Sunday School 5/29/22: Extra Credit

In your Sunday School lesson, I focused on a couple of local Texas officials, who spoke of their pain and anguish, their frustration and anger, and their hopes in the wake of the horrific shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde. 

For your Extra Credit, we'll spend time with another Texan - Rep. Dan Crenshaw - who talked with Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom.

He was asked what "accountability looks like," considering the reports about law enforcement delays. He said he wasn't going to judge "the person who's walking through the breach and is in that moment in the arena," but he said it seems clear protocols weren't followed.

We have very clear training doctrine on this... I mean, the training clearly states, you might get shot, but the guy behind you might be able to get in and save innocent people.

He said someone's likely to get fired for these "very, very bad calls," adding that the Border Patrol coming in and doing the job is "pretty embarrassing for a lot of the local police officers.

Bash asked whether Crenshaw would vote yes on a national red flag law, noting that's one option in the bipartisan discussions in the Senate; fellow Texan Sen. John Cornyn is leading the Rs on that group.

Um, that's a 'no' on a national red flag law. 

No, I wouldn't. You know, it's funny... You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

He mentioned that "criminal law" should be decided at the local and state level, but "you have to look at these and wonder what the actual purpose is." 

And what about a red flag law in Texas? Um, that's also a 'no.'

and here's why, because what we are essentially trying to do with a red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken. And that's a really difficult thing to do. It's difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat. Now, if they're such a threat they're threatening somebody with a weapon already, well, then they have already broken the law, so why do you need this other law? That's the question that I think critics rightfully ask about these things

He's concerned about due process (even though these aren't criminal proceedings), and "ultimately how they even solve the problem, because these things have to be reported for them to actually matter." Of course, if you had a red flag law, things could be reported to the appropriate people, and reported to the background check system, too. That's kind of the purpose - to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

And, in this case, look, you have a troubled teenager who did some very strange things, shooting at people with BB guns, cutting himself, saying crazy things. Does this reach the level where you involuntarily -- involuntarily commit him or take his property? Because the thing is, is -- those things that this teenager was doing could be applied to quite a few teenagers.

Crenshaw said "maybe the solution they could agree on is improving our background check system," since "it doesn't seem clear that" a red flag law would have worked here. 

The problem is that the background check didn't capture the full story of this person. So, look, Republicans are the ones that proposed and passed the Fix NICS Act. Republicans have proposed the 21st century Fix NICS Act, which further improves the system...

OK - how about a universal background check? Um, that's also a 'no.'

So, people have to understand what universal background checks mean. That means that I can no longer sell a gun to my friend. If my neighbor, let's say her husband is gone for the week and she wants to borrow my gun, that would make us both felons. That's the problem with universal background checks. And the people who are least likely to adhere to universal background check are the criminals who intend harm. 

And the gun show loophole? Um, that's also a 'no.' 

When people say the gun show loophole, they're talking about private transfers, which gets back to the universal background check debate...There's nothing specific in law about a gun show that allows people to do more things than they would otherwise be able to do. 

This article gives an example of the loophole, describing how a guy wanders around a gun show wearing a "handwritten menu" advertising specific guns for sale, and that there's no background check.

Another often-suggested change? Raising the age. Bash noted that the Uvalde, Buffalo, Parkland, and Sandy Hook shooters were all 20 or younger, and she asked, should the age be 21? 

Well, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is, should 21 be the age that you're an adult? As a society, we do have to decide when you're technically an adult... And, right now, we technically say 18.

But, he said, he's "not very impressed by our current swathe of 18-year-olds and their maturity level," so maybe we can talk about this... Until, we start to talk about it. Then, That's also a 'no.'

When we see a 22-year-old commit an atrocity, are we going to raise it again and are we going to raise it again? And, at a certain point, we have to ask ourselves what our limiting principle is as far as that age limit, because, truthfully, the vast majority of these horrible shootings have been caused by an older person.

(The median age for people committing school shootings is 16; 2/3 of them are committed by people under 18. The age for other "horrible shootings" is in the 30s.)

Bash noted people are going to think he doesn't really want to do anything, since he said no to everything they've discussed; she asked, in a nutshell, what he'd say yes to. Here's that list: "actual security at a school." 

And why can't you do both - 'harden' schools, and some of the other stuff, she asked? Because of the 2nd Amendment? That's exactly the problem, he said. Gun control policies,

they do two things. One, they infringe on the rights of million and millions of gun owners. And, two, they probably wouldn't have the outcome that you're hoping for. So, if you're not going to get the benefit you want, but you're going to -- it's going to come at great cost, that generally means it's not a very good policy. Again, that's why I go back to hardening schools.

He doesn't see a problem that there are tens of millions more guns than people here; he thinks that fine. He also mentioned a CDC study showing "there's hundreds of thousands of cases a year where somebody used a gun to protect themselves or protect others." Actually, the study is inconclusive, except on the fact that more study is needed on the public health implications of on guns.

Bash asked him "Do you really think the founding fathers, when they wrote well-regulated militia, intended for enough guns, weapons of war that you are so...  highly trained in using, should be used to massacre children?"

Crenshaw talked about the "two different ideas in the 2nd Amendment" but he didn't say a thing about the founders. He also doesn't like the term 'weapons of war" because in the military, they use "much, much bigger" weapons than an AR-15.

At the end, Crenshaw wanted to add one more thing about rifles: "they actually make good self-defense weapons."

And, I'd add, they make very good offensive weapons, too. 

See you around campus. 

Yes, We Can Do Something (Part 2)

Continuing the conversation on things we could do about mass shootings, regardless of where they occur, based on years of discussion with friends and family, and information we've shared from our research on the topic. 

