October 9, 2015


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gunfire-rings-out-on-arizona-college-campus/

Northern Arizona University shooting leaves 1 dead, 3 wounded
CBS/AP
October 9, 2015

Video -- Three women embrace before Northern Arizona University officials hold a press conference on a deadly shooting on the campus in Flagstaff, Arizona, Oct. 9, 2015. KPHO-TV

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. -- An early morning fight between two groups of students escalated into gunfire in the parking lot outside an Arizona university dormitory, leaving one student dead and three others wounded, authorities said Friday.

The suspected shooter, identified by police as 18-year-old Steven Jones, was in custody, said Northern Arizona University Police Chief JT Fowler.

The student who died was identified by the school as Colin Brough. The victims being treated at Flagstaff Medical Center are Nicholas Prato, Kyle Zientek and Nicholas Piring.

The parking lot where the shooting happened is just outside Mountain View Hall dormitory at the northeast side of the Flagstaff campus, said school public relations director Cindy Brown.

The dorm is home to many of the campus' sororities and fraternities, according to the school's website.

"This is not going to be a normal day at NAU," said school president Rita Cheng. "Our hearts are heavy."

Two women embrace before Northern Arizona University officials hold a press conference on a deadly shooting on the campus in Flagstaff, Arizona, Oct. 9, 2015.

Student Maria Gonzalez told The Associated Press that she at first suspected firecrackers.

"I was studying for an exam so I looked out the window and see two people running, and that's when I realized they weren't fireworks they were actually gunshots," she said.

The first police call about the gunfire came in at 1:20 a.m. PDT.

On its website, the university said that the campus was stabilized and the campus was not on lockdown.

"How am I supposed to feel safe where I'm learning," Gonzalez said.

Both university and Flagstaff police are investigating.

In a statement, Arizona Sen. John McCain called the shooting a "terrible tragedy."

"My thoughts and prayers are with families of the person who was killed and the three others who were wounded in the horrific shooting on the campus of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff early this morning," McCain said.

The Flagstaff shooting comes on the same day that President Obama is scheduled to visit Roseburg, Oregon, where eight students and a teacher were shot and killed last week at Umpqua Community College. The gunman in the Oregon shooting wounded nine others before turning the gun on himself.

NAU plays a major role in the northern Arizona city of Flagstaff.

The 4-year public university has more than 25,000 total undergraduates.

A NAU sorority reacted to the shooting on Twitter.

Thoughts and prayers out to the brothers of Delta Chi. The Greek community is here for you 💚

— Kappa Delta at NAU (@naukappadelta) October 9, 2015




“An early morning fight between two groups of students escalated into gunfire in the parking lot outside an Arizona university dormitory, leaving one student dead and three others wounded, authorities said Friday. The suspected shooter, identified by police as 18-year-old Steven Jones, was in custody, said Northern Arizona University Police Chief JT Fowler. …. The student who died was identified by the school as Colin Brough. The victims being treated at Flagstaff Medical Center are Nicholas Prato, Kyle Zientek and Nicholas Piring. …. Both university and Flagstaff police are investigating. In a statement, Arizona Sen. John McCain called the shooting a "terrible tragedy." "My thoughts and prayers are with families of the person who was killed and the three others who were wounded in the horrific shooting on the campus of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff early this morning," McCain said.”

You may want to go to the video of the press conference, as it tells a good bit more about the shooting. It seems to be a “simple” case of some immature and probably drunk young men, one of whom was breaking the campus policy by carrying a hand gun. If mental illness is involved, nothing was said about it. There will be more later, I’m sure.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-partner-vetted-syrian-groups-pause-rebel-training-program/

U.S. to partner with vetted Syrian groups, pause rebel training program
By MARGARET BRENNAN CBS NEWS
October 9, 2015

Play VIDEO -- The problems in training Syrian rebels
Play VIDEO -- ISIS militants may have used chemical weapons against Kurds


A senior U.S. official said the Obama administration has decided to "modify" its policy by focusing on directly supplying weapons and ammunition to vetted opposition forces already fighting on the ground against ISIS in Syria. A number of Pentagon-trained advisors will also be instructed to embed with the domestic forces - Syrian Kurds and other moderate fighters - to help them be more efficient. The decision was made to focus in on vetted groups that have shown results rather than to rely on a Pentagon-led program to train and equip thousands of vetted fighters.

