1. Police victims were armed
One of the major arguments of the gun supporters is that with more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, less shooting would occur. And if such mass shooting does occur, they claim,good guys with guns would be equipped to defend themselves. Well, the ambushed policemen both in Dallas and in Louisiana WERE armed. Not only were they armed, but heavily armed. And professionally trained. And in both cases they were still unable to take care of the shooter before he killed a bunch of them.
This is not to take any side in the gun control argument. Just to point out how armed people are not necessarily the answer to stop a mass shooter. It really depends on the situation.
2. Now, how about this gun control argument?
A few hours after his fellow policemen were shot, the Baton Rouge sheriff had the audacity to say in front of the camera that "it was not an issue of gun control"*. He said the problem was "with the people"*. Seriously?
A. Mr. Sheriff chose to go out with a political statement of a hot issue while his fellow policemen are fighting for their lives; and families of slain policemen are trying to swallow the bitter news. How tasteless of him. Leave your political views aside right now, you small man. How disappointing to hear that from a man of authority at such time. (Am I the only one with ears?)
B. So, Mr. Sheriff, are you ok with allowing anybody - the mentally ill, the unstable, the ex-con, the terrorist, etc. - to buy a gun, no background check, no wait time? There's no argument that the problem is more complex than yes-guns no-guns, but I don't get the thought of making it easy for the future-shooters to get guns. It just doesn't make sense.
C. How many more policemen, kindergarten kids, college students, movie goers, club patrons, next-group-of-victims - have to die before we do something about it?
(D. There's really no reason for any automatic or even semi-auto weapons in the civilian market. A lot was written on it. E-nuf said.)
Yup, the problem continues, every time in a different form, yet, Congress does not connect the dots. Ahhhh, let me rephrase that: And money from the NRA is still more important to elected representatives.
Others already pointed how the first step is to realize that there's a problem. And to study the issue. But Congress blocks that. Congress pretends there's no problem.
* These may not have been his exact words, but that was the gist of it.
3. Police failure to protect the public
Police commanders, mayors, the President - all praise police for their dedication and heroism. No doubt - it's a hard and risky job. I wouldn't want to be a policeman myself. One could die. Having said that, the police #1 assignment is not to protect itself but to protect the public they are serving. Of course, it goes without saying, that they must protect themselves too. Having said that, let's face it: In all the recent shooting cases - Orlando, Dallas, Louisiana (and many more that came before that), police failed. It failed to protect the public and it failed to protect itself. It's unpleasant to hear that in such painful times, but it's the truth.
One can try to give explanations: A crazy guy with a gun; a surprise ambush; etc. The reasons could all be very valid. It's very possible that all these shootings were so unpredictable that there was no way of stopping them. But the bottom line is plain and simple: Police not only was unable to protect the public, but also failed to protect itself. And policemen everywhere are scratching their heads. The truth is that the problem is bigger than something the police can solve.
Which brings the conversation back to #2 above: If all these shootings - and many more to come, unfortunately - are non-preventable, how come the conversation doesn't change? Are we that stupid as a society?
4. Why are they shooting at the police?
We all know why: Because a seeking-revenge guy with a gun is angry at the police (for killing black people during routine traffic stop; etc.) The shooter is acting out of rage. In other words, the shooter is acting out of emotions, not thought. (BTW, notice how even that rage is not strong enough to stop the shooter from careful planning for max "efficiency" - to kill as many policemen as he could. In other words, it's a calculated rage....sort of.) But the shooter of course is missing the largest target - no pun intended. He's harming the larger cause - of fighting police brutality. If policemen would continue to be killed by angry black men with guns, why wouldn't they suspect every black man? How would they know who's a real suspect and who's not?
I'm surprised at the leaders of the black community. They're too quiet. I would expect several of them to explain to the entire black community that shooting policemen just hurts their own cause. Such message should come out loud and clear from all church and community leaders - especially the black ones. But so far it's delivered rarely and too quietly.
5. Why is the police killing them?
No policeman should ever die a stupid death - by a coward, revenging shooter. But why are the shooters angry in the first place? Because of police brutality, of course. I don't understand police brutality so I won't get into that. But I do want to address those many cases of unnecessary killing of [mostly] black folks. Let me tell you very quickly why I'm so certain about the "unnecessary" part:
When I served in the military in a war zone many years ago, the circumstances were quite different. Not always we could see the suspect. It was dark, you heard a rustle in the bushes, or you saw a silhouette trying to escape. Sometimes you heard nothing and saw nothing, but you sensed danger. The open-live-fire instructions were very clear:
* First you shout "who's there" (in our case, in Arabic).
* Next you call them to come out with their hands in the air.
* Next you give a warning (that you're about to shoot).
* Next you shoot in the air.
* Next you shoot at the person - but just to injure him, not to kill.
* Lastly, if he shoots back at you, you shoot to kill.
But in the US the policemen don't do any of that. Never mind that most incidents don't even justify shooting in the first place, not even from a taser guns, but even in the case where the use of a gun is called for, the American policemen jump to the last step - shoot to kill. I don't get it. There's really no need for it. The reason for such behavior is lack of training and early panic. Such policemen, are acting out of emotions, not thoughts (ironically, much like the raged guys killing policemen). People are arguing with me saying "of course they have to shoot to kill ....otherwise he would kill them first". Yeah, anybody can make the argument around the lunch table. But have you ever shot a living creature (doesn't have to be another human) or were you the victim of a bullet? In most cases, one bullet is pretty debilitating - almost no matter where in the body the injury is. In 99% of the cases the injured would be busy with the painful injury. Shooting back takes a backseat. So I don't find this argument very convincing. Simply put, policemen are too easy on the trigger. Police chiefs should take note and conduct better training. Police job is not only to keep us safe, but also to keep us calm - in stressful situations. But it seems that exactly the opposite is happening: Police is the one to escalate such situations to where it's unsafe; then they use unnecessary force, causing panic (at best) or even death - clearly failing both in the safety and calmness departments.
6. Ok, I couldn't hold back
What is the first thing we hear after all those many tragedies? That we need to pray for the victims or for the injured or for the families. Pray to God. Seriously? We put that at the top of the priority list? I understand that many folks need to pray. They find comfort and hope in it. Fine. Go ahead and pray. But don't make it a national priority as if it is the single thing that would help. It's a clear sign of folks who either can't or don't want to deal with the real issues - some of which I listed above. Requesting the public to pray rather than seek ways to address the real issues is burying the had in the sand. See #2 above.
(BTW, if we're already discussing prayers, I'd like a clarification: What are we praying for? The dead, the injured, those who lost someone? Or do we pray to prevent future killing?
And who do we pray for? Any God or specific ones?
But most importantly: Is there any data on how effective were past prayers? Did they ever help? Because history is full of killings. Are we doing it wrong? What's the right way?)
7. Sadness
The sad part of all of the above is that it seems like our entire society lost the ability to think (collectively). We're all in panic mode. It looks like thinkers don't have any influence. Those with the influence, on the other hand, either refuse to think, refuse to talk (to the thinkers), or refuse to act. The net result is that as a society we are failing to hit the target. Crazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment