RFK ASSASSINATION — THE SECOND GUNMAN EVIDENCE

It’s been 50 years since United States Senator Robert Francis (Bobby) Kennedy’s murder in the kitchen of Los Angeles’ Ambassador Hotel. Bobby Kennedy just won the California Democratic nomination as their presidential candidate. Kennedy left the hotel ballroom after his acceptance speech and cut through the pantry where he suffered three bullet wounds, one of them fatal. Caught red-handed—holding a smoking gun—was Christian Palestinian immigrant Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, later convicted of RFK’s assassination.

Despite overwhelming evidence that Sirhan intentionally shot at Bobby Kennedy, there’re dark doubt shadows looming over the case. They indicate Sirhan didn’t act alone. Problems with witness statements, autopsy findings and ballistic testing suggest evidence that a second gunman conspired in RFK’s shooting. Mistakes and incompetence in the original police investigation also amplify suspicion of a second gunman accomplice.

A highly-credible medical team recently reviewed the original RFK medical and autopsy evidence. For the first time in history, independent professionals looked at the facts and circumstances surrounding Kennedy’s injuries and treatment. In June 2018, they published findings in a medical field’s leading gazette, the Journal of Neuroscience. This clear and concise report examines what happened from a medical perspective and whether there’s any pathological basis providing evidence that a second gunman helped shoot Bobby Kennedy to death.

RFK’s Deadly Road Towards the Presidency

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy seemed certain to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for United States President. Riding on his experience as his brother John F. Kennedy’s attorney general, sympathy over JFK’s assassination and the famous Kennedy name, RFK was well on his road to winning the American presidency. Lyndon Johnson declined a second term, and other Democratic candidates ran a distant second to RFK’s popularity.

Despite being admired, Bobby Kennedy had his enemies. As AG, RFK took on the mob and the communists as well as volatile groups like the Teamsters Union and the Ku Klux Klan. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover hated the Kennedys, and the high profile name made Bobby a target for right-wing activists and lefty nut cases alike. Without a doubt, there were many sights gunning for Robert F. Kennedy.

Unlike today’s tight reins, there was little security for presidential primary candidates back in 1968. The Secret Service had no detail for political candidates, and they did little or no threat assessment or background checks on anyone thought dangerous to candidates. RFK’s security team consisted of a retired NFL linebacker, a former Olympic Medalist and a hired part-time security guard carrying a .38 Special. That’s all the protection Bobby Kennedy had when he arrived at the Ambassador Hotel in downtown LA.

Securing the California primary significantly strengthened RFK’s run for the White House. Democratic runner-up, Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, fell further behind as did former Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon seemed certain to be Kennedy’s challenge for the Oval Office. Had Kennedy lived, Nixon might have lost, and Watergate would never have happened.

That’s not how history went down. On June 4, 1968 Bobby Kennedy won the California Democratic nomination and gave a rousing acceptance speech to a packed house of enthusiastic supporters. Just after midnight, at 12:15 am on June 5, Kennedy stepped from the podium and exited to the kitchen where a smaller crowd of hotel staff and assistants wished him well. RFK moved through the packed pantry, shaking hands and acknowledging folks.

Sirhan laid in wait at the galley’s west end. As Kennedy approached, Sirhan whipped out a .22 caliber, 8-shot Iver Johnson Cadet revolver and emptied it towards RFK. Bullets struck Kennedy three times and collaterally wounded five bystanders. Bobby Kennedy fell to the floor, semi-conscious but mortally wounded with a gunshot wound to the brain. Kitchen staff jumped Sirhan. They wrested the now-empty gun from his hand.

RFK lay motionless for 17 minutes before first responders arrived. A dispatch communication mistakenly sent Kennedy to the nearby Central Receiving Hospital instead of the larger Good Samaritan Hospital which was far better equipped to handle cranial gunshot wounds. Assessing Kennedy’s grave condition, Central’s staff transferred him directly to Samaritan. The delay took nearly an hour post-shooting, however, the 2018 medical review determined it made no difference to RFK’s fate. Despite heroic surgery attempts, his brain wound was untreatable.

Robert Francis Kennedy died at 1:44 am on June 6, 1968. The nation mourned another Kennedy assassination. RFK’s road to the presidency ended in violence, and his dream of furthering civil rights and middle-class prosperity died with him. Sirhan stood trial as the lone gunman. He was convicted, sentenced to death, but later commuted to life in prison. Today, Bobby Kennedy rests under the grounds of Arlington and Sirhan sits behind bars in San Diego.

The RFK Conspiracy Theories Start

Like most high-profile deaths, there are those refusing to buy official conclusions despite how solid evidence seems. John Kennedy’s assassination is the mother of all conspiracy theories, but little brother Bobby’s fate is no exclusion. In fact, there are three deeply disturbing discrepancies in the RFK murder worth investigating.

The big problems with the RFK assassination lie in the true number of shots fired as well as the position and distance of Sirhan relative to Kennedy in the kitchen. Officially, Sirhan fired all 8 shots in his revolver from the front and approximately 2 to 3 feet ahead of RFK. Unofficially, more than 8 shots went off with some bullets allegedly fired from behind Robert Kennedy. That suggests a second gunman.

Further, the eye-witness evidence appears clear that Sirhan maintained some distance, firing from the front on a level and downward angle. The medical and autopsy evidence seems clear that RFK’s fatal brain wound came from a near point-blank gunshot occurring behind his right ear and from an upward angle. Again, that suggests a second gunman.

On the surface, this conflicting evidence is more than troubling. There was also trouble during Sirhan’s trail with inaccurate testimony and confusion by police forensic experts over identifying the RFK murder weapon. There were so many errant issues raised that the United States government appointed a 1975 commission to reinvestigate the RFK assassination. It was supported by the FBI who took no role in the original murder case as the Los Angeles Police Department maintained primary jurisdiction.

The RFK reinvestigation struggled with inconsistent witness statements, confusing forensic evidence and now-missing pieces to the puzzle. Despite perceived problems with proof and procedure, the commission ruled Sirhan Bishara Sirhan acted alone. They found no credible evidence of a second gunman. That was despite being unable to explain a few troubling issues.

Many people don’t accept Sirhan’s original trial verdict or the commission conclusions. This takes in members of the Kennedy family like Robert F. Kennedy, Junior. As well, some of the victims wounded in the Ambassador Hotel shooting and various eyewitnesses present at the time are convinced of a second gunman. Like other conspiracy theorists, they point to the perceptual problems associated with the number of shots and the location of RFK’s fatal wound.

No sensible spectator or serious student of the RFK assassination suggests Sirhan didn’t fire 8 shots. That evidence is overwhelming. But, there’s a lot of information published pointing to more than eight bullet strikes in the Ambassador kitchen. How credible that information is—is the question.

The other major issue—according to conspiracy promoters—is the head wound. By all official accounts, Sirhan never got within a few feet of RFK and remained facing him from the front. The medical and autopsy evidence clearly shows stippling from gunpowder residue burns on Kennedy’s skin and hair at the bullet entrance wound. That evidence seems consistent with the fatal firearm being discharged within inches of RFK’s head, not several feet.

The 2018 independent review published in the Journal of Neurosurgery examined RFK’s hospital treatment and autopsy evidence. They didn’t deal with the “more-than-8-shots” issue. The expert panel left that for the conspiracy theorists and those wanting to research RFK crime scene examination evidence.

The 2018 Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) Review

Three prominent neurosurgeons and trauma practitioners privately reviewed RFK’s medical records and autopsy report. This was independent of any government agency or special interest group. First, they outlined the history of Robert Kennedy’s campaign and the circumstances bringing him in contact with Sirhan.

Next, the review panel outlined RFK’s emergency treatment and follow-up surgery as well as post-op care. Then, the panel focused on the so-called “perfect autopsy” performed by the famous Los Angeles coroner and forensic pathologist, Dr. Thomas Noguchi. Finally, the experts reassessed Kennedy’s medical care to see if anything more could have been done to save RFK’s life.

Robert F. Kennedy suffered 3 separate .22 caliber gunshot wounds. Two were superficial and non-life-threatening. The third was ultimately fatal. One entered the right side of his back. This bullet was recovered intact inside RFK’s body. The second non-lethal bullet entered his right armpit and exited his shoulder. It was not recovered. The fatal bullet entered RFK’s skull behind his right ear. It fragmented, sending lead shrapnel and bone chips deep into RFK’s brain, remaining in the gray matter.

The JNS report outlines the brain injury and medical treatment in impressive detail. The doctor panel concludes so much cranial damage occurred that it was a miracle RFK lived as long as he did. They credit the 1968 medical intervention as first-rate. They report even with today’s medical advancements, if RFK was shot this way in 2018, no modern trauma team would be able to save him.

The JNS panel confirmed Dr. Noguchi’s autopsy findings of close-contact gunshot residue (GSR) stippling identified at RFK’s headshot entrance wound. They correctly observed in the autopsy report Noguchi made no reference to the distance the firearm’s muzzle was from RFK’s skin at discharge. Rather, they reported “a discrepancy between eyewitness reports that Sirhan came no closer than 12 to 18 inches from Kennedy when the shooting occurred and Noguchi’s later writings, stating the gun was no more than 3 inches of the right ear when fired”.

The JNS team also referenced a public Noguchi quote where he made clear his autopsy report didn’t imply Sirhan was the lone shooter. That early quote forever fueled conspiracy fires and formed the foundation for those purporting the second gunman claim. On the record, Noguchi always maintained whoever fired the fatal gunshot into Bobby Kennedy was slightly behind him and in very close quarters.

