Gunning for a Real Solution

Why is it that every single time there's a tragic shooting in the news, it sets into motion a ridiculous debate that neither solves the problem nor honors the victims?  Suddenly, a bunch of folks on the far left are calling to ban guns, and a bunch of folks on the far right are saying that the answer is to arm everyone.  Neither of these things gets to the heart of the problem.  The real problem we have here in the United States is a psychological problem.  As a nation, we need to focus on coming up with ways to identify people who are threats to commit violent crimes, make sure these particular people do not have access to weapons, and get them the help they need.  We also need to take a look at our culture and figure out why shootings have become such a common occurrence.  I don't have all of the answers on this, but these are the questions we should be asking, rather than which additional restrictions we should place on firearms (to make it look to the general public like we're doing something to address the problem) and whether or not we should decide to have the government come and confiscate guns from everyone (yeah, that would go smoothly).

I offer my own thoughts.  Guns have been legal in our nation since the beginning.  We have the right to bear arms.  But mass shootings seem to be happening more often lately.  So, what has changed?  I would argue that it is our national attitude in general, where our kids are raised to believe lies.  There was a time when people carried guns in their vehicles to school because they would go hunting after school. This was normal.  I'm still in my 20s, and while I'm far too young to have been a part of that, I have always carried a pocketknife with me since I was a young boy.  I had one in my pocket at school every day.  This was a normal thing.  The thought of stabbing someone with the knife never once came to my mind.  A pocketknife is a tool.  I had it on me because you never know when you're going to need to cut something, or whittle a stick.  Sure, it can be used in self-defense as well, but if the person attacking you has a gun, you're out of luck.  But that's not my point at the moment.  My point is that if I was in elementary school today and a teacher saw me with a pocketknife, I would be in serious trouble.  You can't carry that tool to school anymore.  It's apparently a weapon now.  That's how we're being trained to view it.

You can't play dodgeball at school anymore either.  You get suspended for fighting instead of reprimanded.  Touching a fellow student in a non-sexual way is sexual harassment.  Anything you say can be construed as sexual harassment.  You can't say anything that's not politically correct either.  You can't hurt anyone's feelings.  If a teacher touches you, he or she could be fired.  Remember how teachers would pat you on the shoulder when you were a kid or even hug you on occasion?  That can't happen anymore.   But instead of physically showing that they care for students, they teach lies instead.  You can do anything you want.  You can be anything you want.  If you try hard enough, you will reach your goal, whatever it is.  Nothing is impossible.  Bullshit.

Meanwhile, no one plays outside anymore.  Your parents could be arrested if you walk a few blocks away to the local park unsupervised.  Besides, why would they allow that anyway?  You might get kidnapped or worse.  We all interact less in-person.  Even phone calls have declined.  We text instead.  We communicate through Facebook.  Sometimes we video chat.  You want to ask a girl out?  Text her.  Want to break up with her?  Text her.  Want to know what an old friend is doing?  Look at their online profile.  We are losing our ability to interact.

A teenage boy a few towns over from where I live asked a girl to prom a few years ago and got rejected.  He couldn't just move on to the next girl.  Yes, there was something psychologically wrong with him, but he grew up being taught that he would have whatever he wanted in life if he really wanted it.  He was shielded from anything that could possibly hurt his feelings.  He was never taught how to deal with the inevitable problems that will happen in life.  He stabbed her to death in the stairwell at the school.  A boy barely older than him stole his mother's gun, killed her, and shot and killed more than 20 people in an elementary school less than an hour away, before killing himself.  Connecticut responded to this by enacted gun control legislation that effectively did nothing, nor would it have prevented such a tragedy had it been on the books when it occurred.

Our President talks about how he is in favor of more gun control, because if new legislation saves the life of one child, it's worth it.  Well, unless it saves the life of an unborn child.  It's perfectly alright to kill them and sell their organs.  Our President talks about how armed guard at schools is a bad idea, yet there are armed guards present when his daughters go to school.  They're more important than other children.  Our President talks about how gun allowances are excessive for self-defense, yet everywhere he goes, he is surrounded by secret service agents with high-powered firearms.  When he spoke at Wesleyan's commencement in 2008, six months before he was elected president, there were snipers on the roof of the library, just in case.  His self-defense is more important than yours.

