A Lesson on Gun Control from Wounded Knee

Recently I received an e-mail from a friend reminding me that this past December 29 was the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

These people, in their winter camp, were murdered on Dec. 29, 1891 by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection.”

Sound familiar? For "their own safety and protection" is the way the Obama administration is trying to frame its attack on the Second Amendment.

The kinds of weapons federal troops and other federal officers were after at Wounded Knee were the same kinds of weapons carried by our military at the time--repeating rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc.

Burying dead Lakota Sioux at Wounded Knee

The e-mail pointed out that Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people--200 of which were innocent women and children. A majority of the Sioux already had peacefully turned in their firearms, but that didn't stop the U.S. government from gunning down the few that still held on to their weapons.

The e-mail (I don't know who wrote it) went on to say: "Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment--the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine.

"When the United States Constitution was drafted “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted “target shooting.”

The military weapon of that day was the musket or Kentucky long rifle. What several million gun owners have today is no different--with one major exception. Military issue weapons can be fully automatic, while the so-called "assault rifles" that Diane Feinstein and other gun control zealots are after are semi-automatic.

I own an M-1 Garand--the semi-automatic rifle that millions of GI's carried during WW II and the Korean War. It has an 8-round clip. That rifle is now illegal in New York, which has banned all weapons with a clip that holds more than 7 rounds. This is idiocy.

And it will not stop tragedies such as Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado, or Virginia Tech. Deranged people who want to kill others will do so even without firearms. They can set fires, plant explosives, poison water supplies...there are multiple ways to kill people if you set your deranged mind to it.

Let's look at some facts.

The day that 20 Sandy Hook Elementary school children and 6 adults were killed some 55 million American children went to school and returned home. The fact is, the chances of a child being killed in a school shooting in the United States are remote, to say the least.

Federal statistics show that 70 mass shootings have taken place in America since 1982, leaving 543 people dead. While those crimes were horrific, during that same period 564,452 other homicides took place in the United States. That means that the mass shootings that so many gun control crusaders are concerned about represent just 0.1 percent of all murders committed in the U.S.

Yet, gun control zealots would have you believe that mass shootings are the primary cause of gun violence in America. Sorry, that is just not the case. Most gun-related homicides are committed during robberies, muggings, rapes, home invasions, car-jackings, pre-meditated murders or a so-called "crime of passion."

Almost none of the weapons used in those crimes would fall under the proposed weapons ban. More than 70 percent of gun-related homicides in America are committed with hand guns--not semi-automatic rifles.

Yet it is important to note that the Supreme Court has ruled twice (2008 and 2010) that banning handguns would be a violation of the Second Amendment and, therefore, unconstitutional.

The Bill of Rights containing the 2nd Amendment

The e-mail I received also said that is critical to remember that: "the Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.

Yet as time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom and liberty.

"Far too many times," the e-mail continued, "unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for your protection.” The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and continued by Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for the sake of “safety.”

If you examine recent history it doesn't take a professional historian to see that it is governments, not individual gun owners that are responsible for the greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life.

Let's take a quick look at how governments have behaved once they disarmed their citizens:

·       In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

·       In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

·       Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

·       China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. In 1989 I covered the massacre of thousands of students at Tiananmen Square who dared oppose the Chinese government!

·       Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

·       Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

·       Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians discussing it.

Few Americans have ever heard of the "Battle of Athens, Tennessee, yet it is a prime example of why our founding fathers believed an armed citizenry is critical to our republic.

 In 1946 several WW II veterans fed up with crooked local officials fought back against political corruption in McMinn County, Tenn. During elections, deputies that were part of the political machine, illegally seized ballot boxes and took them to the jail so they could stuff them thus ensuring another machine victory.

Angry veterans rushed to the local armory, armed themselves with M-1s and other military weapons and opened fire on the jail. After several hours the door to the jail was dynamited and opened. The deputies surrendered and the stolen ballot boxes were recovered. After the votes were counted, opposition candidates had won and the machine was defeated.

That event and Wounded Knee are both excellent examples of why the Second Amendment exists, and why Americans shouldn’t be so eager to surrender their Right to Bear Arms.

Without the Second Amendment we are little more than latent victims--sheep to be sheared and slaughtered by those who have the weapons.

Women as Infantry Grunts. Why?

I am not sure why any woman would want to go to war with a company of infantry grunts. Yet, if we are to believe those who are determined to use the U.S. military as a vehicle for social engineering, that is exactly what most of them are clamoring for.