The More-Than-8-Shots Issue

The JNS doctors steered clear of this positioning can of worms. Rightfully so. This wasn’t their field of expertise. That evidence belongs in the police and forensic investigation wheelhouse. Arm-chair detectives with a half-century of hindsight picked the position puzzle apart from every angle. So they’ve done with the number of shots.

Essentially, the Los Angeles police investigators accounted for eight crime scene bullets. They also tested Sirhan’s .22 caliber, 8-shot revolver and ballistically linked the recovered bullets to Sirhan’s gun—except for the fatal bullet from RFK’s brain. It was too fragmented to identify microscopic striations unique to Sirhan’s firearm.

Most of the “evidence” for the more-than-8-shot theory came from news media reports focused on a photo apparently displaying two bullet holes in a door frame in the Ambassador kitchen. Conspiracy theorists used the logic that if eight bullets were already accounted for, then two extra holes formed positive proof of a second gunman. After all, Sirhan’s revolver contained 8 empty shell casings. He did not have time to reload.

Conspiracy theorists also rely on varying eye and ear witnesses to support their more-than-8-shot suspicions. Many in the kitchen reported hearing 10, 12 and as many as 15 shots blasting off. The RFK case even took a scientific sound step where a media recording allegedly taken during the assassination captured the shots on audio. Various forensic experts extensively analyzed the audio but can’t conclusively agree there were more than 8 shots fired.

There’s a rabbit hole of hints, innuendo and suggestions of extra shots out there in the RFK assassination world. But, there’s one true fact not resolved by the official investigation. That’s that the fatal fragments from RFK’s brain have not been forensically linked to Sirhan’s revolver. It leaves the suspicion door open that it’s physically possible for a second gunman being involved.

Nowhere in the documented RFK assassination evidence is there any reference to forensic authorities trying other tests on the brain bullet fragments than examining for microscopic striations. Bullet lead composition analysis (BLCA) and neutron activation analysis (NAA) techniques were available in 1968. In fact, the John F. Kennedy assassination investigators employed both scientific processes. BCLA and NAA became a ballistic cornerstone establishing Lee Harvey Oswald as JFK’s lone assassin.

Every experienced forensic investigator realizes that BLCA and NAA analysis are indicative or exclusive tests rather than conclusive evidence like tool markings left by firearm rifling engravings. That means running BLCA and NAA tests on RFK’s brain fragments and comparing them to groups analyzed from the known Sirhan bullets would either eliminate or associate them as originating from the same ammunition source.

Unfortunately, there’s no record of anyone conducting these two important forensic examinations. Assuming the RFK bullet exhibits are still available, there’s no reason they couldn’t be done today. That could establish or further rule out the second gunman theory. But, there’s no apparent appetite for any official review, regardless of requests from Kennedy family members to reopen the case.

Sirhan Bishara Sirhan’s Background and Motive

Every homicide investigation team looks at their suspect’s motive and associates. It’s always necessary to establish or rule out accessories to the crime. The RFK murder is no different for investigating who Sirhan was, why he did it and if he had help.

Sirhan originated in the Middle East’s Palestinian region. He was a Christian, not a Muslim as many believe. Sirhan immigrated to America in 1956 when he was 12. His family settled in Pasadena, California where he matured. Little in Sirhan’s history shows him as a potential political assassin.

Investigation after RFK’s murder found Sirhan’s diary which was full of apparently psychotic references repeating “Bobby Kennedy Must Die”. It seems Sirhan, in some twisted way, fixated on killing RFK and sought an opportunity. That presented at the 1968 Democratic convention when Sirhan simply walked into the Ambassador kitchen through an unlocked door, hung around and then opened fire.

Nothing in Sirhan’s background found him politically linked or motivated by terrorist agenda. He seemed an immigrant Arabic lone wolf version of the All-American psychopath. Like Oswald, Sirhan gained fame by shooting someone famous.

Sirhan was a rubber ball of confessions, recantations and failed recollections. Initially, Sirhan told police investigators he shot RFK because of Kennedy’s policy of arming Israelis with Phantom fighter jets to bomb Palestinian people. At trial, Sirhan denied this motive but admitted being the shooter. Later, he totally recanted his testimony. Over the decades, Sirhan molded himself into a self-serving position of failed memory due to some form of external hypnosis influence during RFK’s shooting.

One thing’s consistent about Sirhan’s statements. Although his motive remains questionable, he never outwardly accused anyone of being his accomplice. Sirhan never said there was a second gunman—at least to his knowledge. He leaves it to conspiracy theorists and authorities to explain inconsistencies like the number of shots fired, the gunshot residue, the distance from the muzzle to RFK’s skin and the relative positions while Bobby Kennedy was shot.

Reconciling the RFK Assassination Discrepancies

And, every murder investigation has evidentiary discrepancies being tough to reconcile. There’s no reason RFK’s assassination should be the exception. Experienced homicide investigators understand a value found in Occam ’s Razor. That’s the age-old problem-solving principle—when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem—one selects the answer making the fewest assumptions. Usually, the simplest answer to reconciling a discrepancy is the best and proper answer.