I have never shot a gun in my life.  I don't own a gun.  I plan to get one soon, to keep in my house in case I ever need it.  I live in a relatively safe area, and it's on my list of things to do, but it's not a huge priority for me.  My dad hated guns.  He was a Chief in the Navy.  He had to pass a shooting test, which he did, although he wasn't a particularly good shot.  In the latter part of his life, he did not own a gun.  His father was in the military as well, and once had his gun stolen in Bridgeport, Connecticut.  My dad never fought in a war, and he never had to shoot anyone, but he simply did not like guns.  Yet he was a proud member of the NRA.

Chicago has strict gun control laws, and a sad and disturbing rate of gun deaths.  Pretty much everyone in Switzerland owns a gun, and the number of people killed by gunfire is very low.  Violent crimes (and shootings) have gone up in the UK since guns were banned.  More gun control usually means less safety.  If you want more facts on the issue, here's one place to check them out: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Increasing gun control means that law-abiding citizens will have decreased access to guns.  Criminals will still get guns.  This is a problem.  If I wanted to get a gun illegally, I can head to downtown New Haven and get one quicker and cheaper than doing it legally.  Do we really think that's going to suddenly change if new gun control laws are passed?  Yeah, there have been a lot of shootings, whether suicide, gang or drug-related, hate crimes, mass murders, or whatever, but there have also been a lot of lives saved by citizens or police officers using or simply having guns.  And speaking of police officers, based on recent events in this country, a lot of the same people pushing for more gun control are very skeptical and distrusting when it comes to police officers.  Do you really want them to be the only people with guns?  And even if the vast majority are trustworthy people, certainly some percentage are not.

Ultimately, every citizen has the right to bear arms, and can decide whether or not to exercise that right, but except in cases where someone is a violent threat, that right itself must always remain.

The Great Reefer Barrier

Within the next decade, maybe sooner, I believe that marijuana will be legal throughout the United States, for both medicinal and recreational use.  At least I hope it will be.  It's time.

I say this as someone who has never been high, and as someone who does not plan to use marijuana unless there is a medical reason to do so.  I am not encouraging getting high, but I am encouraging common sense.  And in my view, common sense includes the legalization of pot.

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit here.  It baffles me that there are places where marijuana is not legal for medical use.  Morphine is legal, but not marijuana?  Really?  It can help cancer patients, those who struggle with pain, those who need to increase their appetite, and a slew of others.  Used properly, marijuana is a drug that can help a lot of people.  At the very least, I see no valid argument against the legalization of medical marijuana.

And the case for legal recreational use is pretty strong too.  Where I went to college, marijuana may as well have been legal.  It was prevalent, to say the least.  For the most part, people who got stoned were pretty chill, but every now and then you would come across someone who became paranoid or mixed other drugs with marijuana and had a not-so-good reaction.  But it was during college that I realized something.  By itself, marijuana is less harmful than most legal drugs.  People get very sick from drinking too much alcohol.  Many people die every year from overdosing on alcohol.  Cigarettes kill in many ways too, although more slowly.  And how many people overdose on marijuana every year?  None.  You don't die from smoking too much weed.  If you smoke too much weed, your performance in life will probably be greatly hindered, but you're not going to end up sick or dead from it.  You'll be unemployed and hungry maybe, but alive.  Alcohol, while legal (as it should remain, and if you think otherwise, please read the history of prohibition), is far more dangerous than weed.

Keeping marijuana illegal because it's a "gateway drug" falls flat, because what the heck does that even mean?  Yeah maybe people who experiment with it are more likely to experiment with other drugs, including harder drugs that are very dangerous and can kill you the first time you try them, but reefer is not exactly the cause of that, is it?  And do we really think that if it becomes legal, suddenly a lot more people are going to start using it?  Let's be honest, if you want weed now, even though it's illegal in all but a few states, it is extremely easy to procure.  Making it legal isn't going to make a whole bunch of people suddenly decide that they now want to start smoking it, or vaping it, or eating delicious baked goods with pot as an ingredient.