As a reminder, a couple of over-arching principles.

We need to change how we talk about the goal. It is not to prevent mass shootings from happening. The goal is to make it harder for someone to commit mass carnage, and to reduce the number of deaths should such an event occur. 

And, gun safety legislation must stand alone, with no unrelated amendments or attachments. Any attempts to attach anything that is not directly related to gun safety shall be considered a bribe. 

Part 1 addressed gun and ammunition purchases, background checks and data reporting. It also includes the definition of 'gun' we're using for this series.

Here are recommendations related to penalties for crimes involving guns and background checks. 

• Ensure a speedy trial - and sentencing - for mass shooting defendants. The person who was convicted of the Colorado movie theater shooting was sentenced just over three years after killing twelve and injuring dozens more. This is an absurdly - and unacceptable - delay in justice being served.

• Require mandatory prosecution for using a gun in the commission of a crime. Anyone convicted of using a gun in a crime will face a mandatory minimum sentence. 

• Require mandatory prosecution for attempting to purchase a gun when a failed background check is certain. Anyone who knows they will fail a background check for a legal gun purchase, but attempts to do so anyway, will face a mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction. Credit is not given for trying to do the right thing.

• Require mandatory prosecution for attempting to bypass a background check, in any manner, with a mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction.

• Require mandatory prosecution for providing false or incomplete information during the background check process. A mandatory minimum sentence will be served upon conviction.

• Require mandatory prosecution for holding or hiding a gun in order to protect another person from being charged with a gun crime. A mandatory minimum sentence will be served upon conviction.

• Require mandatory prosecution when guns are found improperly secured or transported, such as during TSA checks, law enforcement stops, etc., with a mandatory minimum sentence to be served upon conviction.

• Categorize all crimes in which a gun was used as 'non-bailable' federal offenses, and carve gun legislation out of the filibuster. These charges cannot be plea-bargained; and sentences upon conviction must be served consecutively with any other sentences, and must be served in full.

I can picture someone looking at these recommendations and wondering what's the tie-in to making it harder for someone to commit a mass shooting, and I get that - but remember, we are trying to pull together, in an 'all of the above' type of response, to get something accomplished.

One of the many arguments from the 'we don't need to do anything about guns' crowd is that we already have plenty of gun laws on the books, and they need to be enforced. They're right, at least about having them on the books; I don't know about the enforcement part, but I'll accept at face value that the folks who draw this line in the sand know what they're talking about.

Elevating gun crimes from a state-level felony to a federal-level felony will add some teeth (at least in theory) and (again, at least in theory) limit the possibility that some gang leader, organized crime guy, gun runner, a drug dealer or other criminal mastermind will be able to buy themselves some cops, prosecutors and/or judges who can make things disappear. 

It also put the onus on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to get more involved, and stay more involved, in helping trace, track and interdict illegal guns, gun runners and the like. 

And, using federal funds for this effort makes sense, as it's hard for states and municipalities to focus on this at the same time they're focusing on identifying and mitigating the social, economic, medical, psychological, cultural, and educational issues that play so heavily into gun crimes, whether we're talking about mass shootings or, as the politicians like to say, "just another weekend in Chicago."

And, the final benefit of pushing this all up to the federal level? US Senators and members of the House can no longer push responsibility to someone else. The policy-making, the regulations, the funding -- it all sits squarely in their laps.

And, in my eyes, that's the only way many of them will do anything other than offer up thoughts and prayers.

Sunday School 5/29/22

Spending time with folks from Texas who were in the classrooms yesterday, starting with Valde County Commissioner Ronald Garza; he talked with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation.

Brennan asked him why the school district police 'commander' wasn't on site when the shooting began; later, she clarified and said the 'officer' wasn't on site. Either way, Garza didn't have the answer, although he said it's possible he could have been at another campus at the time. She also asked if it was true "the chief of police for the school district is now under police protection himself" and if that was "reflective of the feeling in the community..."

Well, you know, rightly so. You know, people are - are asking questions. Parents lost children. They're devastated. And it's - it's - it's just a sad situation. And I think the community deserves answers.

She also noted there's talk in "communities around the country" about whether more school security is needed, and legislators are talking about getting funding for that. Given Uvalde has a separate police force solely for the school district, she asked Garza if a lack of security was the problem there.

...Perhaps it was a lack of security, training. You know, I think there's multiple factors that might be involved here. But you know, right now, it's easy- It's easy to point fingers right now. It's easy to play the blame game. But, you know, our community I think needs to focus on- on the- on the- on healing right now...

He said he welcomes the FBI investigation, which he said Rep. Joaquin Castro asked for; according to reports, the mayor of Uvalde also made the same request. 

I think we need to learn more. As tragic as this may seem, we need to learn from this, you know, and parents deserve answers.

Garza knows the family of the shooter, and said he has "no indication" as to any motive. He described the family as one that "value(s) church, they value hard work, known them for many years- great grandparents, grandparents, uncles, aunts: He also said what happened shouldn't be a reflection on the family.

You know, we raise our children, and we try to raise them in the right way. But- but sometimes our children have different thoughts, have different attitudes, personalities, but we do the best we can.

Finally, on whether the school will be destroyed, Garza was not sure, and admitted to having "mixed emotions" on that. He went there, and his father taught there, "his second teaching assignment."

My grandkids went through there and my kids went through there- those pecan trees that are out there at Robb school, my dad planted them in 1965. Every day after school, he and a few students would water those pecan trees so we- we- we have very strong ties to the school and you know, my hope is - I hope it's not- the school is not razed. Yes, do we need a memorial out there maybe? Do we need to section off the area where the shooting took place? Perhaps. But you know that- and again, that's just my opinion. 

