Guns

After the tragic shooting yesterday in San Bernardino which left 14 dead and 17 more injured, we are once again throwing around statistics about guns and posturing on gun rights and gun control. It's par for course after every mass shooting.

I'll have to give credit -- Vox.com, better than any media site out there -- mainstream and/or other wise -- gave the most fair and balanced take on gun control numbers, explaining the various methodologies employed in analyzing multi-victim shootings of 4 people or more. Vox, along with the Guardian, posted comparable firearm death rates in the United States and other countries around the world. But that is aside the point.

The New York Daily news, for its December 4th edition, posted a provocative cover late Wednesday night as a rebuke against politicians who posture with "Prayers for...", all the while not really doing much to combat the issue.

There's a far bigger issue than the availability of guns, and that issue gets amplified if you look closer at The Guardian's statistics of firearm ownership and firearm rates around the world. To understand gun violence, you ultimately have to evaluate the sociopolitical climate that readily accepts gun violence as a means to resolve and/or control conflict, whatever it may be.

From the gang-ridden streets of Chicago, to the domestic disputes of Houston, and the unspeakable tragedies of various mass shootings around the country, individual(s) have utilized guns to settle scores, assert dominance, or prove some sort of point. It is the decision-making process that concerns me more than anything, and it is an indication of culture.

Believe it or not, homicide rates in the United States are lower than they were 20 years ago. According to a poll that was sourced by Vox.com, only 12% of Americans actually know that -- most believe that homicide rates are as bad if not worse than years past. Media coverage and social media conversations largely skew perceptions in my opinion, and many may not really remember how bad homicide rates in the United States were.

In the early 1990s, New York would have 2,000 homicides a year; Los Angeles as late as the early 2000s had over 1000 homicides a year; Chicago would clock in anywhere from 600 to 900 homicides a year; and Houston would regularly exceed 500 homicides a year. However, intervention programs, stiffer sentencing, aging, peace, lack of a drug epidemic, and better policing has led to significant drops in homicides. New York and Los Angeles are pacing for fewer than 400 homicides; Houston is pacing for fewer than 300; and Chicago's homicide numbers will still be half of what they were 20 years ago. A lot of that is due to changes in cultural, sociopolitical, and demographic climates.

I never argue in favor of or against gun control. It's an argument that distracts from the real core issues -- social climate, the cultural acceptance of resolving conflict with a gun, and the actual decision-making process. Our discussion really needs to encompass what kind of intervention, outreach, treatment, and cultural changes would be necessary as effective forms of prevention, if any.

The bottom line on Donald Trump

For some, it is fairly easy to be appealed to Donald Trump. After all, he is bringing his brash public personality to politics. He says politically incorrect things. He's appealing to disenchanted, angry white conservatives. He's bringing a brass and controversial style to presidential politics that hasn't been seen since George Wallace ran for the highest office in the land in 1968.

Trump has to be given credit -- he tapped into an upset constituency and he gets a break because he is more of a pop culture icon than an actual politician. As many political pundits keep predicting (and hoping for) his demise -- his support has proven resilient. Even though he says fairly egregious things. Even though he exaggerates. Even though he supports lies. Even though he is unapologetic in his appeal the most xenophobic and racist parts of the Republican Party base.

It should be known that I have no dog in this fight, per se. Clinton isn't centrist enough for my taste. Sanders liberal and progressive politics will just entrench more partisanship in Washington. Kasich is the most likable GOP candidate, but he lacks the political savvy to really stand up against the most extreme elements of the GOP; Cruz is too partisan. Carson is too ignorant.

And then there's Donald Trump.

Trump's success is the manifestation of two things: a much more politically extremist Republican Party and the GOP's inability to stop prostituting conservative anger for votes. He's more or less the endgame monster that the party made when it began to reject effective, centrist governing in the 1970s. Trump is not a game-changer; he is not "shaking things up"; he is proving to lack a degree of maturity that should be expected out of a politician, especially one that is going to be entrusted to most powerful political office on earth.

Trump's success, if you will, so far is because of the emotional statement that his campaign represents. In an election that is short on candidates being effective at actually governing (Sanders, Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio have no signature legislation; Firiona, Carson, and Trump have zero political experience), it's not surprising that voters are supporting candidates by wearing the hearts on their sleeve. The world and this country is too dynamic to really have an American president that is either drunk on partisanship or drunk on their own ego.

Here's the truth: Trump will be undone due to the primary rules of the Republican Party that favor much more pragmatic candidates. Nomination races are not won so much by popular votes in the primaries as they are by the delegates that are sent to the National Convention. The last five Republican nominees for President -- Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush -- all came from the more pragmatic half of the Republican Party. Moreover, Trump's campaign has little political experience and their battles will be lost due to the GOP's system on delegates.

This is why I maintain that the Republican nominee for President will be either Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich.

I won't go so as far as Donald Trump being the worst thing to ever happen to the Republican Party.  However, his divisive and pandering rhetoric that appeals to the most angry, xenophobic, and racist parts of the Republican Party base is the last thing that the American political scene needs.

American politics has become too partisan, too extremist, too tribal. Politicians care too much about grandstanding, self-aggrandizing, jockeying, and posturing rather than governing and that troubles me. Americans are willing to support candidates on emotion rather than nuanced fact or critical thinking, and it's scary. Trump's candidacy is a manifestation of the most disgusting parts of American politics and he represents a symbol of what is wrong with American politics today -- from politician to constituent.