But there would be some impact on society if it were legal, right?  Let's see...  A lot less arrests every year, leaving the police free to focus on REAL crimes.  Oh, and prisons would be less crowded.  That means less of our tax dollars going to pay for non-violent criminals to be put in prison.  Hmm, and I guess government regulation of it would mean less bad batches.  Oh, and taxes.  Huge taxes.  Our government probably can't be trusted to spend it, but maybe it will be a step in the right direction of actually balancing a budget, because that creates a whole lot of money going to the government.  And it takes a whole lot of money out of the hands of drug dealers.  If someone wants to deal it, it could be done legally and become a legitimate above ground business.  I guess that means that a bunch of legitimate jobs would have to be created.  And that means the government can tax those earnings as well...

Those are all positive things.  Let's think of some negative ones.  Well, I guess even though it would only be legal for adults, maybe kids could end up getting access to it. But that already happens.  Maybe more of them will get it somehow?  Or no?  I don't know.  Um... Oh, yeah, well, it's addictive to a lot a people.  So, yeah, there's that.  That's definitely bad.  And if we legalize it, then, well, I guess it's still just as addictive to just as many people.  Hmm... Never mind.  I give up.  What were our elected officials smoking when they made this stuff illegal anyway?

Little Black Lives Matter Too

Let's play a very disturbing game of fill in the blank.

Blacks make up only 13% of the population in America but account for 37% of _____.

If you guessed people shot by the police, you're wrong.

Late last year, Bill O'Reilly said that in 2012 (which was the most recent years for which statistics were available), 123 blacks were shot and killed by police, compared to 326 whites that same year.  As I mentioned, blacks make up 13% of the population.  Whites account for about 63% of the population.  So, if 123 blacks were shot and killed and the same percentage of whites were shot and killed, we would expect 596 whites to be killed.  But that wasn't the case.  Simple math will tell you that 326 is about 55% of 596, meaning that black people are roughly twice as likely to be killed by police than white people.  There are plenty of points to debate here, but let's at least agree that this sounds like a problem, and that's a large part of why the #blacklivesmatter movement is happening.

But what if Michael Brown's mother decided to kill him while he was still in the womb?  Would he matter then?  It matters to God, and it should matter to us.  The answer to the fill-in-the-blank I started with is ABORTIONS.  The black lives taken by police all matter, and it's sad that some still need to be reminded of that, but when we talk about abortion, we are talking about HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of black lives.  When, exactly, does a life start to matter, notably when a particular race is being killed at a higher rate than other races?

Unborn black babies are five times more likely to be aborted than unborn white babies.

Eighty percent of Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics are located in minority neighborhoods.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE ABOUT THAT?

(The statistics and the graphic are from http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america by the way.)

I am all for women's rights, and I am all for birth control, but I am all against abortion, which I do not classify as either.  To put it nicely, abortion is the extinguishing of innocent lives.  There's a reason so many people don't want to watch those videos that recently came out that show Planned Parenthood selling the organs of aborted babies.  Yes, of course they were edited, although the unedited versions were also posted.  I haven't watched the unedited versions, because they are hours long, but I have watched several of the shorter videos that were released.  To borrow a phrase from Krusty the Clown to describe those videos, they would make Santa Claus himself vomit with rage.

If you don't think aborting a fetus is killing a life, please watch those videos.  Or watch a video of an abortion itself.  Or look at some pictures of aborted babies.  Are you disgusted yet?  If not, there is something wrong with you.

How is it that it's illegal in this country to destroy eggs of certain animal species, but it is legal to kill unborn babies?  How is it that there is such a racial disparity in abortions, yet there are no protests over that?  How is it that our government is still funding Planned Parenthood?

I agree with sex education.  Kids need to be taught about safe sex before they start having sex.  Abstinence-only education doesn't work.  Sorry, Sarah Palin.  Your daughter is a grown-up now, so I can say this very bluntly.  She is proof that you are wrong.  She's proved it twice now.  Hey, abstinence is the best way to not have an unplanned pregnancy or get an STD, but let's face it, the vast majority of people in this country, regardless of religion or race or anything else, are going to have sex outside of marriage.  Thus, they must be taught about other forms of birth control before they get to the point where Planned Parenthood is brainwashing them by putting abortion under the label of birth control.  Condoms and other methods of birth control are great.  The morning after pill is not great, but should probably be available as the last-ditch effort of birth control.  Once that zygote becomes an embryo, and even more so, once that embryo becomes a fetus, that is undoubtedly a life.