The decision on what to do with, or at, the school, will be an agonizing one, I suspect.  

Down the hall, Dana Bash was in the host's chair in the State of the Union classroom; one of her guests was State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat, who represents Uvalde. 

Her first question? "...how is it that 9- and 10-year-olds had the presence of mind in that kind of terrifying situation to dial 9/11 multiple times, pleading for help, asking for police to come, and the grownups in the hallway didn't come in?" And Gutierrez didn't pull any punches, saying "the whole thing is a shame. I'm disgusted by all of it."

I understand the human condition, the notion that this other guy might have superior firepower. But, at the end of the day, the protocols were breached. The active shooter protocols dictate that you go in. First, there were seven officers. By 12:03, there was 19 officers. So many things went wrong here. I'm asking a lot of questions. I am told that I'm going to be getting a ballistics report next week, along with many other issues that need to be addressed.

And, to Bash's question on whether the delay saved lived, he gave an example of a child who had been shot in the back, and died. She's one of the ones who might have been saved, had first responders gone in, so "absolutely, these mistakes may have led to the passing away of these children as well."

He also has lots of questions - significant concerns, he said - on the operational aspect of things. As Bash noted, there were local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel on site.

I have asked DPS at what point each one of their officers arrived. At what point does the local police take operational control, or should they? At what point does the next superior power, DPS, take operational control, or should they? And, lastly, the federal government, they waited some as well. At what point should they not have taken operational control?

He said that no one has told him they expressed frustration or 'challenged' the school district police commander about his decisions, but that it was the Border Patrol team that, out of frustration, decided to go in. And, he said, 

 I had a long talk with Colonel McCraw yesterday. He was devastated. As you have seen on television, he's acknowledged that there were errors here. What I have suggested to him is that it's not fair to put it on the local ISD cop. At the end of the day, everybody failed here. We failed these children. We even failed them in the Texas legislature.

On that last point, Bash wondered if "there are enough Republicans to pass" legislation, such as chancing the age to purchase this type of weapon from 18 to 21, or even on having a special session, something Gutierrez "confronted" Gov. Greg Abbott about, Bash noted.

He said it's the "first time ever" he's seen Rs calling for a special session, and he said some of his GOP colleagues "who at this point don't want to be identified," have said the age needs to be raised. 

Those are the kind of things that make sense, red flag laws, waiting periods, making sure that we have a more significant, robust background check. 

Bash mentioned he sounded 'hopeful' and he said that's he does what he does.

I ran for office because I am hopeful. I am -- I have in my life created change at different levels of government. If I do nothing for the rest of my career but yell at Greg Abbott and others that are not willing to listen, then that's what I'm going to do.

We must have change. I have spent time with many of these families. And this is just heartbreaking. I just cannot do this anymore. It is heartbreaking. No family should go through what these people are going through. 

We need so many more legislators, from both sides of the aisle, who are willing to yell at their 'do-nothing' counterparts on things like this. 

Later today, I'll post another set of recommendations on what we can do, if only people would listen. You can read the first chunk of them here. 

See you around campus. 

Yes, We Can Do Something (Part 1)

As I mentioned in the Introduction, some friends and I have had running conversations about mass shootings and gun safety legislation since the Sandy Hook tragedy. Honestly, that's way too long for us to be working on this.

Before we dive into our recommendations, there's some ground to cover, including these overarching principles:

We need to change how we talk about the goal. It is not to prevent mass shootings from happening; the goal is to make it harder for someone to commit mass carnage, and to reduce the number of deaths should such an event occur. 

And, gun safety legislation must stand alone, with no unrelated amendments or attachments. Any attempts to attach anything that is not directly related to gun safety shall be considered a bribe.. 

That second one may seem extreme, but one of the problems we have is that literally anything can be attached to a bill, no matter how far removed from the topic at hand. The only way to make sure that doesn't happen is to be absurdly strict.  

For these discussions, the term 'guns' excludes air guns, nail guns, starter pistols, bubble guns, staple guns, Nerf guns, water pistols, etc., and includes handguns, rifles, sidearms, firearms, so-called 'assault weapons,' semi-automatic weapons, 'military-style' weapons', 'weapons of war' and other terms of disgust or endearment. We all know what we're talking about here, and pretending otherwise is merely a deflection. 

What else? These changes would impact all gun sales, not just sales of the type of weapon used in mass shootings, and would standardize processes at the federal level.  States could opt to add additional regs if desired.  I'm aware some progress may have been made in some areas in the years since we first started these conversations. And finally, we tried to take an 'all of the above' approach, to this, addressing key themes from both sides of the argument, in the interest of allowing everyone a victory or two. 

So: here are some recommendations related to legal purchases of guns:

• Raise the legal age for purchasing guns. If it's not safe for kids to purchase alcohol until they are 21, they should not be allowed to purchase a gun until they're 21. If that means the age for voting and being drafted, should the need arise, must be raised to 21, so be it. 

• Require registration of all guns on a federal gun license, regardless of the gun type, and regardless of how bought, sold, or otherwise transferred to a different owner. Everyone who owns a gun must have a license to do so. 

• Mandatory education and training must be provided before every gun purchase or transfer is completed. The training must be specific to the gun, and include all aspects of gun ownership (carrying, transporting, using, and storing the gun and ammunition, etc.). The training must also include reports of gun owners hurting themselves or others, such as when kids and parents accidentally kill children, and accidental shootings in the leg, in the head, in the head, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the penis, in the foot, taking a selfie, defending a Muslim-free gun store, trying out his new holster, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, etc. It must also include video impact statements from survivors and from families of victims of mass shootings. Proof of successful completion of the training must be documented as part of the sale or transfer transaction. 