The JNS review panel dealt with Sirhan’s position relative to Bobby Kennedy’s gunshot entrance wounds with a simple observation. While eyewitnesses varied about distances between the shooter and victim, they agreed on body positions. Yes, Sirhan was to the west and ahead of RFK, but Kennedy was turned to his left, exposing his right side to Sirhan. The right side and behind the ear hits were a matter of predetermined physical geometry. So was the apparent upward angle of the fatal brain shot. Kennedy was aside of Sirhan and bent over talking to a busboy.

The JNS reviewers were cautious about distance reports. They note Noguchi made no distance reference in his postmortem exam report. He only verified gunshot residue presence on RFK’s skin and hair. It’s later media recorded comments from Noguchi that committed his estimating an RFK muzzle distance of 3 or less inches.

Again, Occam’s Razor applies to assess Noguchi’s statements. Although Dr. Noguchi was an experienced pathologist, he wasn’t necessarily an expert in GSR distances and patterns. Noguchi’s credibility has to be questioned in this case. He had a reputation as being an egotist thriving on his fame as the “coroner to the stars”.

Thomas Noguchi performed autopsies on celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, Natalie Wood, John Belushi and Sharon Tate. Some suggest Noguchi loved the limelight and extended his realm of expertise with unqualified opinions. Interpreting gunshot residue patterns may be beyond Noguchi’s talent. He might simply be wrong about estimating GSR discharge distance in RFK’s case.

Plenty of forensic science literature in murder investigations show GSR patterns present from muzzle distances of 1 or more feet. There’s no reason GSR from a short-barreled .22 Iver Johnson revolver couldn’t have produced stippled powder burns on RFK’s skin and hair from several feet away. Note the only link with the RFK-GSR second gunman theory comes from Noguchi’s belated media opinion. There’s no other source qualifying maximum muzzle measurement.

With gunshot angles and distance discrepancies reasonably rectified, the only remaining trouble area is the number of shots fired. Again, all RFK crime scene investigation evidence accounts for 8 fired bullets. There’s no credible case for more than 8 shots in RFK’s murder. There’s only speculation based on unsupported information.

Applying Occam ’s Razor to conspiracy theories in Robert F. Kennedy case concludes Sirhan Sirhan fired all shots. He acted alone without an accomplice. There’s no credible evidence otherwise, and that’s because non-events leave no evidence. It never happened any other way.

There was no second gunman in the RFK assassination.

WILDLIFE TROPHY HUNTING — THE ECONOMICS, ETHICS AND EMOTIONS

Many people view wildlife trophy hunting as morally indefensible. They consider it abhorrently unethical to kill wild animals for sport and display their body parts as testaments to testosterone, despite economic implications. Then, there are those who support trophy hunts, defending it as a rite of passage, a way of preserving cultural heritage and a massive money maker. For both sides, the trophy hunt debate is emotional.

Although trophy hunting might not be ethical to most, it’s still legal in many countries. Trophy hunts are prominent in Africa and North America. They bring in a lot of money to local economies. So does wildlife ecotourism and the ability to shoot a majestic animal countless times with a camera while doing no harm.

The debate over wildlife trophy hunting isn’t going away. Recently, the State of Wyoming allowed a limited entry kill-hunt for a quota of 22 grizzly bears on the fringe of Yellowstone Park’s boundaries. That’s not just for mature males. It’s legal to slay a pregnant female and stuff her as your rug. Meanwhile, the Province of British Columbia finally banned grizzly bear hunting except for allowing indigenous people their ceremonial harvest.

High profile trophy kills get opponents riled up. Rightfully so. Killing Cecil the Lion by luring him outside Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park so American dentist Walter James Palmer could drive an arrow through Cecil unleased a hellfire of anti-hunting fury. Then there’s the recent auction where one license to kill a critically endangered black rhinoceros went for $225,000—allegedly with the proceeds going towards protecting black rhinos. Go figure.

I’ve seen both sides of the trophy hunting fence. Over the years, I’ve matured. I used to support trophy hunting. Now I take the position wildlife trophy hunting is no longer justified under any circumstances. In my opinion, that includes native ceremonial hunts. However, I do support subsistence hunting, legitimate sport hunting where non-threatened animals are taken for food and culls where invasive species need eradicating to maintain a balanced ecosystem.

I haven’t always been this opposed to trophy hunting. Far from it. Shamefully, I admit—I used to trophy hunt. Before analyzing the economics, ethics and emotions surrounding the trophy hunt issue, let me tell you my background, why I once trophy hunted and why I changed my ways.

I was raised in the Whiteshell Park in southeastern Manitoba, Canada. My father was a mink farmer and ran a trap line for supplemental income. Being brought up in the fur industry, I didn’t see anything wrong with harvesting animals for food and pelts. Our mink were euthanized humanely, and my dad abhorred leg-hold traps, using quick-kill Conibears instead. It was our livelihood as it was for many people in our community.

