Once again I am trying to launch Sean Gavin Photography. I haven't had much success in the past although I did book a couple of photo shoots. I am trying something new. In addition to portraits, I am also doing real estate photography and fine art photography.
Head over to seangavinphotography.weebly.com and check it out.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
More Gun Laws Are Not The Answer
In a time when it seems more and more people are 'going off the deep end' and turning to gun violence, most people's reaction is 'we need more and/or tougher gun control'. In my opinion, that is NOT the answer. In short, the only effect tougher gun control laws will do is make is harder for law abiding, safe and properly trained people to obtain firearms. In fact, if firearms were made illegal, it STILL would not eliminate the problem. Murder, drugs, auto theft etc are already illegal yet these laws are broken on a daily basis.
I have many friends who are anti guns and demand that something be done. Yet they offer no suggestions or ideas to help with their concerns. I have also proposed a few ideas that I feel will help yet they turn them all down for one reason or another.
My first idea is in certain cases the 'doctor-patient confidentiality' privilege be suspended. I don't mean if a
patient is afraid of people or angry he should be reported. But if a Dr has a patient he sees and for 4 weeks he complains of people, how he hates his boss and co-workers, wishes his ex-wife dead and shows potential for violence, then tells his doctor he has firearms or recently bought firearms, the Dr should be allowed to report him.
But that would be, according to a few of the anti-gun people I know, an invasion of his privacy. Meanwhile, the shooter at VA Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, showed signs before his shooting spree. Lucinda Roy, a former Virginia Tech professor, tried to get Cho help but it was refused. "I was told that - that would never happen," Roy said. "Because I was essentially requiring a student to seek counseling."
And that's against Virginia Tech policy as it is at several schools across the country, unless it's an emergency, and administrators claim Roy did not indicate it was an emergency situation.
There were other situations similar to this that the suspect at one time or another showed signs but nothing could be done, so innocent people died as a result. I think that if we can save an untold number of lives by reporting a person showing signs of doing something even remotely like this, and 'invading his privacy', it's worth doing.
Another idea I had that was also rejected was placing armed guards in schools. Also arming teachers, custodians and other school personnel. Now I do not mean handing a gun to a teacher and telling her 'shoot anybody you don't know'. Only people who are properly trained and licensed should be armed. And not just trained how to fire a firearm but trained in the complete use of the weapon. Similar to police training. In fact, in-active and retired police and military personnel can be used.
I have an 8 year old daughter in the second grade and if I knew there was at least one armed and trained person there for protection, I would feel safer. The average anti-gun person sees this as a person with a gun that has an itchy trigger finger. This is not the case at all. In fact, people who are properly trained know that firing the weapon is a LAST resort, not the first. The only people who fire first without thought are the 'bad guys'.
There are times when a mass shooting has been stopped by civilians who were themselves armed and put their life in danger to save others. Of course you don't always see these stories on the news or read about them in the paper.
One such incident happened in Texas when a gunman shot 2 and tried to shoot more people when he was shot by an off-duty police officer. I know it was not an ordinary citizen but it was a person with a firearm none the less. And had the off-duty officer not been there, who knows how many could have been shot and killed. Had there been an armed and trained person at VA Tech or Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, maybe, just maybe more lives could have been saved.
These are my opinions and while some 'anti-gun' people may disagree, I respect that but I feel these are things that should be, at the very least, looked at and considered.
I have many friends who are anti guns and demand that something be done. Yet they offer no suggestions or ideas to help with their concerns. I have also proposed a few ideas that I feel will help yet they turn them all down for one reason or another.
My first idea is in certain cases the 'doctor-patient confidentiality' privilege be suspended. I don't mean if a
patient is afraid of people or angry he should be reported. But if a Dr has a patient he sees and for 4 weeks he complains of people, how he hates his boss and co-workers, wishes his ex-wife dead and shows potential for violence, then tells his doctor he has firearms or recently bought firearms, the Dr should be allowed to report him.
But that would be, according to a few of the anti-gun people I know, an invasion of his privacy. Meanwhile, the shooter at VA Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, showed signs before his shooting spree. Lucinda Roy, a former Virginia Tech professor, tried to get Cho help but it was refused. "I was told that - that would never happen," Roy said. "Because I was essentially requiring a student to seek counseling."
And that's against Virginia Tech policy as it is at several schools across the country, unless it's an emergency, and administrators claim Roy did not indicate it was an emergency situation.
There were other situations similar to this that the suspect at one time or another showed signs but nothing could be done, so innocent people died as a result. I think that if we can save an untold number of lives by reporting a person showing signs of doing something even remotely like this, and 'invading his privacy', it's worth doing.
Another idea I had that was also rejected was placing armed guards in schools. Also arming teachers, custodians and other school personnel. Now I do not mean handing a gun to a teacher and telling her 'shoot anybody you don't know'. Only people who are properly trained and licensed should be armed. And not just trained how to fire a firearm but trained in the complete use of the weapon. Similar to police training. In fact, in-active and retired police and military personnel can be used.
I have an 8 year old daughter in the second grade and if I knew there was at least one armed and trained person there for protection, I would feel safer. The average anti-gun person sees this as a person with a gun that has an itchy trigger finger. This is not the case at all. In fact, people who are properly trained know that firing the weapon is a LAST resort, not the first. The only people who fire first without thought are the 'bad guys'.
There are times when a mass shooting has been stopped by civilians who were themselves armed and put their life in danger to save others. Of course you don't always see these stories on the news or read about them in the paper.
One such incident happened in Texas when a gunman shot 2 and tried to shoot more people when he was shot by an off-duty police officer. I know it was not an ordinary citizen but it was a person with a firearm none the less. And had the off-duty officer not been there, who knows how many could have been shot and killed. Had there been an armed and trained person at VA Tech or Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, maybe, just maybe more lives could have been saved.
These are my opinions and while some 'anti-gun' people may disagree, I respect that but I feel these are things that should be, at the very least, looked at and considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)