• Require mandatory videotaping of all gun sales and require a 'green light' result on a background check, rather than just the absence of a 'red light.' These ideas are good ones, and came from Walmart, after the mass shooting at their El Paso store left 23 people dead. 

• Require yearly renewal of the federal gun license, to include proficiency testing for all guns on the license. Testing should also include an assessment of a person's decision-making ability, such as when to fire vs. when to de-escalate. This training is critical to support the 'good guy with a gun' argument.

• Enhance the federal background check process, to include a check of criminal records, mental health records, and social media posts to identify potentially risky gun owners, and to give them a chance to respond to the findings. The background check must be applied to all gun sales and transfers.

• Implement mandatory reporting into the federal background check system. (a) All law enforcement organizations and security companies must provide timely reporting on all incidents involving all types of guns. (b) All branches of the United States Military must provide timely reporting of relevant data, including all discharge statuses. (c) All social media companies, 'discussion boards,' gaming platforms, etc. must proactively monitor for and report threats of violence, or actual violence, to a designated agency. (d) Requirements will be developed to ensure sufficient but only minimally necessary data is reported. (e) Additionally, all medical facilities and practitioners must provide timely reporting of anonymized data on gunshot victims to the CDC to allow for research, policy development, educational, and legislative purposes. (f) Failure to comply with the reporting requirements will result in an escalated financial and/or criminal penalty process.

• Eliminate state background check systems upon implementation of the enhanced federal system. Historical data from the separate state systems must be incorporated into the federal system before they are shut down.

• Implement a minimum 10-day waiting period on all gun purchases and transfers. One year after implementation of the new background check system, an assessment of the average time to complete a background check will be reviewed, and adjustments to the 10-day waiting period may be considered at that time.

• Attach a federal excise tax to the purchases of guns as we do cigarettes, fuel, airline tickets and alcohol. Taxes collected will be placed in a dedicated fund, used solely in support of gun safety efforts. The fund will be audited annually to ensure the tax is being collected, allocated, and distributed as intended. 

These recommendations pertain to ammunition sales and purchases.

• Require mandatory reporting on large ammunition sales, like the reporting in place today for deposits under federal banking regulations. The definition of 'large' sales will be data-based, and determined by federal regulators. 

• Attach a federal excise tax to ammunition, as outlined above.

• Limit the sale of high-capacity magazines. The definition of 'high-capacity' will be data-based, and determined by federal regulators. 

Coming up, I'll look at things we can do to ensure bad guys with guns are dealt with appropriately; red flag laws; mental health, and more.

In Case You Missed It (v91)

Here's your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

A couple of former Defense types were in the Sunday School classrooms. On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Martha Raddatz had former Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen, while Margaret Brennan had former Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Face the Nation. Here's a bit of that interview.

On the expansion of NATO, with Finland and Sweden applying to join the alliance, Gates gives Vladimir Putin a lot of credit.

...it's an amazing thing he's done because he's -- he's gotten Sweden to abandon 200 years of neutrality... one of his many huge miscalculations in invading Ukraine is he has dramatically changed the geostrategic posture of western Europe... 

Later in the interview, Brennan asked Gates about the threat of 'polarization' here, 

which Gates has said was our "biggest threat." He hasn't seen a whole lot of improvement, although "there is one glimmer of hope," thanks to Xi and Putin - and it extends beyond the situation in Ukraine.

They've actually brought Republicans and Democrats together on Capitol Hill, and with the administration.... so maybe that's a foundation. Maybe there's a way to build on that. And, who knows, if you begin to get it in national security policy, maybe you can get it in some other places.

National Economic Director and Chief Word Salad Spinner Brian Deese was on Fox News Sunday with Martha McCollum; have fun with that one.

In your Extra Credit, we listened in with Brennan as she interviewed Florida Man Sen. Rick Scott and NY's Rep. Hakeem Jeffries; the two are leaders in their respective chamber's efforts to elect more members of their party.  

Brennan had fun trying to get Scott to explain why, if inflation is the biggest issue in the 2022 midterms, the Rs are spending so much time "relitigating 2020.".

Scott said people care that this election will be '"fair and their votes are not going to be diluted," and hope the Rs will make that happen. He also said that people "want to know what happened, why it happened" in 2020.

Well, they want to know -- they want to know that -- exactly what happened, if -- were there problems, exactly what happened. They'd like to know that. But, also, they're -- you know, they also want to make sure we win in '22. So, they -- they want to make sure that we're going to make sure their vote's not diluted. So, I think you have to -- you have to talk about making sure people understand what happened in 2020, but also make sure you know -- they know that you're going to focus on making sure that 2022 is a -- is a fair election.

Got it? It's all about making sure things are surely made sure by making sure of being sure. That's what they want. Without saying a darn thing. As long as you're talking about 2020, I guess. But not about all the fraud committed by Rs. Don't mention that. They surely don't want to know anything about that, for sure. 

And don't miss his dodging of addressing white supremacy; that was a good one, too.

All the Wondering on Wednesday was about how we can so readily legislate our way into the fray on some issues, but we're unable or unwilling to do a damn thing about mass murder.  Here's a sampling.

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws protecting people from sign-waving, chalk-wielding protestors but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws confining women inside their state borders, to prevent them from seeking medical care in another state, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws preventing parents from providing loving care to their children, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

Last week's TGIF was a tough one; it was hard not to focus on the latest mass shooting at Robb Elementary school in Uvalde, TX, even as we continue to come to grips with the murder of 10 people at a Buffalo, NY grocery store. 