I don't believe it

I don't believe a woman wants to be crammed into an armored personnel carrier or an amphibious assault vehicle with 15 to 25 hot, sweaty and stinking infantry grunts as they move into harm's way pressed together like so many sardines in a can.

I don't believe a woman wants to strap on a 70 pound pack, a 9 pound rifle and several hundred rounds of ammo to slog through some jungle or across a scorching hot desert so she can be "one of the boys."

First of all, in my opinion, she won't be able to do it.

Just look at what happened last fall in the USMC infantry officer training course when the first women to attempt the course washed out.

U.S. Marines crammed into an AAV

 A female second lieutenant was dropped from the program last October after failing to complete required training due to unspecified medical reasons.  It’s unclear whether she was injured or if she became ill.

 The other volunteer, also a second lieutenant, dropped out in September after she was unable to complete the program’s introductory combat endurance test.

To be fair, nearly 30 men also washed out of the program.

That isn't surprising when you look at Department of Defense data that show 75 per cent of all American males are not fit for military service--and of the 25% who are, only about 15% will make it through basic training.

When I was in the Army, I went through basic and advanced survival-counter-intelligence training and even though back then I was in great shape, I was ready to go AWOL after all the abuse we got from sadistic drill instructors.

Granted, there are more wimps and weenies around today than there were back in the 1960s. Look at the male role models today--especially on so-called comedy series such as the highly regarded show "Modern Family." Two of the men in that show are gay and of the other two, one is a raging weenie and one is a 60-plus man in perpetual mid-life crisis with a Hispanic trophy wife 35 years younger than he is.

We had John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Lee Marvin, Gary Cooper, Marlin Brando, and Charles Bronson. Boys today have weenies and wimps.

A sad commentary on our society. But as long as boys are discouraged from being boys by schools that are more interested in social engineering than education by forcing little boys to behave like little girls we will see fewer and fewer men capable of military service.

As long as schools insist on wiping out any semblance of competition by awarding each participant in every athletic event a trophy even if they come in dead last, you are going to extinguish even the smallest competitive fires that may still be burning inside the next generation.

In schools that have no tolerance rules against any form of violence--even the traditional after school or playground scuffle that has always occurred between classic bullies and their victims--boys are punished for defending themselves. Girls, for the most part, are too intelligent to engage in such activities--at least they once were.

Maybe that is why the military brass is now so eager to bring women into the military. They need women who are more "manly" than the pathetic male specimens they are getting.

When I joined the Army in the 1960s, basic training was tough and to say that drill sergeants laid their hands on you is putting it mildly.

Recruits who couldn't do 20 push ups were kicked in the butt until they did. You couldn't get into the mess hall for meals unless you did at least five snappy pull ups on the iron bar outside the door.

I recall a couple of recruits who couldn't lift their 80-pound duffle bags filled with their army uniforms, fatigues, boots, hats, etc. As we walked down the battalion street inside Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. headed toward our assigned barracks, the two recruits lagged behind, dragging their duffle bags along the ground.

"Pick up that duffle bag, solder!" a sergeant screamed at one of the terrified recruits.

"I can't sergeant," the recruit responded. He was probably no more than 5' 3" tall and probably weighed just a little more than the duffle bag he was trying so desperately to carry.

"By God, you can and you will, you maggot, or you will sleep outside tonight!"

With that the sergeant lifted the duffle bag and threw it at the recruit, knocking him to the ground.

"Now get up and get that bag on your shoulder and move out smartly!"

The recruit was so terrified of the sergeant and the adrenalin was pumping so fast that he actually got the bag onto his shoulder and managed to somehow shuffle his way to the E-3-2 Company compound and into formation.

Basic training was one epithet-laced berating after another. And when it wasn't verbal, it was often physical. Punching, pushing, kicking, slapping.

We accepted it as part of our initiation into the U.S. Army. In fact, we came to expect it because we were convinced it was part of the toughening up process. Surviving it meant that we were becoming good soldiers.

As I understand it, that kind of abuse has been banned in the modern army.

I can't imagine any woman going through my basic training course with the hard ass sergeants I had. 

Most of them were WW II, Korean War and Vietnam vets who had seen their share of combat. When we finally saw them in their dress greens during our graduation ceremonies we noticed that almost all had won purple hearts and medals for valor in multiple theaters of war.

