They have scheduled a news conference for Tomorrow, Friday the 21st and have announced that:
"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
Wouldn't that be nice, but while that remains to be seen, I'm given to wonder if the changes they propose and proposed by others will be meaningful as well, or as is often the case, haphazard, oblivious to facts and doomed to be ineffective at best. What I'm hearing and reading rather confirms my worries. My incompletely documented opinion is that most bans aren't effective because they weren't designed to be. Ineffective by design and ineffective because they're unenforceable, many make things worse. Looking at the Volstead act and our "war on drugs" I see massive increases in crime and harmless people having their lives ruined. If a ban is what we hang our hopes on, a ban without further characteristics, we'll be as successful as Reagan's "just say no" billboards or Ford's "WIN" buttons were. If we refuse to recognize the primary goal that no weapons at all should be inside an elementary school, we'll get bogged down with descriptions and characteristics that most of us are painfully incompetent to handle. If we let the discussion revolve about ballistics and rates of fire, around plastic gunstocks over wood or barrel length; over gas or recoil operated actions and magazine capacity, we're going to pass more nonsense and walk away dumb and happy until some other crazy bastard pulls another trigger, or God help us, lights a fuse or opens a canister of ricin.
Diminishing the influence of the powerful, fear mongering NRA, at long last, will not be all that we need if we truly want to protect our schools ( or theaters and shopping malls for that matter) unless we shed some of the self-righteousness we sometimes share with them and take an honest look at our own "meaningful contributions." Do we share that "more of the same stuff that didn't work" and that "we didn't think of it so it's no good" attitude? Do we steadfastly repeat party lines and refuse to consider inconvenient and contradictory facts as the economic extremists at the Tea Party do? Do we draft laws that will address other forms of mayhem we haven't thought of yet or do we, as Generals are accused of doing, fight the previous war?
Times have changed. When my parents were in elementary school one could buy a Thompson submachine gun, the infamous Chicago typewriter, at the local hardware store, but there wasn't much demand except from the gangs and the company would have failed if the Army didn't buy some. As far as I know, nobody was shooting up schools with real, honest-to-Thompson assault weapons. Now they're illegal, although many don't yet know it or admit it, but demand for things that look like them is soaring. I can ask why we are different now, but I can't answer the question. I just have to accept that we are.
Congressional gun rights supporters are suddenly willing to talk gun control. So will it be substantive gun control or will congress pull off another fast one giving us some paper that they call gun control but is designed to do nothing? Will we fall for the usual sophistry and sleight of hand a longer waiting period or another toothless ban? Will we make a fuss about gun shows despite knowing that the guns used in these sprees were bought at licensed gun shops? Will we continue to create straw men and indulge our fantasies and stereotypes? Face it; for 50 years we've refused to face it and have enthusiastically and fatuously blown it. Let's not blow it again.
So maybe it's the time and the season. It's surely not the time to do nothing or reprise our failures. I hope we can do it right. I hope to hell we can avoid the extremist and not always useful language we're hearing from so many sources. I hope we can address the question of why current policies have fostered or allowed a real reduction in aggravated crimes yet haven't had sufficient effect on "Amok" crimes; suicide-by-cop crimes where the deranged perpetrator isn't concerned with remaining alive or was seeking to die in the process. This isn't time for shouting and screaming, wailing and mourning or for listening to hysterics. It may be time to listen to people who are used to dealing with suicide bombers and terrorists -- who are weapons experts, security experts and perhaps even psychologists -- and tune out the scared and angry amateurs like you and me.
I hope you are right, Captain, but I already feel the public passion on this issue draining away. I'm afraid we are going to end up with no substantive change on this issue, as we have done so many times before.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a puzzlement. America only acts after a catastrophe and in a panic and the results show it. I don't think this is going to fade so quickly though.
DeleteOutside of the fact that I believe we need to do something I cannot offer much more and I freely admit it. That is why I engaged in conversations with Capt. Fogg and Mad Mike. I do think the focus needs to be on psychology and some way of detecting the emotionally unsound.
ReplyDeleteI don't own a gun and have no desire for one, even though I have been robbed twice and had one other instance of a gun being stuck in my face.
I also realize that a vast majority of gun owners are responsible and while lots of what we hear about deaths from guns, are tragic and regretable, they involve family and or domestic disputes and there is not much we will ever do about those.
Its situations like the theater, the Sikh Temple, and the school that we need to address.
I hope that the NRA gets its self on the right side of this issue from the beginning.
Reasonable TAO, I'm impressed, very impressed.
DeleteI agree with you Tao. At least some of these rampages could have been prevented if the therapists they were seeing had done the right thing and informed the police so they would be stopped by a background check, but that won't stop more than a fraction of them. As I said, there are other ways to create mayhem.
DeleteI can't help remembering 9/11 and that the airlines had rejected the proposal that they put re-enforced and lockable cabin doors on their planes and they decided it cost too much Could that have saved 3000 lives? Would a security guard and a metal detector have saved all of most of the lives at Newtown? I don't know for sure but not to do something because it's too expensive but instead do something that's proven ineffective?
We sure as hell find the money when it comes to protecting politicians.
Revise gun laws for sure, but lets make informed changes for once and not full of loopholes.