, , , , , , , , , ,

As I write this, the San Bernardino shooting story is still unfolding. As of this publishing, 14 have been confirmed dead with another 14 wounded. The shooter/s is/are still at large, and the location is still conisdered an active crime scene.

As tragic as that situation is, this post, however, is unrelated to the shooting itself; instead, I’m interested in a conversation between Yahoo! News’ Katie Couric and a national security expert, Dr. Steve Bucci. Ms. Couric and Steve were discussing gun violence, and Katie asked Dr. Bucci what should be done about the recent spate of mass shootings. She discussed how, time and again, proposed legislation falls to congress, but they never seem to pull the trigger (pun intended).

…someone who supports the 2nd Amendment is crazily vilainous.

Dr. Bucci responded by demonstrating that Chicago is an example of how gun legislation has little effect. He espoused that Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws in the country, yet it continues to have significantly more gun violence than most other large cities. He used this fact to suggest that that stronger legislation does not directly equate to less gun violence.

Ms. Couric jumped on Dr. Bucci, immediately and scornfully labelling him 2ndas a strong proponent of the Second Amendment (when I can find a link to the clip, I’ll update this post). So, does Couric mean to imply that supporting our Constitutional rights has suddenly become scandalous? Perhaps even wacky? I’m not expressing my views one way or the other regarding gun control or gun rights. However, Couric has no problem with using her own reporting bias to imply that someone who supports the 2nd Amendment is crazily vilainous.

Hold on, though — Dr. Bucci doesn’t walk away unscathed, either. As he and Ms. Couric were agreeing that something must be done to quell gun violence, Bucci brought up the recent Planned Parenthood shooter, Robert Dear. As Dr. Bucci began to speak about how mentally ill people are still able to legally obtain firearms, he commented about Dear: “The way he looks; it’s obvious he has problems” (I’ll confirm the exact quote and post the video as soon as I can).

RD Mug
C’mon, is this the face of a crazy person?

So, Bucci is saying that there is a way to identify a mentally disturbed individual simply by looking at them. If this is the case, then we simply need to point out the people whom we “clearly” see as bonkers. Then, using these keen observation skills, we can deny those identified as “whack-a-doodles” the ownership of firearms. Being an advocate heavily involved in the special needs community, I’m curious to know exactly what Dr. Bucci meant when he said that, by Dear’s “look,” it’s obvious that Dear has problems. If it is that easy, Bucci migh want to be careful that Couric doesn’t deny him access to guns.

What about this face? (www.heritage.org)

We can all agree that the rich have an obvious stranglehold on the direction of this country. But, as much as they would like to think so, they aren’t the ones with the most influence. Quite honestly, neither are the politicians. And, we all know that you and I certainly are not.

I’ve personally experienced that it’s the media that have our ears and eyes in their tight, sweaty, advertising dollar-biased fists. They know that the lowest common denominator latches onto the very first thing the media spew; in fact, they count on it. And that is disturbing.