"This man's' Army ain't for pansies, panty-waists and wimps," I recall First Sergeant Vega yelling at us during our first day of basic training. "You will leave here ready to kill the enemy or by God you won't leave here at all. We are here to kick your asses and by God I will put this size 12 boot all the way up your ass hole until it comes out your f...k'n mouths if I have to. Do I make myself clear?"

"Yes sergeant," we yelled back in unison.

"Good, and now if there are any little girls in the ranks I want you to fall out on the double," he said.

No one stepped forward.

"Good, that means every swinging d..k here is going to be a soldier or die try'n."

I wonder what kind of welcoming speech First Sergeants will be making to recruits in the new Coed infantry?

Somehow I don't think it will be the same--and neither will the Army.

Salvadoran Town Lives in Cross Fire

(Between 1980 and 1982 I spent a lot of time in Central American countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua--all of which were involved in some nasty guerilla uprisings and revolutions. From time to time I will post one of the stories I did from these places. The following story is another I wrote from San Salvador in October 1981. All photos were taken by me.)

Suchitoto, El Salvador--It is dusk and from behind the emerald slopes of Cerro de Guazapa, the volcano that towers over this village like a brooding giant, the last golden blades  of  sun are slashing into the  black jungle.

 In the small park in front of Suchitoto's bone-white church, farmers in yellow straw hats are sharing a warm bottle of beer and talking quietly about their dismal corn and sugar cane crops.

Burros: a prime mode of transportation

Burros and horses, the only form of transportation left in Suchitoto these days, stand motionless in the lengthening shadows of the fading day.

And from the dark, grimy Interior of the Cantina El Colonial on Calle Francisco, an ancient jukebox is pumping out the mournful sounds of "The Tide is High" by Blondie.

It is Saturday night in Suchitoto.  And there is peace.

 Not constant peace, of course. That would be too much to expect in a town surrounded by guerrillas and occupied by a garrison of government troops.

Like everything else In El Salvador these days, peace in Suchitoto is relative. For example, tonight there is only sporadic rifle and machine gun fire on the outskirts of town. That's peace.

A week before, a Russian-made RPG-2 rocket ripped through the red tile roof of the Tienda Santa Rosa, destroying Suchitoto's modest department store and killing three persons. And today, just outside the Cantina El Colonial, Army soldiers gunned down and killed a suspected guerilla. That's war.

Death in a Suchitoto street

Some might argue that the destruction of one building and the deaths of three villagers does not qualify as war. They might insist that in a country where an estimated 26,000 persons have died since fighting between left-wing guerrillas and the troops of the American-backed    civilian-military junta began 1-1/2 years ago, the deaths of three more is hardly significant.

 But in Suchitoto, a village of just 5,000 those three casualties were Nos. 574, 575 and 576. That means 11.5 per cent of Suchitoto's population has died in a revolution few people outside of El Salvador seem either to understand or sympathize with.

"The trouble with this war is you never know who you should talk to, what you should say, or how you should say it," said Fidel Ibarra, sitting at a table in the Cantina El Colonial.  "If the right wing doesn't like what you say they come at night with their machetes and take your head. If the left wing doesn't like it, they come and put a bullet through your head."

Ibarra, a carpenter in his early 50s, downed a shot glass of Tic-Tack, a strong corn mash whisky that is this Massachusetts-sized nation's national drink.  Then, leaning across the chipped and scarred Formica table, he nodded toward two 17-year-old soldiers at the next table who were fondling their loaded German-made G-3 semiautomatic rifles between sips of Coca-Cola.

"You see those young pups over there," he whispered. "If I were to start talking about how lousy the army is or how corrupt the government is or how great Cuba is, they would go back and tell their commander and I would have visitors at my house tonight.

"On the other hand, if I should point out how stupid the guerillas are, or how communism and socialism smell worse than my brother's eight dirty pigs, I would also have visitors," Ibarra continued. "Some bastard is always listening. That's why most people in Suchitoto keep their mouths shut."

Fidel Ibarra and Family

At another table in the crowded cantina, several teen-age girls flirted with the two soldiers who were demonstrating their combat readiness by pointing their rifles at color photos of American actors Eric Estrada and John Travolta hanging on the fading and chipped olive green walls.

"Bang, bang," said one soldier, the sights of his G-3 centered first between Estrada's and then Travolta's eyes.

"Adios, gringos," said the other soldier. The girls squealed with delight.

"Idiots," said Ibarra. "Tonight they play, tomorrow they may be dead."

The ancient jukebox sputtered for a moment as "The Tide is High" faded, then crackled with the theme from "Rocky."