A senior Defense official told CBS' Cami McCormick on Friday that a decision about the future of train and equip program means that it will now be "refocused to enhance its effectiveness."

That change to policy is part of the administration's decision to suspend a $500 million dollar Pentagon-led program to train and equip a large fighting force. That suspension was first reported by CBS' David Martin in late September. At that time the Pentagon acknowledged that the exfiltration of new recruits had been "paused" but insisted it was temporary.

"I remain convinced that a lasting defeat of ISIL in Syria will depend in part on the success of local, motivated, and capable ground forces," Secretary Carter said Friday in a statement. "I believe the changes we are instituting today will, over time, increase the combat power of counter-ISIL forces in Syria and ultimately help our campaign achieve a lasting defeat of ISIL."

Any policy decision on Syria has been a long time coming. President Obama was presented with a number of options last week to both scale up and reduce U.S. involvement in the four and a half year conflict. Senior advisors have been divided over whether fallout from the brutal conflict -- a hemorrhage of refugees, foreign fighters and terrorists -- presented a threat that requires action or whether those symptoms can be contained.

Despite Secretary of State John Kerry and other advisors including Gen. John Allen who have argued for a more muscular response to help the U.S.-supported opposition and create so-called buffer zones to protect civilians, a vocal group of Administration officials pushed for caution. In light of Russia's increasingly aggressive military campaign to bolster the Syrian regime led by Bashar al-Assad, the administration is determined to avoid any involvement that feeds what could be seen as a 'proxy war.'

In recent days, an increasingly vocal group of administration officials have argued that Putin's decision to step up military action in Syria will be similar to the ill-fated Soviet intervention in 1980s Afghanistan. The hypothetical outcome would be that Russia will become a target for jihadis enraged by Putin's decision to bolster Assad whose brutality against Syrians has fed the conflict and drawn in foreign fighters. So far that potential threat has not dissuaded either of Assad's patrons - Iran nor Russia - from increasing their support.

A senior administration official indicated that President Obama has been persuaded by advisors that any explosion of violence from Syria in to the region could be "managed" but also acknowledged that the prospects for a diplomatic solution in Syria appeared "bleak."

The body count from the four and a half year war is impossible to tally but is estimated to be well in excess of 200,000 people. Four million Syrians are refugees and seven million others have been made homeless within their own country due to the violence. Aid groups fear that those millions of displaced people will also attempt to flee.




“A senior U.S. official said the Obama administration has decided to "modify" its policy by focusing on directly supplying weapons and ammunition to vetted opposition forces already fighting on the ground against ISIS in Syria. A number of Pentagon-trained advisors will also be instructed to embed with the domestic forces - Syrian Kurds and other moderate fighters - to help them be more efficient. "I remain convinced that a lasting defeat of ISIL in Syria will depend in part on the success of local, motivated, and capable ground forces," Secretary Carter said Friday in a statement. …. Senior advisors have been divided over whether fallout from the brutal conflict -- a hemorrhage of refugees, foreign fighters and terrorists -- presented a threat that requires action or whether those symptoms can be contained. ….


Obama is now going to give aid to “groups that have shown results” such as the Syrian Kurds. Now how many times have I told him that? Some people are fighters and some aren’t. We have been following a political link with the Iraqi government (whose forces WON’T fight) in our refusal to aid the Kurds with tanks and other weapons -- assuming we aren’t willing to send any soldiers in there under any conditions. That was viewed as being politically advantageous, but if ISIS overruns the entire Middle East and then comes for the rest of the world that will not be politically advantageous. We are also going to have to cooperate with Russia in Syria. Bashar al-Assad was quoted yesterday or the day before as saying that he would be willing to step down if necessary, and that’s one of the US goals. Let’s call that grounds for mutual cooperation all the way around. Hope this works.




REPUBLICAN POLITICS CLOSE UP – TWO ARTICLES


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-lawmakers-eye-paul-ryan-for-house-speaker-run-after-kevin-mccarthy-withdraws/

House GOP leaders begging Paul Ryan to run for speaker
CBS NEWS
October 9, 2015


Republican leaders are begging Wisconsin's Paul Ryan to run for House speaker as the GOP rushes to try to fill a power vacuum following Kevin McCarthy's sudden withdrawal from the race for the post Thursday.

He pulled out at the last possible moment, just before a vote he was expected to win.

But Ryan said despite being "grateful for the encouragement," he will not be running.

The problem now is there aren't many people who want to lead a party that is this divided, reports CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

McCarthy's decision left lawmakers reeling, including his two opponents.

One, Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, said he was "absolutely stunned. [I] did not see that coming."

Some lawmakers were even in tears following McCarthy's abrupt announcement, upset that what should have been an orderly transition of power has descended into what many of them called chaos.

McCarthy had faced opposition from the same 40 hard-line conservatives who wanted to unseat the current speaker, John Boehner.

Tim Huelskamp of Kansas said McCarthy's exit from the race is a victory for the American people.

"They want Congress to respect conservatives and other members of Congress and that hasn't happened very much in the last four and a half years," said Huelskamp.

But not everyone saw it that way, like New York congressman Peter King.

"We can't allow a small minority of 30-35 people to hijack the House of Representatives," said King.

Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen called it "a fight for the soul of the GOP."

"We need somebody who's willing to negotiate and talk to the other side, and those are not bad ways to govern," Lehtinen said.

Three days ago, North Carolina Republican Walter Jones sent a letter to Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers saying if any candidate for speaker has committed any "misdeeds," he should "withdraw" from the race.

McCarthy denied that this was behind his sudden move. "No. No. Come on," he remarked to reporters.

The chaos surrounding the speaker election comes as Congress faces looming deadlines, including the vote to raise the debt ceiling by Nov. 5 and finding a way to fund the government by December.

Boehner says he will stay on until a new speaker is elected.




“Some lawmakers were even in tears following McCarthy's abrupt announcement, upset that what should have been an orderly transition of power has descended into what many of them called chaos. McCarthy had faced opposition from the same 40 hard-line conservatives who wanted to unseat the current speaker, John Boehner. …. But not everyone saw it that way, like New York congressman Peter King. "We can't allow a small minority of 30-35 people to hijack the House of Representatives," said King. Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen called it "a fight for the soul of the GOP." "We need somebody who's willing to negotiate and talk to the other side, and those are not bad ways to govern," Lehtinen said.”

Both King and Lehtinen both are apparently conservative Republicans, but not willing to give in entirely to the Tea Partiers. I’m glad to see King fight back, and Lehtinen stand up for negotiation in preference to the repeated and unintelligent government shutdowns. The Tea Party’s real problem is that they are pushing a radical agenda and not a truly conservative one – look the word up in the dictionary – which includes promoting a federally ensconced state religion of Christianity, a type of high school education that would dumb down our young people rather than educating them, an economic plan that benefits only the top 1% of citizens, and a destructive set of environmental goals. I hope Republicans of good ethics and cooperative spirit will win over the Radical wannabes so that lawmaking will again improve life for the 99%.





http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-benghazi-investigation-1444345572?mod=trending_now_6

The Real Benghazi Investigation:
The Clinton-McCarthy spat is a shame. Trey Gowdy has led a model search for the truth.
By Kimberly A Strassel
Oct. 8, 2015

Photograph -- Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), the House Benghazi committee chairman, and other committee members at a Capitol Hill news conference, Sept. 10. Photo: Bloomberg News

Kevin McCarthy unexpectedly withdrew from the House speaker’s race on Thursday, a casualty of a fractured Republican conference. The Californian didn’t do much to inspire confidence last week when he suggested that the House Benghazi committee had been designed to attack Hillary Clinton.

One pity of the McCarthy comments is that they tainted the committee’s work with politics. The bigger pity is that they are dead wrong. South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy is 18 months into the committee that the House purpose-built to investigate the 2012 terrorist assault in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. His Benghazi investigation has been a model of seriousness, professionalism and discreetness.

The statistics alone bear this out. The committee has so far reviewed 50,000 new pages of documents. Less than 5% have anything to do with Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state. It has interviewed 51 witnesses. Forty-one of those were brand-new—no committee had bothered to speak with them before, though seven were eyewitnesses to the attack.

Not that you will have seen any of this testimony. Congress generally loves public hearings—members relish parading in front of cameras, grilling and humiliating witnesses. But Mr. Gowdy, a former prosecutor, is more interested in getting information. All 51 of the committee’s interviews have been done in private, attended by committee members or staff from both parties. In a public hearing, the majority Republicans get more time than Democrats to speak. In private interviews, time is divided equally. Mr. Gowdy is fine with that.

If Republican Rep. Darrell Issa were running this committee, is there any doubt that he would have put Clinton fixer Sidney Blumenthal in the public hot seat? Mr. Gowdy’s committee interviewed him privately. When Mr. Blumenthal’s lawyer said he would be out of the country on the proposed interview date, Mr. Gowdy rescheduled; he wanted the Democratic operative to have competent counsel. Former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills’s private interview concluded with the remarkable sight of her, Mr. Gowdy and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings together at a post-interview press availability, where she thanked the committee for its “professionalism” and “respect.”

The House Select Committee on Benghazi has held three public hearings. Mr. Gowdy allowed Democratic members to choose the first two topics. They predictably focused on the work of the State Department’s Benghazi Accountability Review Board, which they like to claim has already settled what happened in Libya. Mr. Gowdy nonetheless committed to thorough hearings. When Washington Democrat Adam Smith looked likely to miss a hearing because of hip surgery, Mr. Gowdy set up a Skype connection so that he could ask his questions. Mr. Gowdy made the same offer to Illinois’s Tammy Duckworth, who’d just had a child. When she politely declined, he allotted her question time to Mr. Cummings—a fair-play move rarely seen in D.C.

Washington lawmakers love their powers, and Mr. Gowdy has plenty. He has exercised them prudently. The Benghazi committee has issued only threes subpoenas. One to Mr. Blumenthal, whom the committee had trouble tracking down. One to the State Department for a specific batch of emails. And one to Mrs. Clinton, when the news first broke that she had maintained a private server for her email. When Mrs. Clinton later claimed that she was not under subpoena, Mr. Gowdy didn’t complain, he simply released the subpoena to set the record straight. He has declined to answer questions about whether he thinks she has committed any crimes.

Mr. Gowdy hasn’t needed to use subpoenas because agencies are willingly giving him documents. He has obtained materials from the CIA and Defense Department that those agencies refused to give to other committees. The White House has also agreed to give him material. Mr. Gowdy inspires confidence that, unlike most congressional committees, his group isn’t going to leak information to sabotage political targets.

That’s because Mr. Gowdy handpicked a staff of 16 professionals, many recruited from law-enforcement and legal backgrounds, headed up by retired Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who was an Obama-appointed Army judge advocate general. Mr. Gowdy told every hire on day one that leaking was a firing offense.

Keeping the Benghazi committee on the straight and narrow hasn’t been fun. Democrats work with Mr. Gowdy in private but then berate his committee in public. Conservative activists and talk-radio hosts blast him for depriving them of the drama they crave—for not running a get-Hillary committee. The State Department blocks him. And now his own side has made his job that much harder.

Don’t expect Mr. Gowdy to give up. He has run his committee with one goal in mind: finding answers for the families of four dead Americans. Mrs. Clinton flatters herself if she thinks it’s all about her.




“The Californian didn’t do much to inspire confidence last week when he suggested that the House Benghazi committee had been designed to attack Hillary Clinton. One pity of the McCarthy comments is that they tainted the committee’s work with politics. The bigger pity is that they are dead wrong. …. His Benghazi investigation has been a model of seriousness, professionalism and discreetness. The statistics alone bear this out. The committee has so far reviewed 50,000 new pages of documents. Less than 5% have anything to do with Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state. It has interviewed 51 witnesses. Forty-one of those were brand-new—no committee had bothered to speak with them before, though seven were eyewitnesses to the attack. …. Keeping the Benghazi committee on the straight and narrow hasn’t been fun. Democrats work with Mr. Gowdy in private but then berate his committee in public. Conservative activists and talk-radio hosts blast him for depriving them of the drama they crave—for not running a get-Hillary committee. The State Department blocks him. And now his own side has made his job that much harder.”

