind was what kind of equipment did the police have to face down the shooter? Early reporting mentioned that the police were outgunned by the young teenager who had just turned eighteen. The kid had an AR-15 – one of those that spits out bullets to mow down people in minutes – far surpassing the shooting capability of handguns and rifles. At least, that is my knowledge – I know nothing about guns other than AR-15s are weapons of war designed to kill people, and probably very quickly and efficiently. The mismatch in weaponry might be the reason for policemen standing outside for about an hour. In airplanes, the stewardesses always say that if the oxygen masks drop down, you put on the mask on yourself first before attending to your child. That theory or principle might have been the same for those policemen: they can’t save people if they are being mowed down. If someone comes and attack you with a tank and you only have a rifle, do you actually face down the tank with that rifle? (Maybe the Ukrainians would, they’ve shown astonishing bravery, but as a general rule…). Or do you try to fight another way?

There are enough questions to indicate an investigation needs to be done before conclusions can be made.

In the meantime, conservatives, especially in Texas, have some thinking to do.

Here are my random thoughts on the gun situation:

First, I read an article about Uvalde: Uvalde is gun country, and the townspeople carry their rifles and guns around them all the time. It’s part of their everyday life, from the great granddads to their granddads to their dads to sons and grandsons. I read a similar thing about Santa Fe, a Houston suburb, where kids would go to school with their rifles in their gun, go to classes leaving their guns in the car, unlocked, and nothing would happen. This habit had been going on for decades and nothing happened, until this decade (or until after 2010).

The fact that Texans have had guns around them for decades and nothing happened gives me an understanding why they say, guns are not the problem, it’s the people. Something has changed. I need to keep this historical aspect of gun ownership because it gives me an understanding of why they say guns are not the problem. Owning a gun or guns was never a problem before.

The other thing I learned was that Uvalde is very close to the border (about 75 miles away) and they suffer from increasing problems from drug runners, so the town loves the Border Patrol because of the security those policemen provide. So, border patrol and possible the wall is very important to them because of the crime arising out of the drug cartels. That’s something I need to keep in mind: for some Texas towns near the border, they may be facing increasing crime from the Mexican drug cartels, so there is a good reason for a border wall – to keep out crime.

Uvalde, and possibly a lot of Texas towns, are deeply conservative and support gun ownership – perfectly understandable given the aforementioned gun ownership history and the increasing crime coming from Mexico. I think most liberals would understand that and say that they are not for total elimination of gun ownership, considering Texans have always had gun ownership and have had no problems before this decade.

But here’s the other pieces of information we need to consider. First, the Uvalde gunner did not have access to guns until he turned eighteen, and then he went out a bought an AR-15 within a few days of his birthday and proceeded to an elementary school to perform his dastardly deeds. He couldn’t kill earlier because he did not have access until he turned eighteen, at which point access to guns became available. In this instance, limiting access worked.

Then there is the type of gun: AR-15 versus a regular rifle. Early reporting suggested the police waited to enter the classroom because they were outgunned. Maybe if the shooter hadn’t been able to gain access to an AR-15, the police would have been more aggressive in entering the room. This is pure speculation but is something to consider.

There is a mental health aspect. The pandemic obviously worsened everybody’s mental health and we probably are reeling from it. Some people dealt with the pandemic better than others. We may suffer the consequences from the pandemic over the next few years and probably face more shootings. Here’s what the Texas conservatives have to consider: Texas is 50th in mental health accessibility. That alone is a dire situation. Now, the governor has created some kind of school mental health program and set aside some money for it, but it is very new and has not gotten fully off the ground. As a matter of fact, the governor had transferred some money from this school mental health program to his border wall or patrol program. Texas voters are going to have to make some decisions about this because the border wall/patrol program and the school mental health program both cost money. But if you say, there’s a ban on AR-15 and no citizen is allowed to own an AR-15, it’s only for use in the military, that ban probably doesn’t cost money. You’re just saying, you can’t have it. That’s something to consider.

Texas voters could go for the single door solution proffered by Ted Cruz or the arming of teachers like Ken Paxton suggested, but they have to think seriously about whether they want their kids to be in a prison like environment, never mind the fire hazard one door entrance/exit poses or whether they could trust teachers to be armed marksmen to fend off bad guys.

In Texas, the conservatives have to make a decision. Change will not happen until conservatives change. I’m sure the liberals will support raising the age from 18 to 21, or banning the ARs, or requiring background checks, or closing some loopholes in regard to private sales or online sales. I’m sure the liberals will jump at something along those lines. But the onus is on the conservative voters – nothing will happen without them. Unfortunately, it’s on them.

The Texas conservative voters could do like Iowans: question their representatives. Here’s a video of Iowan citizens pushing back on Senator Chuck Grassley:

Texas conservative voters could do the same because, again, nothing will happen until they start pushing back on their leadership. It’s on them.

One last thing we need to think about: the language we use in society. Right now, most of the violent rhetoric is emanating out of the conservative party. We’ve had the implied threats to school board memberships – maybe even outright threats; threats towards the employees working in the voting offices; or how about those threats of using a car to run over protesters; or those drivers trying to push off the road the Biden team in Texas during election period; or how about those policemen failing to provide safety for the Biden team traveling through a certain part of Texas; or maybe even that infamous image of Michigan protesters showing up in the state Capitol building with guns, threatening the governor; or how about the violence erupting on January 6, 2021; or that chant “Hang Mike Pence”. The violence even goes back to the Tea Party days when conservatives held protests with their guns – it was milder but it nevertheless felt threatening.

Yes, the liberals have had some “threatening” events, especially in the aftermath of the George Floyd shooting, but the black elders went out across the US to tell the younger protesters that violence and property destruction was not the way. For the most part, the black elders were successful in tamping down the lawlessness, with the exception of Portland. But in Portland, the violence was to the building, not the people.

Right now, it feels like the violent rhetoric is stemming from the conservative side.

And who do you think is affected by such rhetoric?

That is something the conservative voters everywhere need to consider – their own role in the violent rhetoric coursing through our society.

Yeah, they have a lot of thinking to do. I just hope they come to the realization that nothing will change until they vote in changes. Until then, we will continue to have these mass shootings.