Instead of my usual good week/bad week lists, I used 'expectations met' and 'not met.' Here are a couple of things that made the first of those lists.

• Everyone who said that we need to re-implement the assault weapons ban, as if this shooting, in a state where the governor was embarrassed that residents weren't purchasing enough guns, in a state has no license/no training open carry, is the one that matters enough to get entrenched opponents of anything resembling a ban on any gun to swing over to the other side. 
• President Biden finally signing an Executive Order on police reform, knowing as he did so that it didn't go far enough, and correctly placing the blame on elected officials who refused to work together on legislation. The EO was announced on the second anniversary of the murder of George Floyd.

And finally, on Saturday, I launched the first in a series of posts about gun safety called Yes, We Can Do Something. The series recaps recommendations friends and I have developed over years of talking about these events, or that have been suggested by other people, and that beyond the obvious (and nearly impossible to achieve) "ban assault weapons" cry we hear after every one of these horrific incidents.  

Here's an excerpt from the Introduction to the series.

My friends and I were able to give up our entrenched positions and work together to come up with things that might have a positive impact this issue; that's something that the people we elect to make to do this kind of stuff seem incapable of doing.

When they try to 'do something,' it seems that every conversation begins - and ends - with banning 'assault' weapons, changing the background check process, and implementing so-called red flag laws. Those are worthwhile changes, which they've tried several times, to no avail. And, they're trying again, now that a bunch of little children have been murdered at a school. Again. 

When they start in the same place every single time, knowing that there is virtually no chance of success, it makes me wonder why they do that, and what goal they're trying to accomplish.

And, a personal note. Last week, veritable pastiche passed the 146,000 page-view threshold. Thanks for reading, and for your comments and messages over the years. I appreciate you.

I'll be back with the next installment in the gun safety series, and for Sunday School.

Yes, We Can Do Something (Introduction)

Over the years since the Sandy Hook school shooting, I've had many conversations with friends the 'gun problem' we have. 

What gun problem, you ask? 

The mass shooting problem, which happens with an alarming (if statistically insignificant) frequency in our country, at schools and grocery stores and movieplexes and abortion clinics and religious services (of all faiths) and Walmarts and restaurants and music festivals and office holiday parties and social clubs and community centers and nightclubs and, well, you get the drift. They happen everywhere and anywhere, in America - and they don't happen in other countries. 

Some of our conversations got a little contentious; after all, folks argued, and still argue, that we don't have a gun problem. Rather, we have a:

• lack of church attendance problem;
• a violent video game problem;
• a mental health problem;
• a criminal problem;
• a lack of respect problem;
• a missing father problem;
• a bad parent problem;
• a bullying problem; 
• a lack of prayer in school problem; 
• a lack of good guys with a gun problem; and more. 

My friends and I were able to give up our entrenched positions and work together to come up with things that might have a positive impact this issue; that's something that the people we elect to make to do this kind of stuff seem incapable of doing.

When they try to 'do something,' it seems that every conversation begins - and ends - with banning 'assault' weapons, changing the background check process, and implementing so-called red flag laws. Those are worthwhile changes, which they've tried several times, to no avail. And, they're trying again, now that a bunch of little children have been murdered at a school. Again. 

When they start in the same place every single time, knowing that there is virtually no chance of success, it makes me wonder why they do that, and what goal they're trying to accomplish. Whether it's the Dems or the Republicans, 

• Are they really trying to achieve consensus on meaningful legislation, or are they trying to make a point, or to convince us that at least they're trying?
• Do they really think the 2nd Amendment is the be-all and end-all?
• Are they really trying to protect Americans from danger, or are they trying to protect their own longevity in office?
• Are they really so short-sighted as to think there are only three options here?
• Is their loyalty to their PACs and super-donors and the lobbyists, or to the people of this country?
• Do they really believe that doing nothing is better than working together?

Regular readers of veritable pastiche are familiar with my lack of affection for most politicians, particularly those in the Senate, where legislation goes to die. I'm sick of partisan nonsense, of the do-nothingness that we often witness. 

 You may also know that I've written about gun safety or the lack thereof, all too often over the years. You can read those posts here, if you want to get your feet wet. 

And you are invited to stick around for, and chime in on, the posts in this Yes, We Can Do Something series; they summarize (and augment) the recommendations I've batted around with my friends over the years.

One more thing - you may be wondering about the 'And Now for Something Completely Different' meme that accompanies these posts. I included that because what we need now, if we're to accomplish anything at all, is just that: something completely different. 

• It's time for partisan, entrenched positions to be set aside for the greater good. 

• It's time for legislators to stop worrying about their next election, and start worrying about making it harder for Americans to be victimized by their countrymen in these heinous acts of gun violence. 

• It's time to stop deflecting the conversation away from mass shootings by pointing to gang-infested cities and saying "gun control doesn't work." 

• It's time to stop saying that risk is so low, we don't need to worry about it, and to stop making the argument that there are lots of other things that kill and injure more children than school shootings. 

• It's time to find common ground, no matter how hard it is to do that. 

It is time for something completely different. And frankly, if my friends and I can do it, it's long past time for the people we pay to do this to get to work. 

If they need some recommendations, I've got a bunch of them. First up? Guns and ammo, in Part 1. 

I hope you'll stick around.

TGIF 5/27/22

Another week in the books, a week of sadness and darkness and pain and grief and anger and distrust and disbelief and a whole lot more.

Some expectations were not met - the most important ones - while others, the banal and least consequential, were met with flying colors.

Does this flip the concept of the good week / bad week lists? I'm not sure.

Here's an assemblage of expectations met:

• Kevin McCarthy suggesting he won't comply with the House January 6th Committee's subpoena, and demanding information from the Committee before he ultimately refuses to participate.