The thought of killing an animal for sport or having a trophy never entered my mind as a kid. My dad didn’t do it. Neither did our neighbors. But times changed in my teens, and the local economy switched from subsistence harvesting to supporting trophy hunts for large game like moose, deer and black bears. That’s because fur prices tanked due to anti-trapping movements. To survive, country folk began guide-outfitting big game, cashing-in on wealthy city-slickers and American adventurers’ egos.

I joined Canada’s national police force at 21. I was posted to British Columbia which is a trophy hunter’s mecca. But now, I was starting to have mixed feelings about subsistence vs. trophy hunting ethics. Deep down, something wasn’t right.

My trophy hunting phase ended when I got a mountain goat tag and climbed to lofty heights to get the drop on a Billy. Mountain goats normally look down for threats, not up. Sure enough, I skillfully and stealthily stalked from the top and got him in my crosshairs. I set my finger on the trigger, started the squeeze… then stopped. “Bang”, whispered my mouth. I slipped the safety on, set my rifle aside and spent the next half hour watching this beautiful creature peacefully go about his God-given business.

Unfortunately, I didn’t have a camera. But the memory of watching that goat graze and navigate the rock face indelibly etched my mind. It’s still far, far more rewarding—not economically, but ethically and emotionally—to envision that goat rather than having his head on my wall. I wish every trophy hunter could have that Euphemia.

I never trophy hunted again. But, I did go on the biggest, big game hunt imaginable. This one changed my life forever. I was part of an Emergency Response Team sent to capture a deranged and murderous madman terrorizing the Canadian north. He had the cunning of an animal, the intelligence of a human, was on his own turf and was armed with a rifle. Plus, he had every intention of hunting us down and killing us. Sadly, he fatally shot my partner and almost got me. I was forced to put him down.

After that, I never went hunting again. I’ve even stopped fishing and would rather put a spider outside. I had another life-changer a few years ago when I reinvented careers and took a job guiding eco-tourists from around the world to see grizzly bears and whales on the British Columbia coast. These wealthy adventurers paid over $2,000 per day to shoot creatures with cameras. To think grizzlies were legally killed for personal pleasure was absolutely abhorrent to them—and to me.

That brings my opposition to trophy hunting full circle. I can’t support this practice from an economical, ethical or emotional point. Looking back, I struggle with why some people still enjoy slaughtering an animal for their ego. Maybe they need to grow up—like I had to.

So where did this trophy hunting mentality come from? It’s been around a long time. Creating relics from animal body parts dates back to ancient societies. “Trophy” comes from the Greek word tropian which means to defeat. Historically, trophies like scalps and appendages were collected as fetish emblems of conquest to convey warrior or hunter prowess of power, strength and status.

It’s one thing to wage war on other humans and conquer enemies in the name of self-preservation. It’s also another thing for humans to harvest animals as subsistence in providing food and clothing. But there’s something ethically twisted about humans elevating themselves above the “lesser” animal kingdom where displaying their severed body parts as collectables, souvenirs and oddities somehow shows a hunter’s status.

Trophy hunters have a distinct profile. Predominantly, they’re conservative white males of European or North American descent. Most are wealthy men of privilege who have the time and money to undertake this expensive and lengthy pursuit. In almost all jurisdictions, licensed trophy hunters must hire guides. They also charter planes, boats and stay in luxury lodges. As well, they buy expensive rifles and wear the best hunting gear from Cabelas.

Trophy hunting supporters shy from the ethical argument and rely on the economics. Statistics are tough to support, especially with the trickle-down analogy, but it’s safe to say many trophy hunters shell out $20,000 or a lot more for their chance to assassinate an animal. No doubt, that’s a lot of money going into an economy—especially if it’s a poorer part of Africa or a northern First Nations community.

You can make the same economic argument about camera shooting. Eco-tourism is a rising economic engine in Africa and North America. Right now, I have friends on an African Safari and just looked at their Facebook photos of giraffes and elephants. Tomorrow, they’re camera hunting lions and I look forward to seeing their very expensive pics of the big cats, too. Canadians Melissa and Ed are injecting big bucks into the African eco-tourism economy.

Then, there’s the economic argument of raising money for conservation through trophy hunting. I call bullshit on this one, too. I’m quoting Miles Moretti, president of the Mule Deer Foundation in Utah where his group raised $200,000 from mulie tags. Moretti says, “Can a guy buy a tag every year? Yes, if he’s got the money. So what if it’s not fair. Well, life’s not fair. This is a way to raise money for wildlife.” What Moretti avoided telling the investigative reporter is that most of the 200 thousand dollars went to fund politicians supporting the NRA and the Safari Club International. The rest went to lobbyists wanting a wolf kill so they’ll be more mule deer to trophy hunt.

