The Dichotomy of Gun Violence

There, yes. Here, no!

Is it surprising that the U.S. has increased issues with gun violence, 15 years after 9-11?  Everyone voting records of Senators (click to view) who wanted to attack Iraq, despite the questionability as to Iraq's culpability.  Colin Powell referred to it as "war fever" and reinforced the sweeping zeitgeist of violence in his book "American Power and Intervention from Vietnam to Iraq."  We have now had 15 years of indoctrination that violence is an acceptable form of problem solving; or at least a perceived acceptable form of solving problems.
lept to arms.  Even people one wouldn't think would be pro-violent, wanted to use violence in reaction to the actions of 19 people. This is evidenced by looking at the

We're teaching our young well

Someone who was 15 years old in 2001, would be 30 years old now.  That would put them in their impressionable years subjected to a saturation of pro-war (pro-violence) messages that play viscerally on fear.  Consider the age ranges who have grown up in an era where using violence to procure U.S. foreign policy desires, often framed in noble terms (e.g. fighting for freedom):

1. A one year old would be fifteen (pre-impressionable)
2. A five year old would be twenty now (impressionable)
3. A twenty year old would be thirty-five (impressionable)
4. a twenty-five year old would be forty (post impressionable)

Compare current (2014), especially items two and three, with the FBI statistics for ages of gun offenders which increases dramatically (by 68%) from the next highest age group of offenders.  Most gun homicides are perpetrated by people ages seventeen to thirty-four. Whereas, other ages on either side of that age band, show murders by guns in the hundreds, in this age band, murders are in the thousands.   This is the age band that lived their impressionable years through media saturation that violence is okay, at least in certain circumstances

Good Violence vs Bad Violence

Most gun violence doesn't take place in the sanitized environments of a classroom, social media, or a blog. It takes place in highly emotionally charged situations of fear and anger.  Murder has always been considered a crime of passion.  Is it reasonable to expect that someone, anyone can tell themselves this is not the time to be violent.   Is it unreasonable to believe that even before the moment of pulling the trigger -- way before -- that a large number of people, are inoculated with the idea that at some point gun violence is not only okay; that there are mitigating circumstances where

gun violence, performed by the right person for the right reason is justified.

Given the most popular visual narratives, and video games, justified violence is a constant message to the impressionable:

• Grand Theft Auto
• Game of Thrones
• Hunger Games
• Mortal Kombat

Plus we need to examine what we expect from people we have designated as being privileged to have guns and to serve our needs. We want those people to be protective of us. Is it reasonable to expect that in every incident, that every person empowered to use force will make the correct decision.

Culture Change vs Control

Gun control seems to be a loosing battle as gun ownership and violence is clearly rising. Gun control advocates, such as myself, can only hope that we have reached a point of urgency that something might break. However, that may be hoping against hope. Clearly though, this country needs a new over arching view of guns and gun violence. A new zeitgeist needs to start and start now. It took fifteen years to reach this state of crisis, it is going to take time to reverse the momentum of this crisis.

It takes a village...

...to teach the impressionable the ideal of non-violence; in how to react to challenging situations with peace. This means daily engagement with each other; non combative, non argumentative engagement. We need to stem the fuel that feeds the fire. We need to get over our love of guns!

In the mean time:

Realistic Gun Control

Become an Actionist! More effective than an Activist!  Yes arguing on social media and yelling in the streets has an emotionally rewarding aspect. I know, I grew up demonstrating against US involvement in Vietnam.  However activism is self indulgent, preaching to the choir.   It's a big world. No one cares what you have to say.

Take Effective Action! Become an Actionist!

It's no secret to anyone reading this that the world is run by money. Become a money person. Make a difference! We still have the pro-gun lobby outnumbered, which we each have to ante up less to become more effective than the pro-gunners.  This link is to the most effective gun control lobby in the country: Every Town For Gun Safety

The Inclusive Christmas

Sadly, one of the factors of modernity that has made Christmas inclusive is consumerism.  That is NOT what this missive is about This about the...

Inclusiveness of Peace and Goodwill

Growing up so Lutheran that I had plans to become a Lutheran pastor, I am firmly aware of the name of this holiday being derived from the birth of Jesus. Over the years I have slowly come to realize that Christmas, despite it's name, is not so much tied to the divinity of Jesus and what that is purportedly supposed to mean to humanity. Even as a kid I had misgivings about participating in something that excluded such a large population of the world because they did not believe in Jesus as a savior. Fascinated by the Bible and it's exclusionary aspects, I have studied the history of the making of he Bible and the human influence in its creation. Given that the divinity of Jesus wasn't decided upon until more than three hundred years after his death, I stopped believing that divinity. Yet, I still celebrate Christmas and for me it is a spiritual holiday

The Inclusion of Moreness

Even the beginning of Christmas celebrations, called "Jul" in Germanic, Celtic, and Norse traditions, has it's roots beyond the Christian tradition.   The Jul (Yule) season is tied to what Christians call pagan gods, such as Odin.  Ironically, archaeologists have determined that Jesus most likely was born in early March.  Was the celebration moved to December to integrate with previous pagan celebrations.  Were the pagans inclusive enough to include a celebration of Christs birth?  Even the Qu'oran acknowledges the existence of Jesus without his Divinity.   In modern time non-Christians celebrate Christmas as a time of getting together and Being Together.  The point being that Christmas is more than a single myopic incidence of belief,  It is more.