Outside, Alejandro Cotto, mayor and 'patron" of this war-shattered town 50 miles north of San Salvador, stood in the ancient cobblestone street discussing the lack of food, water and fuel with villagers.

Mayor Alejandro Cotto talks to villagers

For the past 22 days, Suchitoto had been without electricity because leftist guerillas had blown up the towers carrying power lines to the town. This night, the power had come back on and the mood was almost festive.

Children played in the yellow glow of street lights; radios and record players sent a miscellany of music into the night, and a few people cooled themselves in front of long-dormant electric fans.

"The guerillas have destroyed our water supply system so water must be trucked in from 5 kilometers away," Cotto said. "We get medical supplies every 10 days along with rations of corn, beans and rice. Life is not good here, but the people stay because it is their home."

Cotto and a reporter moved down the street. Weeds were beginning to grow between the stones in the road and graffiti scribbled on the face of a building reflected the predominant emotion of this village.

"Fuera asesinos del publico de Suchitoto." ("Go away murderers of the people of Suchitoto.")

"We hate both sides here," said Cotto. The guerillas are cruel and brutal and so is the other side.

"This used to be such a happy town," Cotto continued, 'such a beautiful little place. Look at the name, Suchitoto. This is the Indian name for the Bird of Paradise, the flower that grows all over this area.

"Now the people do nothing because the war had destroyed the fields, the factories, the shops. There are no jobs. Most people earn only 2-3 Colones (80 cents to $1.20) a day doing labor. The bird of paradise has become the bird of hell."

Night came to Suchitoto abruptly as the sun disappeared behind the smooth cone of Guazapa. Overhead, stars gleamed like grains of sugar sprinkled on black velvet.

Village of Suchitoto 

In the streets, children darted between abandoned, burned-out buildings, shooting at one another with black cap pistols that looked chillingly like the 9 mm Smith & Wessons carried on the hips of the garrison's army officers.

"Look at what the war is doing to our children," Cotto said. "In America, the children play cowboys and Indians. Here they play soldier and guerillas. It is a depressing game."

Indeed. And part of the game, in addition to "shooting" the other guy, is to try and look as grotesque as possible once you have been "shot." Most of Suchitoto's children have seen the ugly grimace of death up close and they know from experience that few bodies riddled with bullets and shrapnel ever look peaceful. A child who can't look properly mutilated or disfigured in "death" gets bad reviews from his ever-critical playmates.

"We Salvadorans are stupid, you know," said Cotto, sitting on the veranda of his Spanish colonial house on the edge of town. "We are killing ourselves while the world watches. It is insane."

It is also slightly bizarre and surrealistic.

Take Alejandro Cotto's back yard, for example. The well-manicured garden stretches for several hundred yards, past lily ponds, exotic plants, statues, and fountains. A stone walkway leads one down several levels of terraces to a bluff overlooking pristine Lago Suchitlan, the 12-mile long body of water separating the provinces of Cuscatlan and Chalatenango.

That in itself doesn't make Cotto's garden a metaphor for the chimerical qualities of El Salvador's revolution. But at night, when the chatter of machine guns can be heard in the black hills nearby and Cotto turns on the yellow, green and blue Malibu lights scattered strategically around the gurgling fountain and hanging ferns, it is somehow all very hallucinogenic.

"Aren't you afraid all these lights will attract gunfire?" asked one of Cotto's guests uneasily.

Cotto smiled benignly and poured himself a glass of brandy from a bottle that had been hand carried to Suchitoto from San Salvador.

"Let's put it this way," Cotto said. "The guerillas know where I live. And so the does the Army. If either wanted to get me, do you think these lights would make any difference?"

Actually, Cotto seems to be one of the few men of means in El Salvador the left hasn't targeted as an "enemy of the people." This despite the fact that Cotto has a brother who is a high-ranking colonel in the Army.

Another respected member of Suchitoto's rapidly dwindling populace is Padre Carlos Armando Recenos, the small wizened priest who ministers to the people's spiritual needs just as Cotto provides for their bodily wants.

Padre Carlos Armando Recenos

"My church is very busy these days," said Father Recenos, brushing dust from his soiled white surplice. "More and more people are coming in to pray for an end to the killing. People are getting tired of this violence. They are tired of the funerals and the grief. They want peace."

But peace is still far away for Suchitoto and even the church is not safe from attack. The priest before Father Recenos had dared to use his pulpit to speak out against the violence, blaming both the left and the right. He was subsequently told by both sides to leave town, or else.

"Maybe if nobody helps either side then maybe the left and right will eventually kill each other off and we will have peace again through attrition," said Father Recenos, waxing more political than is prudent for a priest in El Salvador these days.

An Old Letter From El Salvador

(Between 1980 and 1982 I spent a lot of time in Central American countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua--all of which were involved in some nasty guerilla uprisings and revolutions. From time to time I will post one of the stories I did from these places. The following story was one I wrote from San Salvador in October 1981.)

SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador--In 1937, a year after Juan Chong arrived in San Salvador from Hong Kong and opened the Canton China Bar and Restaurant, an American journalist dropped in for a drink.

"I think he was from New York," said Chong, shifting his 80-year-old frame in the ancient wicker chair behind the bar. "New York World. Yes, yes, that was it.'

Chong, his ancient brown eyes peering out from behind wire-rimmed bifocals perched on his nose, examined the reporter sitting across the bar from him.

"You American?" he asked. The reporter nodded.

"You know something?  You're the first American journalist to come in here since 1937. You work for New York World, too?"

"The Chicago Tribune," the reporter answered. "The New York World died a long time ago."

"You come to write about the war, right?" Chong asked. The reporter nodded again.

El Salvador

''There had been some trouble just before that other reporter showed up," Chong said, recharging his memory cells with a shot of vodka. "Some peasants up north had shot a couple of soldiers. There was talk of another rebellion like the Matanza." (The Matanza, or "slaughter," had occurred In 1931 and 1932, when some 32,000 men, women, and children were killed by government forces after an ill-fated uprising by the Trotskyite Indian named Farabundi Marti).

"We were all very excited about It, Chong said, igniting an ancient pipe."But this American journalist, he was not. He said Americans didn't care about little revolutions in little countries."

Then, eyeing the reporter before him, Chong said, "I guess Americans think differently now, eh?"

                  

Indeed they do. The little unimportant banana republic visited so long ago by the New York reporter is suddenly front and center in the eyes of American foreign policymakers.

Today, the whole world Is watching to see how the United States handles Itself in a 11-year-old  revolution pitting left wing guerrillas against the four-man, civilian-military  junta of  President Jose Napoleon Duarte that is backed by Washington.

And unlike 1937, when just one American reporter wandered into town to take a quick look around, San Salvador is a city overrun with journalists from all over the world.

Most stay at the 235-room Camino Real Hotel, which has evolved into a kind of unofficial media headquarters for anybody covering the hostilities here.

Besides a well-stocked  bar, where foreign correspondents tend to gather evenings in clusters to discuss (well, argue) solutions to El Salvador's problems, the Camino Real offers  a  government-run telex room for filing stories  and messages.

It is not just camaraderie and the dubious benefits of flock journalism that lure journalists to the Camino Real - It Is safety.

"This is the hotel for the International press," explained William, the head bellhop. "Neither the left nor the right would be so stupid as to attack this hotel. This is neutral territory."     

Government Troops On Patrol

    ·

Yet most journalists feel a little naked In El Salvador. Since the fighting began in 1980, five foreign correspondents and photographers have died - not to mention the two dozen or more El Salvadoran journalists who have been tortured or murdered. Conversations in the Camino Real bar tend to be sprinkled with bravado and twists of gallows humor as reporters attempt to put such things out of their minds the way they have always done in war.

Like in Viet Nam, for example, and Cambodia. Except that In the Camino Real bar, Viet Nam and Cambodia are taboo subjects. Most of those covering the war In El Salvador, it seems, did not work In Southeast Asia, and there is a perverse, albeit unnecessary, need on their part to convince Viet Nam era reporters that this war is more dangerous than their war.

There is indeed something much more ominous about this conflict, with its incessant decapitations, mass murders, and disappearances.

But it is impossible to apply a Bo Derek kind of scale to war. People get blown up. They lose arms and legs and feet and hands. They die. Who is to say El Salvador rates a 10 on the danger scale while Nicaragua and Angola and Cambodia are only 8s? Such comparisons are not only absurd, they are obscene. Suffice it to say that thus far El Salvador, with Its 20,000 dead, is still far from the 1.3 million soldiers and civilians killed In Viet Nam (including 105 journalists).  

Another Victim in El Salvador

But there does seem to be something about El Salvador's tragic conflict that makes you look over your shoulder a lot.   

                                             .

Perhaps it's that there are so many fanatic fringe elements in this New Jersey-sized nation of five million running around flaunting machine guns, machetes, and machismo.

Right-wing death squads armed with razor-sharp machetes and rifles roam the city streets looking for "subversives.

Left-wing guerrillas blow up somebody's house or place of business just about every night. And out on the streets, you learn to examine every car that passes you for the barrel of   a rifle or pistol pointed at your belly.

"I don't think El Salvador has ever been more unhealthy," said Chong, relighting his pipe. "People don't come in my place after 8 at night anymore because they are afraid somebody is going to throw a bomb through the door. People are scared.  I've never seen them so scared."

Outside the Canton China Bar and Restaurant, three government soldiers with semi -automatic rifles slung over their shoulders stood on the corner talking. Chong watched them for a moment.

"When I left China, it was during the Japanese occupation of Manchuria," he said. "The war was terrible. I wanted to find a peaceful place to live, so I came to Central America. What a mistake. Of course, I'm too damned old now to care. But sometimes when I see bodies in the streets with their heads chopped off, I think I should have stayed In China."

(POSTSCRIPT: More than 75,000 civilians died at the hands of government forces during the civil war in El Salvador (1980-1992). These 12 years of violence were punctuated by three well known atrocities: the 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero that sparked the conflict, the rape and murder of three American Maryknoll Nuns and a lay missionary that caused international outrage and the 1989 Jesuits Massacre that finally compelled the international community to intervene.) 

No Easy Answers for Sandy Hook Tragedy

The massacre of 26 children and adults at a Connecticut elementary school Friday has left us searching for answers. Why did it happen? How could it have been stopped? Is there a way to avoid such tragedies in the future?

Predictably, the first knee jerk reaction to such a heartbreaking event, was for more gun control--or, as some have suggested, the prohibition of all guns in the United States.

That, of course, would require the elimination of the Second Amendment which says, in part: 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

Let's look at some facts about gun ownership in the United States.  According to the  General Social Survey (GSS), there are approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States. This means that 25 percent of all adults owned at least one firearm.

The National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted a few years ago, reported that Americans own 192 million guns, with 36% of these consisting of rifles, 34% handguns, 26% shotguns, and 4% of other types of long guns. In the United States, 11% of households report actively being involved in hunting, with the remaining firearm owners having guns for self-protection and other reasons.

Imagine trying to confiscate 192 million guns. It simply will not happen--nor should it. After all, gun owners are not criminals. And while criminals do use guns to commit crimes, criminologists have  found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence.

It is interesting to note that at the outset of World War II the Japanese scrapped plans to invade the West Coast of America because they knew there were some 80 million guns in the hands of American citizens. That was not the case in places like China, Southeast Asia and other countries occupied by the Imperial Japanese Army.

That aside, what can possibly explain the massacre of innocent children, teachers and others at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and other places such as Virginia Tech University in 2007 when 32 people were killed and 17 others wounded by a deranged student who was diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder.

What caused Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old killer in the Sandy Hook shootings, to first shoot his mother in the face and then drive to the elementary school and slaughter defenseless children in their classrooms?

We may never know what demons infected Lanza's mind, though I am sure in the next several days and weeks armies of psychiatrists will offer up their opinions.

No matter what motives and reasons are put forth for such a horrific crime, there is little doubt that some will argue for changes to the Second Amendment and others will blame guns as the sole cause of such terrible violence.

This is simply wrong-headed. What about Hollywood's pandering to audiences with violent movies? What about gangster rap? Or the increasing violence in sports?  

And what about those graphically violent video games?

Scientists have long debated whether violent video games have an adverse effect on young people and recently the Supreme Court overturned a California ban on violent video games.

The court said that video games, even offensive ones, were protected by the First Amendment, and that there wasn't clear evidence that playing games such as Grand Theft Auto and Postal really harmed people.

However, research has shown that immediately after playing a violent video game, kids can have aggressive thoughts, angry feelings and physiological effects such as increased heart rate and blood pressure. In addition, studies that survey large populations of kids on their game-playing habits and measure aggressive personality traits or self-reported aggressive acts — physical fights, arguments with teachers — often find an association between games and aggression.

Other known factors more strongly linked to child aggression are a history of abuse, poverty, genetics and personality — and the risk climbs higher when several factors are present in combination.

For example, the continued destruction of the traditional family in which children are reared by two caring and responsible parents has been linked to children who are overly aggressive and angry.

In the case of Adam Lanza, for example, his parents divorced in 2008. Studies have shown that many children of divorced parents have difficulty adjusting and often blame themselves for the breakup. That in turn leads to feelings of hostility, bouts of depression and a sense of isolation.

Is that what set Adam Lanza off on his mission of murder and suicide? Once again, we may never know definitively.

But what we do know is that the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution to allow Americans to defend their lives and property from the aggression of individuals or government.

In the history of the world it has been governments, not individual gun owners, that have been the greatest origin of genocide and oppression. When governments want to control their populations, the first thing they do is eliminate the ability of individuals to defend or protect themselves.

People who want to scrap or dilute the Second Amendment should take a few moments to reflect on that.  

Old Journalism or Impartial Journalism?

There has been a lot of criticism leveled recently at journalists and the craft they practice--and in some cases, rightly so.

However, a lot of that criticism is coming from academia and professors who tell students that they need to go "beyond reporting the news"--code for what they think news organizations should not keep doing: traditional news stories with traditional structure and content.

They like to refer to that kind of journalism--the kind that I and thousands of my contemporaries practiced, as "old journalism"--as if somehow journalism today has shifted into a higher gear and the fundamentals we all learned are simply passé.

For example, they talk disparagingly about conventional newspaper journalism: "stories that package painstakingly gathered facts on current events -- what happened, who said what, when -- have lost much of their value. Journalists must "stop romanticizing the mere gathering and organization of facts." 

 New Journalism has advanced beyond the old Who, What, When, Where, Why and How era into this new realm that values subjective interpretation and analysis, they insist. Where I diverge from these critics is in the way that analysis and interpretation has been allowed to seep into what should be thoughtful, balanced reporting that allows the reader or viewer to form opinions without having them jammed down his or her throat. 

Recently one journalism professor at New York University wrote that "the extra value our quality news organizations can and must regularly add is analysis: thoughtful, incisive attempts to divine the significance of events — insights, not just information; wisdom, not just facts."  I have no argument with this.

But thoughtful and incisive aren't enough, he added. Insights must be speedy as well.

"Being fast with the analysis is as important today as being fast with the news has been for the last hundred years," he said. 

  In theory, that may sound plausible. But the problem is that fast and thoughtful seldom go together. Fast and wise is even more improbable. 

 I speak here as someone who has worked in both worlds--some 27 years with the Chicago Tribune, mostly as a foreign correspondent in Asia and Latin America (and as a national and metro editor) AND as a professor and Dean of the College of Media at the University of Illinois for 13 years. The classes I taught were heavy in fundamentals.

We talked about careful sourcing of stories, of fairness, of keeping biases out of what is produced. We talked about not rushing to judgment, of making sure that you got as many of the facts as you could and that no matter how complete a big story may seem to be on the first day, it will become more complete with time and more reporting.

Stories that are not carefully sourced or that are too subjective are highly unlikely to contribute wisdom, especially in the first hours of a big breaking news event. What they are far more likely to be is wrong or misleading. Rather than adding value for the reader, trying to write analytically before enough facts are in will usually result in the kind of shoddy, careless journalism that journalists are often criticized for producing today.

I am aware that those who taught in our Media Studies program focused more on the perception of news rather than the old-fashioned donkey work required to gather it with speed and accuracy. They came up with books that lambasted journalism and journalists for failing to generate national conversations about issues, when in fact, that is exactly what good, incisive reporting does. As someone once said: "A good newspaper is, I suppose, a nation talking to itself."

For folks who think in terms of semesters and six year tenure clocks the idea of being first with a story is a quaint image that belongs in an old movie like "Deadline USA" or "The Front Page." Most have never worked in a professional newsroom with its attendant pressures of deadlines, accuracy and skilled writing. Or if they have, it may have been for a year or two until they decided this kind of work was "not suited" to their more cerebral, languorous brains.

I bit my tongue more than once during my time in academia because, just as a soldier can never explain what it is like to be in combat to someone who has never experienced it, I found it impossible to impart to academics the rush and sense of satisfaction a reporter feels when he or she is first with a breaking or exclusive story.

It isn't just the fact that the reporter was first with the story, there is also the aftermath of the story--that it will possibly have a positive impact on people's lives, or that it will right some wrong, or that in some other way it will make a difference because the reporter was there to witness and report.

A Big Reason Obama Won: The News Media

Something has happened to journalism in America. And it's sad.

Skillful, tough reporting has been replaced by reporters, editors and producers who are allowing their political biases and agendas to get in the way of what journalists once valued as a search for the truth.

