I am struck by the fact that the conversation, here and nationally, is
emotional and derives from one's political beliefs. For fair disclosure, I
find the whole concept of owning a gun for the purpose of killing people
(even if in "self defense") simply unfathomable. I just don't get it.
As a member of a professional obsessed with the concept of safety and
steeped in the philosophy of high-reliability principles, I find some of
the recommended "solutions" to be jaw dropping.
In our profession, we have moved well past the concept of "Try Harder".
"Try Harder" is essentially what it means to hold the FBI accountable for
picking up every low amplitude signal presented to it in a country of 320
million people, where it only takes 1 unhinged person who is otherwise like
10,000 others to wreak such devastation.
"Try Harder" is what it means to "solve" the problem by asking a grossly
(and deliberately) underfunded mental health system to either identify all
of these individuals in advance or more unrealistically to "help" them so
that they never reach the point of mass murder.
As an approach to safety, this is nonsense and we would be fired from our
jobs if we approached medicine this way.
If we conducted a scientific Root Cause Analysis, the solutions become
obvious. And not emotional. Just plain obvious.
I would rather we as a society stop obfuscating and dissembling. Say it
like it is.
When I hear someone say that the solution to the increasing number of mass
murder events is to "Try Harder" or worse, to weaponize the entire
population, what I really hear is:
This is the "cost" of having the second amendment and we just need to deal
Of course, it is not acceptable to say this, but at least we could speak
more clearly from our relative positions.
For more information, send mail to [log in to unmask] with the message: info PED-EM-L
The URL for the PED-EM-L Web Page is: