The horrors and the toll in human life and limb makes anyone come to definitive conclusions on how to insure that such horrors never again darken our morning news. Reading the reactions in the news and online and each individual was adamant in their solution not only being the obvious solution but also inarguably the only possible conclusion any rational person could reach. What’s the problem then BTC? The main problem is people had fallen into two camps as distinctive as the day is long and nobody remarkably suggested what we see as a third solution just as possible of solving the problem as the others. There was one camp in which we find President Obama and Candidate Hillary Clinton. They agree that the real problem is the private ownership of guns and that if nobody had access to firearms then such crimes would never happen. The other camp which we find candidate Donald Trump where they claim the problem is radicalized Muslims. The former camp would accuse the second camp of Islamophobia. The second camp called the first on being unrealistic and ignoring a little impediment called the Second Amendment. What both sides missed was an easier solution to the problem, make reporting such news illegal. I know, we would be ignoring Amendment I, but since rights and the code of laws did not constrain the other two groups, why not throw in an easier if not more legal approach. Of course there would be another consequence of a law allowing only positive news stories; it would destroy news reporting until somebody discovered the work-around.
News reports could always take a positive slant on negative news such as we can all celebrate we were not crossing the street when two cars collided flying out of control and destroying a mailbox, isn’t it just wonderful there were no pedestrians who found themselves in the location in question. OK, sure we need some polish, but with time there would be formulae which could be implemented for virtually any evil being reported with a positive slant and avoiding any mention of the negatives. They could even point out how it was a fortunate circumstance that somebody called and an ambulance responded to transport the people for necessary treatment once again proving the great healthcare provided in the country. Well, maybe we should just leave the media free and not challenge Amendment I. As for the other two finger pointing claiming that either Islamists or firearms are to blame? Perhaps we should take them each in turn.
The claim that firearms were the problem and that, if only people were not permitted to own firearms, and all guns were removed from the world, then shootings like the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando would become impossible. Of course there is no mention that the removal of all firearms from the world is impossible as long as nations insist on keeping their militaries armed with, you guessed it, firearms. Making matters even worse, militaries use real fully automatic fire weapons as well as explosives and rocket firing weapons which some are capable or taking out entire rooms and small buildings as well as armored vehicles and downing aircraft, all a whole lot more destructive than anything generally out in the public currently. As long as there are weapons anywhere, there will be weapons everywhere, just the more illegal they are made the more sinister the people who will deal in them and the far higher the prices of firearms for which they will be sold. Further, as long as only military weaponry will be manufactured, the firearms which do make their way into the hands of the most determined of criminals will have far more destructive capabilities and possibly by leagues is likely as only slightly. Further, a determined killer or a mentally unbalanced one would still be capable of committing a crime of similar or potentially more devastating result in a similar scenario. Since it appeared that escape was not easily available for the victims in the club, a person armed with a sword of the quality and ability of those used in warfare since time immemorial, the resulting slaughter may have been even greater and the injuries far more horrific and the victims still just as incapable of defending themselves. This would be even more true had the perpetrator in such scenario would have armed themselves with leather armor, studded and spiked, chain linked helm and other items making them just as dangerous as any attacker in a closed room (see below). The main difference is a firearm is a ranged weapon but one could arm themselves with ranged weapons with a small version equally deadly crossbow which fires four inch darts. There are no limits to how deadly and devious to weapons beyond that of imagination, and human imagination has proved to be virtually limitless or at least not bound by laws of man.
So restricting weaponry would be just as futile as it would impossible; so what about the other side, limiting those believed to have dangerous beliefs or practices? This too has been tried in the past when science was young and religion was king. Their attempts to limit science proved only temporary and ineffectual as well. Discoveries came and science spread almost as far and as fast as the imagination could perceive new ideas and experiments to prove or disprove each postulation. It mattered little whether it proved or disproved as long as it produced answers which would simply generate more questions. There was no locking the box which is the human mind and it eventually proves preposterous to even try. The King of Spain sent an Armada to bring Protestant England back under the control of Rome and approved Christianity. At that time there was only the Church of Rome and the Church of England and the second was the young upstart. So initially religion attempted in Europe to regulate religion within defined boundaries and failed. Some claim that the spread of Protestantism indirectly led to the scientific revolution which spawned from the Protestant Reformation to the Reawakening, the Renaissance, then followed political revolution, industrial revolution, and then the greatest invention of mankind, for the first time since the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai the world gave people time to themselves, the weekend and private time. Jewish Law, Torah had conceived of the necessity for human beings to have time where work was put aside for a day and the Sabbath was observed where people could pursue private endeavors and learn which originally meant the study of Torah. Even the time spent in study of Torah allowed for time with family and relaxation from the daily burdens of toil and labor which even applied to the servant and the slave, which were more like one’s employees. The salary was clothing, housing, food and protection from facing the world alone with nothing and if one worked for a successful person, they might even have a small salary on top of everything else; otherwise, one would need to request their employer if they desired something beyond the basics.