This article is a piece whose sole goal is to praise Mr. Gowdy and prove his fairness to the Democrats and to Hillary Clinton. Okay. He made a good case. I am still waiting impatiently for the results of the ongoing investigation. I looked on the Net about a month ago for a clear explanation of what Clinton supposedly did wrong that day in Benghazi – not about her emails and private server, but how the debacle is her fault. I don’t believe she told the Pentagon to give orders to a bunch of ready and eager Marines to “stand down,” and thus left the Embassy unguarded. She surely wouldn’t make such a decision on her own authority. The more likely case might be that the Embassy needed a much larger and more reliable group of guards for permanent assignment there and better intelligence of what was afoot on the ground. I want to hear more. The following two articles are “fact-check” stories written by two different groups.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/, Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality
By Angie Drobnic Holan on Friday, May 16th, 2014

This article is too long to put in here, but contains quite a number of scotched rumors and pieces of timeline information. If you want a Republican leaning article there’s one by Boehner written up in the Washington Times, which for those of you who don’t live in DC is the right-leaning paper. If I bought a paper when I lived there I always bought a Washington Post. I can tell, however, from the Politifact article that there is more smoke than fire on the Republican side, and that if the issue of too little security at the Embassy is the central problem, then the Republicans shouldn’t have pushed so hard for their everlovin’ attempts to save government money.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-opens-its-doors-to-western-journalists-for-70th-anniversary-workers-party-military/

"We get to show good things": N. Koreans talk to Western media
By SETH DOANE CBS NEWS
October 9, 2015

24 PHOTOS -- On the road in North Korea


North Korea is preparing for a massive military parade to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the ruling Worker's Party Saturday. The event is open to Western journalists, an opportunity so rare that even something as simple as a drive down the street is "newsworthy." CBS News correspondent Seth Doane is in the capital city of Pyongyang.

We boarded our flight to North Korea back in Beijing. On Air Koryo, the inflight magazine with its glossy propaganda photo of leaders set the tone for our trip.

The first people to meet us at Pyongyang's brand new airport were our government-assigned minders who will be with us every step of the way.

This trip is carefully choreographed--we board buses and are told where we're heading just before we depart. We're brought to different places, but we cannot choose where we'll go. Today we're being brought to the birthplace of Kim Il Sung.

He is credited with founding modern North Korea. As you might imagine, there are no surprises here.

Then, it was back on the bus, which took what appeared to be a wrong turn through a rather run-down residential neighborhood. We didn't stay long.

Deep, deep below ground, old subway cars pull in and out beneath elaborate chandeliers. Patriotic music is piped in.


This is hardly just a casual stop at the subway - it is a deliberate effort to show us infrastructure at work. One of the things Kim Jong Un said is that he wants to improve people's everyday life. The question is, if that is really happening.

But trying to get an authentic answer with government minder in tow is hard to do.

"My recommendation is you don't go for the old man...because they don't like it," said a minder.

One 27-year-old woman told us she has a good, comfortable life and seeing foreign media here made her proud.

"Because it means people want to come here and we get to show good things to them," she said.

You see the imprint of the government nearly everywhere you turn--people wear pins depicting former leaders.

"This is my heart," a minder said about his Kim Il Sung pin. "This doesn't get off, even one hour."

There is great excitement here for the parade. Driving around Pyongyang, you see huge groups of people dressed the same with flags, practicing routines, painting the white lines in the side walk, or pruning the grass, sometimes with scissors.




This is a pretty depressing article about people full of patriotic pride for their culture and pleasure to see outsiders coming in to visit, though they may have been commanded or paid to come forward to talk about the glories of North Korea. I feel sure they have little choice in the matter. I wonder how easy it is for one individual American to visit the country without a specific purpose and without being thoroughly vetted. I also wonder how many American watch lists I would get my name on for trying to do that. That’s okay. I don’t want to go there.





http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/446866939/gun-debate-divides-nations-police-officers-too

Gun Debate Divides Nation's Police Officers, Too
Martin Kaste
OCTOBER 09, 2015

Photograph -- Photos of victims of the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., are displayed behind Portland Police Sgt. Peter Simpson (left) and Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin.
Rich Pedroncelli/AP
13.7: COSMOS AND CULTURE -- Is Gun Violence Due To Dangerous People Or Dangerous Guns?


After the mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore., last week, the national media gave a lot of attention to the fact that the local sheriff, John Hanlin, is an ardent supporter of gun rights. He'd written a letter to Vice President Joe Biden shortly after the Dec. 14, 2012, massacre of schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., saying gun control was not the answer. In the letter, Hanlin pledged not to enforce gun regulations he believed to be unconstitutional.

What wasn't widely reported was how common views like Hanlin's have become in law enforcement.

"Talking about firearms now is like talking about race," says Richard Beary, chief of police for the University of Central Florida and president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "These are difficult conversations, and people get very polarized on each side of it."

It's not unusual to see law enforcement executives arguing with each other about guns in public.

Take the situation in Milwaukee. The county sheriff, David A. Clarke Jr., is a champion of gun rights; earlier this spring he released a statement attacking the city administration for being "anti-gun" and "anti-Second Amendment," and for "blaming the gun instead of the behavior."

Milwaukee's police chief, Edward Flynn, responded to Sheriff Clarke by saying that he wouldn't hold back from talking about guns and how they get into the hands of criminals.

"Our bad guys with guns learn nothing because the laws are so weak, and we need help," Flynn said. "And I would like to think that people who think of themselves as advocates for law enforcement could get that through their skull."

Jennifer Carlson, an American sociologist at the University of Toronto who studies police attitudes toward gun laws, says this divide has grown since the 1990s. A generation ago, she says, police chiefs made a common cause of legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady bill.

"And now you've really seen police not taking as much as a unified stance, at least publicly," she says. "That's been a major shift."

She thinks this may have something to do with the expansion of concealed handgun permits, which gun rights groups pushed for especially hard starting in the late 1990s. Police chiefs initially resisted the expansion of the gun permits, but Carlson says many of them changed their minds when they saw that increased permits didn't cause a big increase in shootings.

Carlson says that once they got more comfortable with the idea of citizens carrying guns, some police embraced and even profited from the trend.

"In Michigan, for example, police are able to certify people," Carlson says. "They can get in the business of running those firearms schools."

The differing opinions of law enforcement leaders often mirror an urban-rural divide. Earlier this year, Sheriff John Hanlin of Roseburg — a town of about 22,000 that's more than 70 miles south of Eugene — appeared before a committee of the Oregon Legislature and spoke out against a proposed state bill to expand background checks to private gun sales.

"This law is not going to protect citizens of Oregon," he said. "We have laws that prohibit the possession of other things, like methamphetamine, and it doesn't stop it."

The bill passed, but not without a bitter political fight, including an attempt by gun rights groups to recall legislators who voted for it. That's why it's understandable that national police organizations tread carefully on the issue of guns.

"We don't want to separate ourselves from our communities," says Beary.

These days, national police groups are more likely to talk about making existing gun laws work better and finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill — middle-ground positions that can get the support of their divided membership.




“In the letter, Hanlin pledged not to enforce gun regulations he believed to be unconstitutional. What wasn't widely reported was how common views like Hanlin's have become in law enforcement. …. . "These are difficult conversations, and people get very polarized on each side of it." It's not unusual to see law enforcement executives arguing with each other about guns in public. …. The county sheriff, David A. Clarke Jr., is a champion of gun rights; earlier this spring he released a statement attacking the city administration for being "anti-gun" and "anti-Second Amendment," and for "blaming the gun instead of the behavior." Milwaukee's police chief, Edward Flynn, responded to Sheriff Clarke by saying that he wouldn't hold back from talking about guns and how they get into the hands of criminals. "Our bad guys with guns learn nothing because the laws are so weak, and we need help," Flynn said. "And I would like to think that people who think of themselves as advocates for law enforcement could get that through their skull." …. A generation ago, she says, police chiefs made a common cause of legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady bill. "And now you've really seen police not taking as much as a unified stance, at least publicly," she says. "That's been a major shift." She thinks this may have something to do with the expansion of concealed handgun permits, which gun rights groups pushed for especially hard starting in the late 1990s. Police chiefs initially resisted the expansion of the gun permits, but Carlson says many of them changed their minds when they saw that increased permits didn't cause a big increase in shootings. …. "In Michigan, for example, police are able to certify people," Carlson says. "They can get in the business of running those firearms schools." …. These days, national police groups are more likely to talk about making existing gun laws work better and finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill — middle-ground positions that can get the support of their divided membership.”