Pro-trophy hunters always bring up an “ethical” defense where they claim only mature males of a species are harvested. This follows the reasoning these old guys are past their breeding prime despite displaying healthy hides and horns. Therefore, there’s no harm to the overall species. In fact, they claim, this distributes the gene pool more efficiently as it gives the younger males a chance to sow seed.

That argument doesn’t wash, if you listen to University of Washington professor Rob Wielgus who is the director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Laboratory. Despite trophy hunting proponents throwing out deceptive terms for wildlife management like metrics, population estimates, harvestable-surplus and acceptable kill-quotas, Wielgus provides scientific proof that old males are especially critical as apex predators.

He’s studied big bears and big cats since 1982 and has indisputable evidence that when trophy hunters kill dominant apex predator males, the younger males aren’t up to the replacement job. Killing mature and dominant males sets off a chain of events, according to Wielgus. New immigrant males move to the territory and kill infant animals to bring mature females back into estrus. This not only decimates future breeding stock, it forces fleeing females into populated areas where their feeding habits change. That conflicts with humans, and these nuisance animals are euthanized.

According to Wielgus, “Basically, the new guy finally establishes a territory and then he gets killed and the whole thing starts over again. So you don’t end up with more or fewer carnivores. What you have is a bunch of teenage carnivores wreaking havoc on the system and a bunch of dead cubs and starving females.”

According to representatives of the Safari Club International, trophy hunting is an honorable and prestigious money maker. That alone, according to this exclusive men’s club, justifies the practice. They make no bones that economic resources are the primary factor for a trophy hunter to buy their way into recognition with one of their coveted awards like the Africa Big Five Award.

Hunters who can afford trips, guides and equipment have the exclusive ability to bag lion, leopard, rhino, elephant and cape buffalo and rise to the top of the trophy hit list. Because not everyone can afford repeated African safaris nor is in physical condition to hunt in the wild, now a trophy hunter can qualify for the Big Five by hunting lions and cape buffalo raised in captivity on American game farms. You can even hunt from a wheelchair—as long as you show them the money.

These game farms are called “canned hunting”. Trophy hunters who legitimately face the wilds by hiking or on horseback spending days on a stalk and passing on inferior animals claim their success comes from stealth and stamina. That is the mark of an excellent hunter. I argue that’s also the mark of an excellent photographer, but you can’t bring that reasoning into canned hunts.

Canned hunting only requires money. There’s no patience or ethical restraint in this game. Canned hunters use the most expedient methods of execution available. They show egocentrism, display impulsive behavior and seek immediate gratification. Take the case of former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney who trophy hunted canned pheasants. One weekend, Cheney and friends bagged 417 farm-raised ringnecks. Cheney, himself, dropped 70 birds before accidentally shotgunning his hunting partner. In a clear case of over-eagerness to kill, Cheney seriously violated basic gun safety rules. He’s lucky he wasn’t charged with the dangerous use of a firearm.

Justifying trophy hunting from an economic reasoning is a thin argument. You can make exactly the same case by promoting eco-tourism where a hunter trades his rifle for a camera. Yes, it’ll harm the taxidermy business, but there’s always a loser when times change, and people always adapt to different values and mindsets.

And that’s what trophy hunting is—a mindset. It’s a bygone, barbaric act from an archaic era. There’s no need to have animal parts mounted on a trophy room wall. The same effect is nicely done with framed photos. Trophy hunting is a contrived want that falsely presents a Euro-American way. It’s a way that should be gone forever.

I no longer buy the economic issue. I support the ethical stand that trophy hunting should stop while eco-hunting takes over. It takes as much skill—possibly more—to stalk wild animals and get a clear camera shot at them.

Ending live-kill trophy hunting is an economical, ethical and emotional discussion. It’s the emotions of a macho-man weakly demonstrating his right to bear arms against a defenseless animal. It’s also the emotions of passion people who ethically oppose trophy hunting by reaching out to their lawmakers. The people of British Columbia did that. On ethical grounds—not economic— they emotionally appealed to their legislature and got the grizzly kill stopped. That macho era is over in B.C.

In my opinion, there’s nothing manly about paying 10 grand for a guided hunt so an egotist can shoot a baited black bear from 50 yards with his .338 Lapua Magnum equipped with a 10X scope nicely rested on a bipod. If he truly wants trying something macho, he should strip buck-naked, jump in and go after a crocodile with a Bowie knife gripped in his teeth.

WHY AMERICA CAN’T EFFECTIVELY CONTROL GUNS

Every socially interconnected person in the world watches news reports of mass shootings in the United States of America. Most horrific are school student slayings where innocent kids are slaughtered by bullet volleys from automatic assault rifles. Then, there are multitudes of single gun-related murders, suicides and accidents. This rarely happens in other civilized counties where effective gun control prevents these tragedies from happening.