• Ted Cruz giving all the reasons why mass shootings happen; none of them have anything to do with the easy accessibility of what I called "guns that an evil bastard can use to kill a bunch of innocent people" or anything else having to do with guns, other than the guns people see used in video games and movies. Which, often are the same ones that are used in real life mass shootings, but hey, what do I know?

• Literally everyone who, immediately after the news broke of the school shooting at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX, who congratulated law enforcement 'heroes' who did their job and saved countless lives. Little did they know...

• Everyone who said that we need to re-implement the assault weapons ban, as if this shooting, in a state where the governor was embarrassed that residents weren't purchasing enough guns, in a state has no license/no training open carry, is the one that matters enough to get entrenched opponents of anything resembling a ban on any gun to swing over to the other side. 
• President Biden finally signing an Executive Order on police reform, knowing as he did so that it didn't go far enough, and correctly placing the blame on elected officials who refused to work together on legislation. The EO was announced on the second anniversary of the murder of George Floyd.

And, of expectations not met:

• Everyone at Robb Elementary School, who were mere days away from the end of the school year, and holding their awards ceremony, who thought that May 24th was going to be just another happy day.
• The teacher, who reportedly propped open the door not just once but twice - the door through which the shooter entered; surely, she did not expect that.
• The parents of the children who were killed, who had expected their children to come home on Tuesday, just like any other school day.
• Anyone in law enforcement, knowing what should have happened, and hearing what didn't happen, until it was oh so late, much too late. 
• Gov. Abbott, and everyone else in 'official' Texas, who were not given accurate or complete information about the shooting, and therefore provided false information to the families and the media.
• And pretty much everyone, everywhere, watching this nightmare unfold.

Hold these families close to your heart, and continue holding the families of the victims in the Buffalo Tops shooting close to your heart, too.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 5/25/22

Right off the bat, I remind everyone that thoughtful discussion is always welcomed here at veritable pastiche, and I warmly encourage your constructive and respectful comments, if you're so inclined. 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Another day, another school, another group of slaughtered children, another round of thoughts and prayers. And, another round of wondering.

• I wonder how it is that we so readily pass legislation requiring preparation for large-scale threats, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly pass rules requiring us to remove our shoes, have our body physically patted down or x-rayed, and regulating the size of personal products to board airplanes, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass legislation banning social media companies from silencing so-called "conservative thinkers", but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass retribution language against companies who use their corporations are people too' freedom to actually speak out on issues that matter to their customers, employers and investors, but we there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws protecting people from sign-waving, chalk-wielding protestors but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws confining women inside their state borders, to prevent them from seeking medical care in another state, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws preventing parents from providing loving care to their children, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws allowing unlicensed, untrained people to carry guns, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily gerrymander the crap out of our state and federal district maps but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws turning neighbor against neighbor, with cash incentives, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws forcing women to give birth, but there's nothing we can do about the mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily authorize sending tens of billions of dollars to a foreign country, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new legislation "freeing" us from public health mandates, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new legislation cutting health care programs, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass bills encouraging book banning, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new legislation taking tax dollars out of public education, and shifting those dollars to private schools, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass laws allowing just about any professional to refuse to provide services to people they don't like, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily rise to defend statutes and historical monuments, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass new laws freeing people from consequences when they drive through protests, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

• I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass legislation banning trans athletes from participating in athletics, but there's nothing we can do about mass murder...

I wonder how, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, there's nothing we can do about mass murder... 

I wonder how, in a world where "All Lives Matter," there's nothing we can do about mass murder. 

I wonder why the very best that the very best of us can do is offer thoughts and prayers.

I wonder why we are so complacent. 

I wonder how we are sleeping at night, knowing that children are not coming home from school, and people are not coming home from the grocery store, not coming home from religious services, not coming home from the movies. People are not coming home. Again.

They. Are. Not. Coming. Home.

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 5/22/22: Extra Credit

In a changeup from this week's Sunday School  which was about foreign policy and the economy, the focus of your Extra Credit is the November elections.

We'll start with Margaret Brennan and her chat with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Darn Right I Want to Raise Taxes on the Poor!) in the Face the Nation classroom. Scott leads the effort to get more Republicans elected. As he's done in other interviews, he jumped right in with an opinion without waiting for a question. His target? Numbers from a new CBS poll Brennan mentioned in her lead-in.

I think those numbers are consistent with what we've seen, that inflation is still the number one issue in the country... I think the election this fall is going to be about inflation... And I think it bodes well for Republicans.

Brennan noted only 51% polled say they trust the GOP more than the Dems on inflation, while 49% trust the Dems; she wondered how Scott and the Rs will change that. 

So, I think we have to talk about the things that we're going to do to make it better for people. But, if you go and look at the races around the country, Biden's numbers are really, really bad. And he's -- he is the face of the Democrat Party right now.

Brennan's next question was a good one: basically, if inflation is the big issue, why do Rs keep "relitigating 2020." Scott said people care that this election will be '"fair and their votes are not going to be diluted," and hope the Rs will make that happen. He also said that people "want to know what happened, why it happened" in 2020.

Well, they want to know -- they want to know that -- exactly what happened, if -- were there problems, exactly what happened. They'd like to know that. But, also, they're -- you know, they also want to make sure we win in '22. So, they -- they want to make sure that we're going to make sure their vote's not diluted. So, I think you have to -- you have to talk about making sure people understand what happened in 2020, but also make sure you know -- they know that you're going to focus on making sure that 2022 is a -- is a fair election.