That piece of history should serve to prove that the desires of the mind and the soul cannot be strapped and tied down by laws, edicts or any oppressive acts from an establishment or even the counterculture. The mind, the individual, the soul if you will, cannot be prevented from going wherever it is destined by the chain of experiences, influences and, yes, often the temptations of the forbidden. If “radical Islam” as a belief system were to be regarded as something forbidden, that would simply serve to make it all the more enticing and often to the most vulnerable and Islamic State gives a perfect example of the result of attempting such a ban. That is the problem with Donald Trump’s idea to ban Muslims for a period from entering the United States as that would just make those who did find their way over the border placed with such difficulties that radicalization would be made far easier as the concept that they were being beaten down and forced into the shadows. The best path has been proven time and again throughout history though more often societies have gone from the best to the worst method of facing differences in cultures. The tried and proven method is limited accommodation with reward for incorporation of the existing societal model while allowing for variance as long as it remains within legal standards. Acceptance goes a long way towards modifying behavior towards cooperation rather than conflict. That is not to say that all behavior is to me accommodated as there are, by necessity, limitations to acceptable behavior. An example would be the Aztecs could be permitted to dress as they wish but their practice of cutting out the beating heart as part of an annual ceremony would need to be prevented from the start. Human sacrifice is not an acceptable form of worship and some other means would have to be found. The same would be for animal ritual sacrifice. Sacrifice of an animal for a celebratory feast would also need to be regulated in some manner such that the animal does not suffer. Simply placing the live animal in a cage and rotating it over the fire would be unacceptable as would many cruel means for killing the animal, but if an accepted and humane death be performed and then the animal roasted and consumed, it might be extreme to many but it is not that far removed from taking a side of beef and roasting it on a spit at a huge celebratory feast where the meat is to be consumed. Granted, the majority would prefer smaller servings but how many have been to an all you can eat buffet where roast beef is carves off the bone for those who desire roast beef over say meatloaf.
Donald Trump’s seeming well timed but probably ill-advised suggestion that all Middle East immigration be ceased for a period of six months, where it could be done, would prove ineffectual as anybody wishing to reach the United States from the Middle East need only reach Turkey with whom there exist laws allowing for their immigration to the United States and even if not Turkey, the news informs us how easily any Middle East refugee can reach most of Europe and from there the United States again would be legal and relatively easy. There is no way to prevent a determined person from reaching the shores of the United States legally and most definitely illegally. Donald Trump’s claim that by making this ban it would prevent any terrorists from the Middle East from reaching America is utterly false as the terrorists are exactly those who would have the funds to defeat any regulation one could enact as their “blanket fix” for the problem. The solution is a full background check and with records as lax as they are and the turmoil making most people all but without any identifiable or especially documented history and once again it is the terrorist who would most likely be capable of meeting even those requirements. There is no absolute means of preventing terrorists from gaining entry to any nation as has been proven by the recent attack in Tel Aviv, as Israel has likely the most effective screening and tracking for terrorist and terror likely individuals; but still there are attacks and in great numbers as it is impossible to prevent those attacks committed by what are termed “lone wolves” as they have no traceable history of interaction with terror institutions or even other terrorists.
The best way to protect and prevent such horrific criminal carnage comes down to a select few things. Have a society which commits to equality, extends egalitarianism in all things, and provides opportunity. Further the people themselves need be welcoming, accepting of various cultures for as long as they remain within societal codes, enjoys respect of every individual and remembers from where they came as it sets where they will proceed. The laws must be equally applied and respected by all members of the society. The last thing is to remember that every person is a gem to be enjoyed and allowed to shine with their own special brilliance and every day offers equal opportunity for all to achieve. Beyond that is the government’s responsibility in making all safe and respecting of the laws and rights of one another. None of this is easily accomplished and no society has provided such a high standard for more than half a millennium. Some very select groups have managed to maintain such expectations of standard of their peoples and their identity we will leave for each reader to research and discover the identities for themselves as they may be quite surprised and the greatest surprise is amongst the select groups.
Beyond the Cusp