Interesting week...
I'll continue the Billy and Colt story later today, but first, I wanted to post some thoughts after a tragedy that was closer to home than I would've expected.
This week, a 70-year-old man killed two people and wounded another after a mediation session on a lawsuit he filed against a local business, which had filed a countersuit against him. The shooter lived about a half-mile north of where I now live, and we had news helicopters circling over our area from morning until after 11:00 PM that night. Police were searching the home and waiting to see if he'd come back to his residence.
One of the men killed was the CEO of a small call center company here at which I had done some consulting. I met him on a couple of occasions and chatted with him. Steve Singer was an honorable, generous, fair man and a man who valued each of his employees. If more CEO's were like him, we wouldn't be having the economic problems we're all enduring now.
The call center in Phoenix mainly dealt with the medical industry and wasn't engaged in the boiler-room type telemarketing sales. It was more of a resolution and medical billing type of business. Steve commuted between the centers in California and Arizona and was actively involved in every area of his business, setting high ethical standards and giving credit where credit was due, generous in his praise to each employee. His door was always open for a chat or listening to ideas.
The story ended as many expected; the shooter apparently killed himself in a city adjacent to Phoenix, Mesa, AZ. The other gentleman killed was Steve's attorney, a man who held a leadership position with the Arizona Bar Association. He survived surgery, but with his wounds, he was taken off life support after being declared brain dead.
This was not a random shooting like the big ones that have made the news...this shooter had specifically targeted these two men. The other person suffered a relatively minor wound and apparently was shot by accident. Three families lost loved ones in this tragedy. The shooter showed no signs of mental problems, and neighbors interviewed indicated he was a nice man and pleasant neighbor. His family did not know where he was that day and fully cooperated with police in a search of the house and giving the police what information they knew.
In the wake of the insane random shootings in the US, there's been a lot of proposed fixes, including addressing the violence in media and better screening and treatment for emerging mental illness in people. One thing that's been overlooked is the massive frustration and lack of control people feel over current economic conditions and their ability to even meet survival needs in this economy. Gun control is not as simple as banning guns; we have to remember that in the US, 99% of the gun owners are responsible people, engaged solely in the various sport options available to gun owners. The vast majority have been trained in gun safety and in laws governing gun ownership and practice those principles, spending a good portion of their money on home safety devices to secure their guns and keep them out of the hands of their children and guests.
What triggers a person to randomly shoot to kill people in a crowd or target specific individuals is complex, and it's rare cases in which no one had a clue about what a particular individual might do, as in the case of this week's shooting...where the shooter had no history or signs of mental illness. In the mass shootings, there had been signs of mental issues or a tendancy to do something like that. And in the US, sadly, there are more barriers to getting help to those people and preventing tragedy than there are open doors. I know how difficult it is because I spent five years in a social services setting and saw the lengthy documentation it took to protect a counselor from one of her patients. Denial by the family was a hindrance as well. In the recent mass shootings, it was reported that family members, school officials, and friends saw the mental problems, tried to get help and preventative measures taken, and the system didn't respond fast enough, if at all, the help these people who became mass murderers.
Why do people feel they need to be armed in the US? One major reason is that police response time to an emergency call, due to geography and not having enough police officers on patrol per capita, is too long for a person to survive a crime that could result in injury or death. People want to protect themselves and their families; it's a natural human trait. However, I'm the first one to say that no one, aside from law enforcement or the military, has a legitimate need for high-powered, semi-automatic or automatic assault rifles or armor-piercing ammunition. Needless to say, I have no problem with banning private ownership of those weapons. I also support a background check for EVERY sale of a gun to an individual...and that includes sales between private individuals...which means I support tougher rules than those being proposed in Congress. Criminals, especially with our lack of control over the border to Mexico, will continue to get any kind of weapon they want; but tightening standards and making them more uniform nationally will make their job of getting those weapons more difficult, and their possession of such weapons will expose them more quickly to law enforcement.
We have several problems that must be addressed for effective gun ownership safety and management: mental issues with potential or current gun owners, our seeming inability to close our border to Mexico to gun trafficking, uniformity of standards in gun registration, purchase/sales, and training gun owners on the proper use, safe storage, and legal responsibilities in owning a gun. We also need to address mental health intervention access and response when family members, friends, or other associates need intervention for a person they believe may present a danger to themselves or society. Right now, mental health response to a report from even a close family member is not addressed quickly enough to prevent the tragedies we've seen. And nothing, not a gun ban, tighter regulations, not even better intervention by mental health professionals, would have stopped the Phoenix shooter from killing those two men this week. If he had been captured alive, most legal professionals have agreed that his behavior indicated premeditation and that he most likely would have been charged with first-degree murder. No amount of regulation or bans would have stopped that, but as a country, we do need to find and implement more universal regulations and requirements to make it extremely difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them.
This week, a 70-year-old man killed two people and wounded another after a mediation session on a lawsuit he filed against a local business, which had filed a countersuit against him. The shooter lived about a half-mile north of where I now live, and we had news helicopters circling over our area from morning until after 11:00 PM that night. Police were searching the home and waiting to see if he'd come back to his residence.
One of the men killed was the CEO of a small call center company here at which I had done some consulting. I met him on a couple of occasions and chatted with him. Steve Singer was an honorable, generous, fair man and a man who valued each of his employees. If more CEO's were like him, we wouldn't be having the economic problems we're all enduring now.
The call center in Phoenix mainly dealt with the medical industry and wasn't engaged in the boiler-room type telemarketing sales. It was more of a resolution and medical billing type of business. Steve commuted between the centers in California and Arizona and was actively involved in every area of his business, setting high ethical standards and giving credit where credit was due, generous in his praise to each employee. His door was always open for a chat or listening to ideas.
The story ended as many expected; the shooter apparently killed himself in a city adjacent to Phoenix, Mesa, AZ. The other gentleman killed was Steve's attorney, a man who held a leadership position with the Arizona Bar Association. He survived surgery, but with his wounds, he was taken off life support after being declared brain dead.
This was not a random shooting like the big ones that have made the news...this shooter had specifically targeted these two men. The other person suffered a relatively minor wound and apparently was shot by accident. Three families lost loved ones in this tragedy. The shooter showed no signs of mental problems, and neighbors interviewed indicated he was a nice man and pleasant neighbor. His family did not know where he was that day and fully cooperated with police in a search of the house and giving the police what information they knew.
In the wake of the insane random shootings in the US, there's been a lot of proposed fixes, including addressing the violence in media and better screening and treatment for emerging mental illness in people. One thing that's been overlooked is the massive frustration and lack of control people feel over current economic conditions and their ability to even meet survival needs in this economy. Gun control is not as simple as banning guns; we have to remember that in the US, 99% of the gun owners are responsible people, engaged solely in the various sport options available to gun owners. The vast majority have been trained in gun safety and in laws governing gun ownership and practice those principles, spending a good portion of their money on home safety devices to secure their guns and keep them out of the hands of their children and guests.
What triggers a person to randomly shoot to kill people in a crowd or target specific individuals is complex, and it's rare cases in which no one had a clue about what a particular individual might do, as in the case of this week's shooting...where the shooter had no history or signs of mental illness. In the mass shootings, there had been signs of mental issues or a tendancy to do something like that. And in the US, sadly, there are more barriers to getting help to those people and preventing tragedy than there are open doors. I know how difficult it is because I spent five years in a social services setting and saw the lengthy documentation it took to protect a counselor from one of her patients. Denial by the family was a hindrance as well. In the recent mass shootings, it was reported that family members, school officials, and friends saw the mental problems, tried to get help and preventative measures taken, and the system didn't respond fast enough, if at all, the help these people who became mass murderers.
Why do people feel they need to be armed in the US? One major reason is that police response time to an emergency call, due to geography and not having enough police officers on patrol per capita, is too long for a person to survive a crime that could result in injury or death. People want to protect themselves and their families; it's a natural human trait. However, I'm the first one to say that no one, aside from law enforcement or the military, has a legitimate need for high-powered, semi-automatic or automatic assault rifles or armor-piercing ammunition. Needless to say, I have no problem with banning private ownership of those weapons. I also support a background check for EVERY sale of a gun to an individual...and that includes sales between private individuals...which means I support tougher rules than those being proposed in Congress. Criminals, especially with our lack of control over the border to Mexico, will continue to get any kind of weapon they want; but tightening standards and making them more uniform nationally will make their job of getting those weapons more difficult, and their possession of such weapons will expose them more quickly to law enforcement.
We have several problems that must be addressed for effective gun ownership safety and management: mental issues with potential or current gun owners, our seeming inability to close our border to Mexico to gun trafficking, uniformity of standards in gun registration, purchase/sales, and training gun owners on the proper use, safe storage, and legal responsibilities in owning a gun. We also need to address mental health intervention access and response when family members, friends, or other associates need intervention for a person they believe may present a danger to themselves or society. Right now, mental health response to a report from even a close family member is not addressed quickly enough to prevent the tragedies we've seen. And nothing, not a gun ban, tighter regulations, not even better intervention by mental health professionals, would have stopped the Phoenix shooter from killing those two men this week. If he had been captured alive, most legal professionals have agreed that his behavior indicated premeditation and that he most likely would have been charged with first-degree murder. No amount of regulation or bans would have stopped that, but as a country, we do need to find and implement more universal regulations and requirements to make it extremely difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them.