Gun Control is not necessarily the answer

There are four categories of violence in which guns are the weapon.  Each category presents its own problems. Gun control is only a minor, in my opinion, solution.  Hear  me out.  Here are the categories.

Massacre in public places by a shooter who gives every indication of being insane and whose victims are not personally known to the shooter

The problem here is identifying insanity before the violence occurs.  The dilemma is that confidentiality is a critical component of any treatment and mental health professionals are reluctant to “out” a patient unless there is a clear indication of danger to himself or others, according to strict legal definition.  

People with mental health problems may not seek help because of the fear of public disclosure with its implication for employment, etc. There are constitutional issues around the right to privacy and due process.

There is a subcategory of concern and that is the use of psychotropic drugs, that may have the opposite effect. The Colorado shooters – John Hickley, Eric Harris, the man who killed students at a Mission school in Arvada and then went to Colorado Spring church and killed two more, and Holmes – all were involved with the mental health system. I think that all may have been on medication.

The facial expressions on the pix of the Arizona shooter, the Aurora Theater shooter and the Newtown killer are all frighteningly similar. That needs to be investigated.

It is not clear how any of existing or proposed gun laws would have prevented these crimes. Nor is it clear that expanding mental health funding would have helped prevent any of these crimes or future crimes. The dilemma is that these are the crimes that is being used to justify more gun laws and more mental health.

Political violence by terrorists with a specific political target

Abortion murders and attacks on churches would fit into this category.

But, the most horrific crimes were not committed with guns but with bombs

And airplanes.  

Gun laws, particularly if they included putting suspected terrorists on a Do Not Sale list, might be helpful. But constant vigilance is the real prevention.

Criminal Activity

Organized crime, gangs, drug cartels as well as property crimes do involve guns.

Stricter gun laws may be preventive.  Certainly big city mayors think so.  However, illegal gun traffic is a source of income to criminals.  

Domestic violence perpetrated by one family member or friend on another family member or friend.

There are already laws preventing the sale of guns to individuals with a record of domestic violence.  But early and effective intervention in domestic conflict is the real prevention.

Gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun purchases might be helpful.

On the Catholic vote.

Here is an interesting article on how the GOP has captured the conservative catholic vote or vice versa.

From time to time I will update that beat.…

There was a demonstration in from of Health and Human Services in DC. One family’s story:…

THere are two new articles regarding what may impact the so-called catholic vote.

This from the Denver Catholic Register describes the rally against the HSS mandate –…

This article is from a Philadelphia news website.  It describes the second day in the trial  of a catholic priest accused of covering up crimes against children –…

3rd day of trial in Philly:…

Continuing trial in Phily:…


I note that Dolan is talking up the Obama “fight” with Catholics as the same time the criminal trial of clerical coverup is unfolding in

Philadelphia.  There is very little coverage of that trial, nationally. Interesting?  I will continue to post links.

March 28th – T. Cardinal Dolan on the O’Reilly Factor:

Hear the leading Cardinal in the US talk about politics and Obama care –…

Why I am not voting for Steve Saunders

Sorry, Dusty. I am sure your son is one fine fellow, but I can’t vote for Steve Saunders because I think he is too naive to deal effectively with powerful developers.  Witness his comments on Lowry Vista.  He feels that no one should criticize the development because it will impact negatively everyone’s property values in the area. Sounds like talking points from Big Money Denver to me.

Lowry Vista is an in-the-works ambitious residential/retail project, fraught with potential  complications; traffic congestion; environmental problems; and, taxing of existing city services to name a few. We need a councilperson with guts and knowledge to be monitoring what goes on,  not someone who sounds like he is auditioning for the person in charge of damage control for a private corporation.

Nope, I am not connected with any campaign.

Sorry that the Easley recall failed

I think the reason stated on the petition was incorrect.  But, Easley supported a so-called “community” effort that I believe is bogus. (Please note that Denver Public Schools uses the term “community” all the time. but never provides a legal definition). That is the reason I supported the recall.