Got it? It's all about making sure things are surely made sure by making sure of being sure. That's what they want. Without saying a darn thing. As long as you're talking about 2020, I guess. But not about all the fraud committed by Rs. Don't mention that. They surely don't want to know anything about that, for sure.

After some discussion on Scott's plan that is not the GOP plan, Brennan asked about white supremacy. The polling data show only 23% of Rs say condemning that kind of hatred is very important, while 75% of Ds think it is. She asked him why there's such a gap there.

Well, clearly, we ought to all condemn any hatred. We ought to condemn any white supremacy. We -- I mean, we've got to figure out how to come together. I believe we got to stop all this racial politics.... So, we've got to figure out how to bring people together.

Brennan then asked, "So, you would tell all Senate Republicans running for election that they need to, each and every one of them, condemn white nationalism?" Surely, no. No way.

Well, I tell people what I believe. And every -- every Senate candidate on both sides is going to decide what is important to them and what is important to the citizens of their state...  if they asked me, I would say, 'be clear. Be clear.' I mean, we do not believe, none of us -- I don't think any American should believe in white supremacy or hatred of any kind. I mean, it's wrong.

But, as he said, "they want to make sure we win in '22," so, just go with the flow in your neck of the woods - even if that means promoting white supremacy. The tent is big enough, I guess.

Her next guest was Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who's chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Brennan noted poll findings that "young people, Hispanics and half of Black Americans say the president has been too slow to react." And, his 'effectiveness' and 'competency' ratings are low. Add in a majority of Dems saying the economy is 'bad,' and Brennan wondered how the Dems will hold their majority.

Jeffries said he's "very confident" they'll hold on, saying President Biden "has done a very good job under incredibly difficult circumstances." He pointed to several things that are out there causing an "unsettled" electorate, as people are

experiencing COVID fatigue, inflationary pressures, high gas prices, a war in Ukraine, a radical, extreme Republican Party that doesn't appear to believe in democracy any longer. And so this is a tough moment for our country.

He said Biden has been a "decisive" leader, starting with the American Rescue Plan, noting 

We rescued the economy, put shots in arms and money in pockets, kids back in school, laid the foundation for a robust economic recovery that has led to more than eight million good-paying jobs being created and unemployment at 3.6% That's a tremendous start. Of course, there's more that needs to be done.

Brennan focused on the 'slow to react' metric, using police reform as an example. Two years after the death of George Floyd, she said Biden's been "looking at an executive order on police reform for months now, continues to say it's coming." She asked Jeffries if Biden needed to act on something like that before November.

Well, it's my hope and expectation that we will see some further decisive action from the administration. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position because Senator Tim Scott decided to walk away from negotiations that were bipartisan in nature...

Brennan said it was the Dems who walked away, not the Rs, and asked if the urgency on police reform was "fading." Jeffries said they're going to "lean into public safety," and recited a list of issues that are important, but he didn't really address the 'urgency' question. 

Today, I can: this afternoon, news is breaking that Biden will sign his long-awaited executive order Wednesday, on the anniversary of George Floyd's death.

Another hit from the poll? She said more than a third of Dems "call their own party weak" - and 41% of young people think that, which "could hurt your turnout." She asked if it was time for a change in Congressional leadership. Jeffries was firm that, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, "we've been acting decisively." And, he continued, 

But I think we do have to crystallize the differences between what we're about and what Republicans are all about. It's clear that Washington Republicans want to raise taxes on everyday Americans, on police officers, on firefighters, on nurses, on factory workers, on grocery store clerks. And we are trying to provide them with relief. The Republicans, including your prior guest, actually want to end Social Security and Medicare as we know it in five years, forcing it to sunset. Those are serious differences between the two parties. And I think, once the voters understand that dynamic, the choice will be as clear as a sunny day in San Diego. 

Finally, Brennan wondered if "Democrats put their own communities at risk" in New York by their asinine gerrymandering (my word, not Brennan's). Jeffries did his best to blame the Republican judge, and the special master, and the Court of Appeals - but not the Dems, at the feet of whom all the blame lies.

Well, the process, unfortunately, was hijacked by the Court of Appeals. A bad process has now led to a bad result. You're talking about five different congressional districts where the Black and Latino population was degraded. The only -- most significant Jewish district in the country has been detonated, for no good reason...

That said, Jeffries stated, 

...here's what's most important. We're going to remain united, because we believe in a very simple vision for America. Work hard, play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family... educate your children, purchase a home, and retire with grace and dignity.

"Play by the rules."  Four words we don't hear, or see in action all that much from either party. 

See you around campus.  

Sunday School 5/22/22

Let's dive in to your Sunday School lessons, starting with Margaret Brennan and former Dubya and Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the Face the Nation classroom.

On the expansion of NATO, with Finland and Sweden applying to join the alliance, Gates gives Vladimir Putin a lot of credit.

...it's an amazing thing he's done because he's -- he's gotten Sweden to abandon 200 years of neutrality... one of his many huge miscalculations in invading Ukraine is he has dramatically changed the geostrategic posture of western Europe... 

Speaking of the Ukraine war and 'winning,' he said 

If winning means taking over the country and absorbing it into Russia, the whole country, I think that's very unlikely at this point... in terms of pushing on to Odessa or trying to bring a change of government in Kyiv or absorb Ukraine, I think if that's winning, I don't see that he can win. 

Brennan asked about Putin resorting to tactical nukes; Gates said the chance is "low, but not zero." Without any military purpose - "no large masses of Ukrainian forces that would be taken out," the only purpose would be 

to try and break the will of the Ukrainian people. And I think that moment has come and gone. I don't think that there's anything at this point that will break the will of the Ukrainian people.