The key word is “effective”, as many individual American states do have gun control measures that reduce firearm access—especially to juvenile, criminal and mentally unstable individuals. But, the sad reality is that obtaining firearms and ammunition is far too easy in some of the states. It’s extremely difficult to effectively control guns at the federal level in America for historical and political reasons. There are also restrictions on studying the issue, so solutions can be formulated based on facts and information, rather than raw emotion.

Some American citizens are armed to the teeth, and they have no intention of infringing their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Not all Americans, by any means, but foreigners wonder why these few fanatics have this fascination with firearms. It’s like a love affair with their guns. To shed light on the American gun control issue, retired East Providence, Rhode Island police captain and author, Joe Broadmeadow, shares his thoughts and gives a brief history of America’s obsessive gun culture.

America’s Love Affair with Guns — A Brief History by Joe Broadmeadow

We can trace the genesis of the “American” gun culture back to the western expansion of the original colonies after the Revolutionary War. In crafting the Constitution, fear of a strong government backed by a standing army under the control of a monarch guided much of the design behind the American Government. Each of the three branches, Executive, Judicial and Legislative sharing power, is a check and balance against absolute centralized power.

One of the most influential groups, the Scots/Irish, contributed much of the fighting force of the Continental Army and carried with them a long-imbued loathing of English royal tyranny. These backwoodsmen’s guerilla tactics served as an equalizer to the overwhelming British numbers. So successful were the tactics that Ho Chi Minh studied and adapted them in the American War in Vietnam.

These Scots/Irish hated the English, hated government intrusion, and would die rather than yield. These rugged, independent colonists led the way west. Their resistance to governmental authority manifested itself in the language of the Constitution, an accommodation to these sentiments by the Virginia and New England aristocracy crafting the document.

A Well Regulated Militia

The famous Second Amendment—with its confusing wording—sought to lessen this fear when those forming the new government never envisioned the need for a standing army. They believed the separation of the Americas from Europe by the Atlantic Ocean served as deterrent enough. However, should the need arise, the states’ militias could be called to defend the country. Otherwise, they saw no harm in leaving military organization—the militia—to the control of the states.

The rifle, the primary weapon of defense and hunting, served as the instrument of the westward expansion. Pioneers used their firepower to provision their larder, and to attack and destroy the Native American populations who resisted this intrusion onto their traditional land. The image of the brave pioneer—bearing a musket rifle, powder horn and lead ball—became a fundamental part of the American psyche.

As the technology of weaponry improved, the killing became more efficient. Euro-Americans hunted the bison and Native Americans to near extinction.

Unlike other nations which grew through similar expansion—Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.—the American gun culture never outgrew its necessity or purpose in the United States. It continued into the modern world of 20th and 21st century America.

The Wild West Disappeared — The Spirit of the Wild West Never Did.

Weapon technology—driven by the Civil War and the growing American hegemony in the World Wars of the 20th century—kept improving. Improvement in firing rates and killing ability grew exponentially. In our intervention in Vietnam, we were the world power imposing our will on a peasantry through superior weaponry and overwhelming firepower. The M-16 rifle, developed and deployed during the Vietnam War, gave rise to its civilian cousin—the AR-15—the weapon of choice used in so many of the mass shootings.

The Wild West disappeared, but the spirit of the Wild West never did. The American gun culture clung to these new weapons with the same enthusiasm as if still facing Indian raiding parties or starvation from failed hunting expeditions. Our unique fascination—almost to the point of irrationality—with possessing firearms prevails to this day, despite the dubious claims of necessity.

The United States Constitution’s Second Amendment

The language of the Second Amendment lends itself to a broad spectrum of interpretation. A strict absolutism mentality says the government can impose no restrictions on private ownership of firearms. But, a more literal reading interprets the second amendment to mean that firearms can be kept solely to support a “well-regulated” militia.

The courts have given little guidance which settles the matter consistently. Instead, it is a dog’s breakfast of conflicting and convoluted decisions and language. While the court upholds the government ban on private ownership of automatic weapons, sound suppressors or short-barreled shotguns, there are exceptions. The court often declines cases that offer the opportunity for more specific findings.

Much of the case law makes no distinction between a small caliber handgun with limited round capacity and slow reloading speed to a semi-automatic, high capacity, rapid firing, shoulder weapon with hyper-velocity rounds specifically designed to cause maximum damage to humans.

In US Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court struck down a District of Columbia statute restricting handgun possession citing 2nd Amendment violations. The case did not garner a unanimous vote.

Justice Breyer (a Republican appointee) joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg, wrote a dissent which spells out the conditions under which government might place constitutional restrictions on possession of firearms. Breyer’s dissent said the Second Amendment protects “militia” related matters, and that the realities of the 18th century made it necessary for civilians to keep firearms within their households.

Interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court Heller Decision

This interpretation does not prohibit the potential for using these weapons for self-defense purposes, but the amendment permitted this as it related to the protected militia functionality. There has not been a case with sufficient similarity granted certiorari before the court since, so the matter remains clouded even as the decision stands.