Sure, some may argue about when the exact point is when life begins.  Is it at the moment of conception?  Is it when the zygote becomes an embryo?  Whatever the right answer to that is, I can tell you that when organs can be harvested, it is a life.  When it can feel pain, it is a life.  When it is ACTUALLY BORN ALIVE AND LEFT TO DIE, it is a life.  How in the world is it defensible to kill a baby that has its organs formed and can feel pain?  WAKE UP, AMERICA!  It's not "tissue."  It's a baby.  It's a life.  This is pure evil.

I don't blame the mothers as much as I blame Planned Parenthood and those who allowed abortion to become and remain legal.  That's not to say that the mothers are blameless, but we need to show them love and respect in a time when they are obviously making a very difficult and emotional decision.  We can't have people, many who call themselves Christians, yelling at them as they go into abortion clinics that they are whores or murderers or whatever else.  We need to show them love.  We need to show them that there are better ways than abortion.  And we need to change the culture in America to stop hundreds of thousands of unborn babies from being killed every year.  God loves these mothers.  God loves the babies living inside of them.  Aborted babies may never have names here on earth, but God has a name and a place for them in His kingdom.

Jesus Loves Gays

If it were entirely up to me, I would have made a compromise years ago, wherein abortion became illegal and gay marriage became legal in America.  Obviously, that is an unrealistic scenario, but if that hypotehtical opportunity did present itself, it would be irresponsible to not stop millions of murders in exchange for... well...  nothing really.  Something that probably should be legal anyway.  Think about it. 

Why is it that so many people are so upset that gay marriage is now legal on a Federal level?  If you ask a Liberal, it's because Republicans are homophobic, and probably Christians too.  If you ask a Conservative, it's because marriage has now been redefined and homosexuality is a sin.  If you ask me, it's because too many people have misguided knee-jerk reactions to things.  Whether or not you agree that with the SCOTUS ruling, our country was headed in that direction one way or another.  The SCOTUS problems are another issue altogether, especially when we all knew exactly how eight of the nine Justices would vote "along party lines."  But as far as the ruling itself, I don't disagree with it.  Is getting a homosexual marriage a sin according to the Bible?  Yes.  So should it be legal?  Also yes.  Wait, what?

We have a wonderful thing in this country called separation of church and state.  Just because Christians or various sects of Christians believe that something is wrong definitely does not mean that it should be illegal.  For example, getting drunk is a sin according to the Bible (although merely drinking alcohol clearly is not), but should it therefore be illegal to get drunk?  Sex outside of marriage and all "fornication" is also a sin according to the Bible.  So where's the outrage that we're not prosecuting that sin?  We really don't know exactly how many people in the U.S. are gay, but many estimates put it around 4%, so let's say it's probably somewhere close to that, but it's almost certainly more than 3%.  And how many people wait until marriage to have sex?  That number is around 3%.  That's right.  That means around 97% of people here in the United States don't wait until marriage to have sex.  So, presumably, 97% of the people who are standing up against gay marriage on Biblical grounds have themselves sinned by having sex with someone to whom they were not married.  Oh, don't forget the part in the Bible where Jesus says that if you lust after someone, you're also guilty of a sexual sin.  So yeah, that number is more like 100% of people committing sexual sins according to the Bible.

So now do you see why people think that the Westboro Hate Group speaks for all Christians when they say that God hates "fags"?  Now do you see why people have a distorted view of the Jesus in the Bible?  Do you see why Christians are often called hypocrites?  Can anyone who has truly read the Bible honestly picture Jesus walking on earth telling people that they're going to hell because they're faggots?  People don't go to hell because of their sexual orientation.  They go to hell if they reject Christ.  Jesus broke bread with prostitutes, tax collectors, and others who were looked down upon by society.  Surely he would have no problem dining with homosexuals.  Jesus loves gays, just like he loves everyone else.