“The bill passed, but not without a bitter political fight, including an attempt by gun rights groups to recall legislators who voted for it. That's why it's understandable that national police organizations tread carefully on the issue of guns.” What’s going on is not just a matter of communities forming a consensus in a civilized manner, but a war, and one that is based on the vast amount of money the gun industry makes around the world and especially here in the US.

The furor set up by the NRA for the last 30 or so years has added to the apparent indoctrination of the average American citizen on a series of subjects which not only anger me, they frighten me. I enjoy watching “Gunsmoke” on TV, but I don’t want to live in a world like that. I love history, but I want to keep my TV and computer and car, and I wouldn’t go back to the days when women were not allowed to vote and black people were slaves. Those aren’t “the good old days.” The people who are behind the fight against better gun laws have their fingers in a lot of other cultural pies as well that they should not have access to. It’s common knowledge that the NRA has bought a great many legislative representatives, so that our lawmaking process is tainted with their control.

Since 9/11 a set of “conservatives” have emerged out of their mountain shacks who are dangerous. They support unrestricted gun collecting, this ridiculous trend of “open carry” groups -- who are parading around in Walmart, etc., with their AK47s strapped across their fat bellies -- and all other extremes such as allowing the mentally ill and felons to buy a gun are equally dangerous. In addition, nobody needs more than three guns even if they are hunters – one hand gun for self-protection, one rifle and one shotgun for hunting. There’s no logical use for an AK47 except to stockpile weapons for a White Supremacist militia group – in other words, for killing people.

Fascination with guns should be a sign of a dangerous propensity to snap like this. All or nearly all of the misguided individuals who shot up a theater or a church have been “collectors” of guns, and enamored of the thrill of power that the gun gives them. They are people who lack insight into their own minds or human relations, and owning half a dozen or more guns makes them feel more powerful. They may be actually psychotic, but often they are simply unable to blend well enough with people to have good friends, so that they are lonely and discouraged. Many of them have been bullied because of their mental disabilities. A teen a few months ago was eaten up with hatred at all women because girls weren’t attracted to him, so he started shooting. They get depressed or just too angry to hold it in. Then one day they carry out the plan that had been carefully nurtured in their imaginations for months or years, and we have another tragedy.

I know how unpopular this suggestion is, especially to those for whom the right to refuse medication and treatment is a basic American right, but I think it’s time we reconsidered that. We actually need for every person who has a history of any kind of mental disorder to have to be monitored by a mental health professional and given therapy, whether or not they are considered to be “a danger to themselves or others,” and they absolutely should not have the right to own a gun without supervision.

Many who present with depression symptoms are given a prescription for antidepressants and very loosely monitored on their medication, but not given any intensive therapy. We need a list of the individuals who have such issues, accessible by computer, which is consulted when they try to buy a gun, because many of these people who are doing the shootings have not been judged by a psychiatrist or in a court as being dangerous, but they are. They’re just very quiet and adept about covering their anger up. Many times those who know them say “he wouldn’t hurt anybody.” That judgment is made because he is “quiet” and withdrawn, which is a sign of mental illness, hence the old adage, “It’s the quiet one you have to watch.”. We need to wise up in this country about symptoms and disorders which don’t look to the average person like insanity, and accept the possibility that “my son” could have such a problem.

I know they came under severe criticism, but long term mental hospitals are needed to house individuals whose parents can’t control them and who become erratic and aggressive. The boy who did the killing at Sandy Hook had been under psychiatric care, but wouldn’t take his medications, and his mother was unable to find a place to keep him. Many of the prisoners in this country have underlying mental health issues, and would be better housed and controlled in an asylum with medication that they are required to take. Half or more of the homeless are in the same condition. It’s sad, but something that as a society we need to handle.