Sharing, Giving, Loving

These are the aspects of Christmas celebration. You will find these elements as aspects of every spiritual tradition, regardless of labels placed on those traditions,  Buddhist, Taoist, Pagan, Muslim or Christian.  So what's in a name?  Other than something to put on the calendar as a reminder to love, share, give, and be peaceful, there is nothing to it.  What more could it be, without being exclusionary?

Peace On Earth Goodwill to All

Please include all in your celebration.

Things Have Changed, Yet Not

Different, Yet Same

Back in 1990 when I first wrote The Council to Save the Planet and the Earth Chronicles (The subtitle was dropped by the publisher), the term Global Warming had been coined, but had not made into the public lexicon and the Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change was first convening to study greenhouse gas effects.  It's not like the problem didn't exist. The problem was just viewed differently and other environment threats to the ecological balance of the planet held just as much gravity for the public attention.

Global Warming

At least since the sixties it was common knowledge that if carbon emissions were greater than the planet's ability to exchange carbon for oxygen (the carbon cycle), the whole of the plant would warm to the point of some of the issues we are currently seeing:

• Rising sea levels
• Unpredictable and virulent weather (increase in tornadoes and hurricanes) 
• Droughts
• Increase in Earthquakes

However, the problem was not really seen from the perspective of how much carbon people and industry releases (carbon footprint), but from a perspective of depleting the Earths ability to perform carbon exchange.  Much focus was on depletion of forests, particularly tropical forests.  Solution points appeared to be:

• Lumbering (ironically leading to a movement of fake wood made of plastic)
• Slash and Burn Farming (e.g. Amazon Rain Forest)

Hence the beginnings of the terms Save the Trees --> Save the Planet  Somewhere along the line, after the first few report of the IPCC it became evident that no matter how much of the Earth's jungles and forests were saved, humans were going to overrun the carbon cycle, by the sheer volume of carbon humans release.  

PFCs

Of huge concern in the public media driven attention was fluorocarbons, gasses used to create pressure in aerosol cans and refrigeration.  These gasses attributed to the hole in the ozone layer, which in turn allowed too much ultraviolet light through the hole, contributing to

• Skin Cancer
• Global Warming

The whole cosmetic, home cleaning and refrigeration industry changed drastically as a result of this discovery. People like singular problems requiring single solutions so fluorocarbons got lumped into the category of greenhouse gases under the umbrella of Global Warming

Nuclear Waste

Of huge concern at the time was what to do with radioactive, carcinogenic nuclear waste. People were terrified about meltdowns and hazardous spills of nuclear wast creating mass evacuations and death.  Since then, nuclear has come to be Green or the lesser evil.  However, it is an increasing problem which currently effects people in horrid ways, though they may not know it.  Populations living near nuclear waste dumps suffer cancer rates up to 30% more than people who don't live near nuclear dumps.  People just don't necessarily know that their leukemia or testicular cancer may be related to nearby nuclear waste or a nuclear power plant.  They may not even know a dump is nearby.  In the U.S. there is over 176,000 tons of nuclear waste without any plan for permanent story.  Nuclear waste impact is far more deadly and imminent danger to humans than global warming, but it is off the radar screen. Out of site (oops), out of mind.

Pollution

Awareness and focus on pollution over the years has ebbed and flowed, though it has more ebbed than clean water has flowed. (Sorry, just a bit of eco-humor, there).  Seriously though, when I wrote The Council to Save The Planet I wouldn't think twice about drinking tap water, now I wouldn't think of drinking any water that has not been filtered.  Again, the irony of acquiring fresh water often requires plastic bottles and plastic is one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions and pollution. Evidently, a patch of plastic 5,000 sq kilometers in size floats in the Pacific Ocean.  Actually there are two patches (Eastern and Western) called the Great Pacific Garden Patch. By now you have heard about the trillions of microbeads of plastic polluting the Great Lakes and other inland bodies of water.  It's enough to make you want to stop brushing your teeth or washing your face. No?

The One Constant

The one thing remains constant is too much carbon, pollution, energy demand for the Earth to recycle into useful resource, too many people in pursuit of convenience. Often people glibly respond to my "save the planet" messages with retorts that the "planet will take care of itself."  That's true. However, in that humans are dependent upon the planet for survival, saving the planet is tantamount with saving humans. 

Respectfully,
Conrad