The argument most often raised by gun proponents is the protection of the people from the tyranny of government. This fails in several legal ways and one practical one. First, the separation of powers places controls over the power of the President to use military force without Congressional authority. The Posse Comitatus Act expressly prohibits the use of the military for civilian law enforcement except in times of rebellion.

To circumvent these restrictions, the three co-equal elements of government would need to cooperate in an unprecedented manner. That’s highly unlikely to happen. And that’s why America can’t effectively control guns.

From a purely practical perspective, 18th and 19th century Americans had comparable weapons to those in use by the military. That changed in the 20th century. The reality is, regardless of the number of armed civilians, the chances of withstanding a direct, sustained attack by the US military is nil. The once dreaded “standing army” is not only standing, it is the most powerful military force in history. The Second Amendment was never intended to withstand a “standing” army with tactical nuclear weapons.

Guns in Private Hands for the Purpose of Personal and Public Protection

School shootings—or any mass casualty incident involving firearms—draw the most attention, but they constitute a small percentage of the death toll from guns.  Suicides, criminal homicides and accidental shootings account for the overwhelming percentage of firearm-related deaths.

Often, opponents of gun control segregate these numbers, discounting suicides and accidental shootings as not germane to the discussion. They portray criminal homicides as solely attributable to those with a criminal record. It is simplistic and distorts the problem.

Another argument is to point to the murder rate in cities like Chicago with stringent gun laws and strong restrictions on issuing concealed carry permits. Again, this is a disingenuous argument. Chicago is a short drive to Indiana where gun laws are much less restrictive. A report by the FBI and the Chicago Police Department show most guns used in Chicago come from outside the city.

The problem lies in the complexity of the solution. One side sees eliminating all guns as a solution. The other sees more weapons in the hands of civilians as the solution.

Both are Wrong

The fundamental problem in crafting a practical solution is we have no in-depth, well-designed, peer-reviewed studies of the health risk of weapons. We have only anecdotal evidence—skewed by supporters and opponents—on the effectiveness of firearms as a means of self-protection. We have no clinical study of the related health risk of gun ownership. We have no data on the track of weapons in private commerce.

We need to evaluate the effect of single-parent—usually absent father—households on increasing risk factors for anti-social behavior in a clinical and reasoned manner. The commonality of a problematic childhood shared by school shooters is striking. It clamors for intense study.

We need to face the fact of our revolving door prison system, and the abrogation of government responsibility through the increasing use of private prisons. The self-fulfilling prophecy of prisons creating better criminals to keep the prisons full is a natural result of such a for-profit corrections system. Like sowing seeds for future crops, prison without rehabilitation is doomed to failing its primary purpose.

Efforts to prevent future Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland and Santa Fe incidents are hampered because we are blind, deaf and dumb. Our laws prevent the CDC, the ATF or the FBI from doing any meaningful tracking of firearms or their overall effect on security and health.

Therein Lays the First Step

To effectively control guns in America, we must remove the restrictions on studying the issue so we can formulate solutions based on facts and information rather than raw emotion. Until we have the facts about the efficacy of guns as an option for personal protection—or the net risk to the public from such policies—we cannot formulate rational solutions. Absent a concerted effort to study the problem dispassionately, we can never arrive at an effective, constitutionally-sound solution.

Until that happens, we are doomed to repeat history.

*   *   *

Thanks to retired East Providence, Rhode Island police captain and author, Joe Broadmeadow, for this rational, insightful and informative view of why America can’t effectively control guns.

Joe Broadmeadow retired with the rank of Captain from the East Providence, Rhode Island Police Department after twenty years. Assigned to various divisions within the department including Commander of Investigative Services, he also worked in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and on special assignment to the FBI Drug Task Force.

Collision Course and Silenced Justice, Joe’s first two novels, are from the highly-acclaimed Josh Williams series. Joe’s third mystery thriller, A Change of Hate, features one of the most popular characters from the first novels, Harrison “Hawk” Bennett, former special forces Green Beret and legendary criminal defense lawyer in a taut legal drama. The books continue to garner rave reviews, and are available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble in print, Kindle, and audio format.

Besides crime novels, Joe is developing a YA Fiction series. The first, Saving the Last Dragon, is available in Kindle, print, and audio versions. The next book, Raising the Last Dragon, is in development.

Joe also writes for two blogs, The Writing of Joe Broadmeadow (www.joebroadmeadowblog.com) and The Heretic and the Holy Man (www.thehereticandtheholyman.wordpress.com)

When Joe is not writing, he is hiking or fishing (and thinking about writing). Joe completed a 2,185-mile thru-hike of the Appalachian Trail in September 2014. After completing the trail, Joe published a short story, Spirit of the Trail, available on Amazon.com in Kindle format.

Joe Broadmeadow lives in Lincoln, RI with his wife Susan. You can connect with Joe at:

http://joebroadmeadowblog.wordpress.com

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Broadmeadow/e/B00OWPE9GU

https://twitter.com/JBroadmeadow