I do not believe that private corporate and political interests should be allowed to come into a school district, set up committees and decide WHO will sit on those committees, exclude most parents and teachers in the impacted schools from sitting on the committees and then dictate a so-called “reform plan.”  This is the decision making plan that Easley endorsed for NE Denver. (It is also the plan currently in NW Denver, only this time instead of the A+ Committee, it is the Jesuits who are probably calling the shots. Great.)

I think that such plans are profoundly anti-democratic and inherently unfair.

I also think they do not work.  

Politically and sociologically, I believe that Denver Public Schools has more in common with the Third World or LDC than a school district in the US, for the following reasons:

1) The District is black, brown and poor.

2)  There is a small minority, usually white and usually affluent, who are in the better schools and do well.  Access to these schools is controlled in a variety of ways.

3)  I assume that a number of parents in the District are not eligible to vote, either because they are here illegally or because they have to move too

frequently to establish the necessary residency. It is illegal to ask a parent/child about their immigrant status so this fact cannot be documented.

4)  The consequence of a significant number of parents not eligible to vote means that the elected representatives are less responsive to parents.

5) The large number of effectively disenfranchised parents, means that they have no voice.  I believe that that this facilitates the entrance into the District of a large number of well-meaning Foundations, NGOs, business interests, national advocacy groups; all of whom have come to “help.”  I believe that they develop relationships with each other and with board members, and “select” members of the community.  I believe that this results in a loss of accountability and makes the students of DPS, all too often, guinea pigs for the latest reform “fad.”

Study the tragic history of Manual High School. And then, study it again.

6) The recent diaries and comments here illustrate how easy it is to use DPS to project one’s own perceptions and agenda.  When I first posted my support of the Easley recall, I was criticized because I didn’t agree with the assumption the recall was unnecessary.  I was then told that I was “free” to start my own recall of Easley.  Except, I was not.  DPS is divided into representative districts and I don’t live in Easley’s Districts.  But the person who “knew” what the recall was all about, did not know that. It is not necessary to live in Denver, in order to “know” what the problems are and how to “cure” them.  It is not necessary to suffer the consequences of bad decisions, which is the heart of accountability.  Just like Americans don’t have to go to the LDC , to “know:” how to cure the problems, DPS is a blank slat on which everyone can write.

7) One of the lasting legacies of the rule of the British Empire, are the horrendous political divides within the former colonies. “Divide and Conquer”

was the successful strategy employed by the British Imperialists to manage their colonies.  I rest my case.

How Talk Radio won the 2010 midterms for the Republicans

( – promoted by DavidThi808)

How Talk Radio won the 2010 elections for the Republicans.

I first sounded the alarm about the power of Republican control of the public radio airwaves at the height of the Obama honeymoon blush and BTP, (Before the Tea Party) A lively debate on this blog ensured.  This is what I wrote in February of 2009.

FIRST, WE MUST HAVE real debate:

This blog is an excellent example of First Amendment and free speech. These are the pro factors for participation.

1) Equal access

2) No censorship based on content

3) No limit on how much or how many times one can post

4) If someone posts something you don’t like or consider false, you can can refute it immediately.

5) No points off for bad spelling.

6) No limit to the medium…in other words, there are not a finite number of websites.

7) There is therefore no government regulation.


These are the con factors, which limit participation.

1) You have to be literate in English.

2) You have to register, so you are not anonymous.

3) You have to have access to a computer and the Internet, usually an outlay of a couple hundred dollars and then a monthly service charge.

4) You have to have to the time and space to read and reply.


1) Radio is a limited medium.

2) The airwaves belong to the people of America and as the airwaves are a finite resource, there is government regulation.

3) The government has not legislated to prohibit monopoly control.

4) One party, the republicans, control the content of the majority of talk radio programs.

5) Access for opposing viewpoints and access to correct factual errors is extremely limited; this creates a virtual censorship.

Why Radio is so important a medium:

1) It is cheap. Once you buy the receiver, there is no more cost.