I think it's the word "marriage" that makes people uncomfortable when it's used to describe the union of two gay people.  I've thought for years that, as far as the government was concerned, anyone gay or straight could be in a civil union, and that marriages should only be performed in churches.  But it doesn't really matter what you call it.  There is no sanctity in marriage for our country overall, and it's not because gay marriage is legal now.  It's because half of marriages end in divorce, and that number is pretty much the same for non-Christians as it is for Christians.  Not allowing gays to get married isn't going to stop them from being gay, so what exactly would we be trying to stop?  Do we think it's right to deny them the same benefits as a man and woman who are married to each other?  Like, should we stop them from visiting each other in the hospital and stuff?  How terrible would that be?  I think most people would agree that we should not do that, and that they should enjoy equal rights, but many stop short at the word marriage.  Well, believe it or not, you can be against something and still think it should be legal.  I'm not going to celebrate that people are getting gay marriages, but I'm certainly not going to rally against it either.  In the SCOTUS ruling, it is specifically noted that church officials do not have to perform gay marriages (in many churches, including my own, the Pastor doesn't have to perform any marriage that he doesn't want to, and that's how it should be).  If the time ever comes when that is challenged, then we are in BIG trouble as a nation.  And it's for the same reason that I don't have a problem with gay marriage being legal in the first place.  Separation of church and state.  It goes both ways.  (No pun intended.)

...Turning the White House into a gigantic rainbow flag though?  That's irreponsible for the same reason that having a Confederate Flag at a state Capitol building is wrong.  To many people, the Conferederate Flag represents slavery and racism, although to many others, it has an entirely different meaning.  To many people, the rainbow flag represents equal rights for gays, but to others, the gay pride flag represents sin or whatever they believe constitutes the "homosexual agenda."  If a person wants to display either flag, that's a right protected by the constitution.  But the government should not display either of these flags.  It's all a big misunderstanding anyway.  The Confederate Flag didn't start out as something that represented slavery or white supremacy, but it became a symbol for that.  And the rainbow on the gay pride flag?  God originally created the rainbow as a sign of his promise that he would never again destroy all life by flooding the entire earth.  Go figure.

My Blog REBOOT!

Our world is in peril.  Gaia, the spirit of Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet.  She gives five magic rings to--Oh, sorry, that's the wrong subject entirely.  That's the Captain Planet intro.  Who remembers the 90s?  Someone needs to reboot that.  Anyone with me?  No?  Is it the because of the cheesy humor or the terrible plots toward the end of the show's run?  Hopefully it's not the cheesy humor, because you'll find a lot of that here too.  Heck, I can write the screenplay to this thing.  How about it?  Should it be cartoon or live action?  Oh, and Wheeler finally gets to hook up with Linka.  Totally.

Alright, on to more real things.  Gaia is, of course, a fictional character.  God, however, is not, no matter how many people think so, or at least say they do.  I've found that there are many more agnostics than atheists though.  But enough about you.  Let's talk about me.  I'm a Christian.  I believe in God, and I am saved by Jesus Christ.  Please don't confuse me with the folks from Westboro Baptist Church.  I'm not sure what Jesus they serve, but it's not the one I know and love.  You know, the Jesus of the Bible.  The one who's all about love.  Yeah.  I'm not perfect by any means, but it's pretty clear that God does not hate "fags" as they so love to say.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  The Bible is crystal clear on that.  God loves homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals--everyone, in fact.  He loves us so much that he sent Jesus into the world to die for our sins.  And if you believe in Jesus and ask him into your heart--and you truly mean it--you will be saved and spend eternity with God.

Now that the most important thing has been said, I would like to make a disclaimer here.  I am a Christian, and I am a thinking person.  I'm not one of those mindless Christians who accepts everything because a Pastor says it's true.  You shouldn't be either.  Because what if it's wrong?  Things that people say need to be evaluated in light of the scriptures and reality.  I'm writing this blog to share my opinions, and I welcome dialogue.  I'm sure that everyone reading this will disagree with me on something, or be offended by something I say.  And you know what, some of my opinions are probably wrong.  That's what dialogue is for.  Maybe my opinions will change, and maybe they won't, but they certainly won't change if the dialogue simply consists of someone commenting that I am an idiot who is going to hell.  That is not constructive, and it just shows your own stupidity.  So feel free to comment.  Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I say.

I have some pretty unique ideas to offer.  I agree with Ben Carson on some things, and Bernie Sanders on others (Yes, I'm aware that one is a Conservative and the other is a Socialist), but mostly I just wish the 2000 version of John McCain had become President.  Joe Lieberman should have been the VP on his ticket in 2008.  I'm more liberal than most people at my church, and more conservative than most people at my alma mater (Wesleyan University).  So yes, I have some unique perspectives, and with all the crazy stuff going on right now, it's a good time for me to start blogging again.