Not only that, but according to Gates, in that neck of the woods, the winds "tend to blow from the west..." You get the drift of that, right? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Gates says China can't make up for all the economic losses Russia is facing; he also thinks Xi Jinping will realize that he may have "totally underestimated the West," including America's leadership, Europe's coming together, and the power of the shared sanctions. And, he may have to take a hard look at his own military, given how things have gone for Putin, and ask himself if his military's as good as his people say it is. 

Brennan asked him about "polarization" in our country, which Gates has said was our "biggest threat." He hasn't seen a whole lot of improvement, although "there is one glimmer of hope," thanks to Xi and Putin - and it extends beyond the situation in Ukraine.

They've actually brought Republicans and Democrats together on Capitol Hill, and with the administration.... so maybe that's a foundation. Maybe there's a way to build on that. And, who knows, if you begin to get it in national security policy, maybe you can get it in some other places.

Next, let's head to the right and into the Fox News Sunday classroom, where Martha MacCallum chatted with Brian Deese, National Economic Council director. He's not a fan of the 'r' word, as MacCallum called it, but he sure is a fan of words.

While there are absolutely risks with inflation front -- first and foremost, this is what's most important, the United States is better positioned than any other major economy to bring inflation down and address these challenges without giving up all of the economic gains we've made, and that's because of the strength of our recovery. We have the strongest job market in modern history. Americans are getting back to work in jobs with higher pay. And that's meant that Americans can increase their savings, pay down their debt. Businesses are investing. Entrepreneurs are creating new businesses at record rates. And manufacturing is coming back to the United States at record rates as well...

MacCallum interjected, saying "I know that 'recession' is a technical term -- but you know... whether or not we hit that technical benchmark, Americans feel like they are in a recession... So, I'm asking for your opinion, as the economic advisor at the White House, should people be prepared in the United States that we are or will be in several months heading into a recession?"

Blah blah blah, "people should also take confidence that we are better positioned than any other country to navigate through this and keep our recovery going." blah blah blah 'What we need to do now --" 

And again, MacCallum tried to pin him down. "You know, so I'm just asking, what -- what do you recommend to them in terms of specifics and what they can do to try to whether this a little bit easier as we go through what you're calling a transition?"

Blah blah blah "these prices create real hardship and they also create uncertainty. We understand that" blah blah blah "top economic priority." We can do this, he said, 

First, we need to give the Federal Reserve the independence to do what it does. It has the tools to combat inflation. Second, we need to reduce costs and make things more affordable for families during this period. So, steps that we can take to reduce the cost of the Internet bills that families pay, or the prescription drug prices that they pay a really important right now. And, third, we need to bring down the federal deficit. Because of the president's policies, we've made a lot of progress on that front, the deficit down $1.5 trillion already this year. But we need to make more progress on that as well. That will help reduce price pressures in the economy.

Blah blah blah "we can navigate through to more stable growth that will generate better outcomes for families" blah blah blah "we're on the way. We've got to focus on inflation, and that's what this president is doing."

There was more, but you get the drift. High thump factor - lots of words - but I'm not sure if there was anything in it that mattered. He also talked with Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom; perhaps there's something valuable in that interview.

Finally, Martha Raddatz talked with former Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen in the This Week with George Stephanopoulos classroom. Like Gates, he was moved by requests from Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

What strikes me... is how deeply neutral they had been for decades and decades and how concerned they obviously are with this threat that has been generated by Putin. And so, I’m encouraged by that. I’m encouraged by the unity of NATO. Almost every European I’ve spoken to considers the threat in Europe now existential to them and I think that speaks to the -- the move on the part of both Sweden and Finland. And I'm -- I'm encouraged by that. I don't think that it will cause, you know, a nuclear action on the part of Putin at this particular point.

He believes Putin originally wanted "to take Kyiv, overturn the government, put a puppet in as a leader," but now "he is going to do everything he possibly can to lose as little in the east as possible." Given that President Zelenskyy also wants that territory, 

I think we're in for a long one. It's going to be bloody. It's going to be visible. It's going to be what war is. I think we'll see Putin continue to devastate the infrastructure with respect to how he approaches it, the long-range weapons. I think what we've done to supply them has been extraordinary, quite frankly, and we need to continue to do that.

He's "encouraged" that communication channels between high-ranking Americans (Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs chair, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin) and their Russian counterparts have reopened. As to what the re-opened communications mean? He said it's hard to know, but it's a "big step... and hopefully" it's a start towards getting "some diplomatic outcome..."

All wars have to end. We need to be thinking more and more about what does that mean, what's on -- both sides, what is -- what's OK so that this is contained as opposed to exploding into a massive Holocaust for not just for the region but for the world.

Moving to North Korean, Mullen called it "deja vu all over again, from his father, and his grandfather, as well as Kim Jong-un himself." There's "no easy answer here," and there's no solution without Beijing.

And our relationship with China is -- is worsening, so that makes it -- solving this more difficult. I'm encouraged by the president's trip. I'm encouraged by the time he spent in South Korea and I know he just arrived in Japan. And I'm encouraged ... that they're working together, and that trilateral peace - Japan, South Korea, and the US - working together is really critical.

He said that Biden's meeting with the other three 'quad' countries - Australia, Japan, and India - is "fully critical to contain what will be a real challenge in North Korea" and its development of nukes.

Finally, because everyone in the classrooms was asked about baby formula, regardless of their role, Raddatz brought it up. I like the way he handled the question, championing the accomplishments of the US military.

..., I'm so encouraged by what our troops have been able to do. So, a C-17 that could fly howitzers, you know, into Germany to support Ukraine, turns around and -- and flies 71,000 pounds of baby formula back to the US. In two days. In two days, land in Indiana. 

Good on them. 

See you around campus.