The So-Called Big Five

Truth is no longer the goal. Instead the objective for reporters today is to provide uncritical enthusiastic support for the person, position, idea or social stance that best conforms to their worldview.

How things have changed from the time I entered the journalism profession in 1969 right out of college.

I made the leap from being the editor of my college newspaper (The University Daily Kansan at the University of Kansas) to covering the city of Chicago for the Chicago Tribune.

It was a not an easy leap! First, I was exposed to some of the best reporting in the United States. There were five competing newspaper in Chicago then and the competition was fierce. I learned very quickly just how little I knew about being a good reporter.

Second, what I wrote was passed through some of the toughest editors I have ever known. And it was that experience that allowed me to hone both by reporting and writing skills to the point that I was given the ultimate job as foreign correspondent.

But before I made that move, I spent five years covering Chicago, often working horrible hours and covering just about every kind of story. This was called "seasoning" and I am still grateful for that experience.

I learned quickly to keep any bias I might have out of what I reported and wrote. Any hint of opinion in one of my stories and I was called to the City Editor's desk where I was (how shall I say it?) Critiqued? Disparaged? How about verbally bludgeoned?

"Keep your opinions to yourself!" the late Don Agrella, my feisty old Day City Editor would say. "People don't give a shit what YOU think!"

Don must be screaming his head off when he looks down from heaven at the Tribune and other newspapers today.

Too many stories today are filled with opinion--or even worse--are made incomplete by the deliberate omission of facts or information that would create a fair and balanced report.

Even worse are the media's purposeful failure to cover stories that might be damaging to a position or a person that the reporter, editor or producer doesn't want to harm.

Look at the way the media have covered President Obama--or should I say, have refused to cover him when stories were deemed detrimental to him.

If you watched the debates you saw this for yourself in the second debate when Candy Crowley, CNN's chief political correspondent who was moderating the event, jumped in and corrected Mitt Romney when he challenged Obama on his failure to call the attack on the Benghazi consulate an act of terror--even though Obama was obviously lying.

 Look at this exchange from the second debate:

ROMNEY: I -- I think it's interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me--call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

But of course, the damage was already done. Crowley's action made it seem as if Romney didn't have his facts together, when in fact, he did.

According to the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden remarks Obama spoke only generically about how “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation.” Not once did he directly refer to the violence in Benghazi as a "terrorist attack."

Next, let's look at Hurricane Sandy. Obama makes a one day trip to a few places, including New Jersey and FEMA and other federal agencies begin patting themselves on their backs praising the great job they are doing to help victims of the storm.

In fact, millions of people are still without power, food, medical help and other forms of assistance and are wondering where FEMA is.

Now rewind back to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and recall, if you will, the way President Bush was excoriated for not doing more to help those victims.

Yet here we are with a storm that has left millions more Americans homeless and without shelter than Katrina and the media has said nary a discouraging word about our recently re-elected Golfer-in-Chief and how his administration has obviously dropped the ball.

If this were a Republican president I can guarantee that the media would be hammering him (or her) relentlessly on their callous disregard for the suffering millions along the East Coast. But not Obama. He gets a pass.

Then there is the most relevant issue of all--the horrible U.S. economy. The media seldom said anything about it during the campaign nor did it hold Obama's feet to the fire they way it did with President Bush.

According to a study by the Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute in 2004 the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year.

The Media Have Put a Halo Around Obama

How many stories have you seen about $4 and $5 per gallon gasoline in the past six months? Now think back to 2004 and 2005--the last time gas prices were this high. Stories were rampant about the high price of gasoline and guess what? The media blamed President Bush!

Today, we have 7.9 percent unemployment, 23 million Americans without jobs and a president who has increased our national debt to $16 trillion and is likely to push it to $20 trillion before he is finished.

Of course when you have a president like the one half of this country just re-elected and who the media apparently think is able to walk on water and turn it into wine, news organizations are strangely silent.

They refuse to report critically about the economy, about a president who spent more time the past six months on the campaign trail and on golf courses than he did in the oval office, about the deaths of four Americans in Libya and the dismal failure of FEMA and other federal organizations to help Hurricane Sandy victims.

No, this is definitely not the kind of hard-hitting, watch dog journalism that I cut my teeth on in Chicago.

This is nothing more than classic public relations with a media working on behalf of a president that now has four more years to destroy traditional American values, undermine capitalism, weaken our military and eviscerate the nation's position as the world's only democratic superpower.

Where are the Don Agrella's of the world when we need them more than ever?