2) It is portable, you can hear it all the time, it is mobile, you do not have to stop and use time and space, to the exclusion of other activites, to listen.

3) You don’t have to be literate.

4) Because of its scope, range and universality, it is a powerful tool in creating public opinion.

What is happening now:

1) The hate speech on talk radio is increasing in violent tone, falsehood, and viciousness against the Democratic party and its constituents.

2) There has not been the opportunity for honest debate on the public airwaves on economic issues of grave importance on which there can be real differences of opinion as well as fact.

3) The strategy of republicans to stonewall the administration is enhanced by their ability to limit debate on talk radio and consolidate their public.  

by: dwyer @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:17:41 AM MST

On 5.3.09, I wrote:

Boyles is building a base for the republican comeback in CO in 2010

Don’t dismiss him.  Ken Buck announced his candidacy on the boyles show…The state repubs look at what they’ve got: almost total control of the local radio airwaves; a beginning grassroots movement, well funded by Dick Army, the ability to use radio as a feedback loop to reinforce the tea cup people; a few hot button issues…the FLU, illegal immigration, taxes, and big gov. …and local dems (read the most “popular blog” in the State)_ who totally dismiss them……

On August 9th, 2009, I noted that Bill Bennet’s “Morning in America”  reported that Talk Radio is the epicenter of the Town Hall strategy.

To summarize:

This is what the boyles show has been associated with:

1) Consistently promoting the “birther” movement so that now a quarter of the American public and a third of republicans believe that the President of the United States may not be legitimate.  There are no polls showing where Coloradans stand on the issue, but there is no reason to believe that they would poll differently.

2) When Villafuerte was nominated by Ritter to be US Attorney in Colorado, mobilitized his audience to call Senator Sessions and have him  ask Villafuerte to be questioned by the FBI one more time before he would vote for her confirmation.  Villafuerte withdrew her nomination.

3) Consistently accused Ritter of being involved with a coverup involving the use of Federal Criminal Data Base during the 2006 election.  Ritter announced he would not run for re-election.

4) Introduced Dan Maes and gave him airtime.

5) Called Tancredo at an airport back East and got him to announce he would run for governor, after McGuinnes meltdown.

6) Hosted the famous Dick Wadhams/ Tom Tancredo fight.

7) Put Freda Poundstone on the air to denounce Maes because of a dispute over money she gave him.

8)  Consistently promoted Tancredo’s candidacy.

This is what local Republican Talk Radio does:

Eighty hours plus a week of local show  are devoted to promoting conservative causes and vicious unrelenting attacks on Democrats. Tancredo is the defacto republican candidate and the hero of the airwaves.  He went from 8% to 34% with no public campaign ads except his radio free time.  Now, the money and the ads are rolling.

“Brownie” will be devoting this whole month to promoting local candidates.

There is no pretense of even allowing the occasional non-conservative on the air.  It is like sports talk and everyone is for the Broncos and a personal friend of the team.

Caplis/Silverman lead the charge against Hickenlooper/Obama.

Both are trained courtroom attorneys….except there are not defense attorneys on the show, no judge, and no charges.  But H/O are prosecuted nonetheless.

The invitation for the Democratic candidates to attend is issued (..Said the spider to the fly) but there is nothing to guarantee impartiality….  Besides, it is a year and a half too late.

Poll: Quo Vadius Maes?

Tuesday is the day the Secretary of State prints the November ballots. If Maes is still on the ticket, it will be too late to replace him with a more “acceptable to the Powers that be” candidate.

[poll id=”1220″]

Denver Board of Education Candidates

Alexander Ooms, wrote in the Denver Post on Monday, September 14, a Guest Commentary, entitled “Playing games to sneak kids into good schools”  in which he asserted:

“The vast majority of public schools are far worse than most people know. But Denver’s public schools are not quite bad enough, as savvy middle-class parents can still game the system to get their kids a decent education. This paradox perpetuates a failing system and inhibits meaningful reform.” Link to the article:…

Question for the DPS Board of Education candidates:  Do you agree with Ooms?

Why or why not?