Will we hear more statistical gymnastics arguing that rampage shooting is on the increase because of this factor or that factor alone and has nothing to do with the successful promotion of the genre as a way to go out in a blaze of "glory?" Is there something about our society that produces a generation of existentially challenged young males? Is it really all about a fictional increase in gun ownership or a fictional increase in the deadliness of modern guns and ammunition? Ask at your own risk, you're either a gun-grabbing Communist or a crazed gun nut to anyone who disagrees. Here we go again in hopelessly polarized America, demanding that we "have a conversation" where I shout and you shut up.
Will anyone stop to ask why, if violence is exploding, is it so concentrated in the schools? With everyone shouting and yelling has something gone wrong with American culture? Will anyone ask if there are other factors other than that modern guns look more threatening than equally deadly older guns? Will we look at handguns in general or press the repeat button and replay the "semi-automatic" recording? Will we do anything different at all?
Why aren't we asking about the apparent increase in drive-by and gang related shootings in certain areas and the apparent decrease in other areas? Is it that we don't want answers but only a stage on which to act out our our little dramas? Children are being shot on the streets in West Palm Beach but peace reigns in my nearby community. Why?
This is horrible, of course but I have to ask whether the response is more about sloganeering, wishful thinking and hysteria than anything helpful. Everyone wants answers, or so they say, but I suspect they only want answers that support their prejudices and opinions. I want more questions. I want that conversation many people pretend they want. I want someone to ask why the flurry of post office shootings started and then stopped rather than continued along the trend line people were drawing. I want to know why no one is showing us graphic representations which, from what I see argue that over the last century there are many peaks and many troughs in school shootings. In no case does any extrapolation prove long lived. Regression to the mean seems to be the law. Can we talk? Can we look at the numbers?
I'd like to know why we never seem to get past the "something must be done" and "something must be done by the Federal Government" and rarely ever propose something that's legal and possible and doesn't rest on the fatuous presumption that laws stop lunatics, that bans make a difference? Can we propose that life in Manhattan has different needs than life in Kodiac Station? Suggest that crime and violence have multiple and complex etiologies demanding complex and multiple approaches which may take a long time to work and you're a pariah. "when do we want it - now!" Some things never change.
Will this story be hijacked by the "War on Christianity?" Will we have to endure weeks of self-pitying, neo-Babylonian lamentations?, with tired and vague demands? Of course. There's nothing new.
We continue and we continue with jibber-jabber about types of ammunition and the devices that hold it, we rattle on about "style" and we continue to frame everything in the most extreme, hyperbolic, inflammatory, fear inspiring and inaccurate terms. As with so many emotionally driven and emotionally rationalized themes in America today, no one is interested in working with any one else. Taxation, public debt, Racism, addiction, disease and vaccination, Secularism versus the Christian State. Laissez faire Vs regulation -- it's all Hobbes' universal war: me against you, my action committee against yours, it's the struggle for primacy, not for a solution.
" I will not name the shooter,”
said Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin and I share his feelings. We've made folk-anti-heroes of some deadly and deranged misfits who have problems with schools and students and teachers and can't think of any other way to air their grievances, but to kill themselves and take others with them just like all those sad miscreants around the world who shoot up public places or blow themselves and others up with home-made bombs or fly airplanes into buildings. Everyone has a straw man to punish - mad bombers, mad shooters, arsonists as well as all those who demand that something be done, but my thing and my way, of course.
Banning booze didn't reduce alcoholism, banning needles and banning drugs made it worse, reducing highway speed limits didn't save lives or slow anyone down nor did the fraudulent "assault weapons" ban have any affect on anything. I suspect that nothing we'll hear in the coming days about how this or that changes everything will be different. Ban this, ban that. Take polls with forced choice questions, loaded questions, false dilemmas and loaded terminology: extrapolate trends and think most magically about gun control.
Sorry to be off topic, but I can't get into the blog to post this:
ReplyDeleteHAPPY OCTOPUS DAY TO (O)CT(O)PUS
Oct. 8
And of course we have another, but not quite the same, school shooting this morning at the University of Arizona. Less of a rampage and more of a fight escalating out of control.
ReplyDeleteHaving become much more aware of school shootings perhaps we've promoted them because it doesn't seem that other forms of shootings are on the increase, except for certain gang-heavy communities.
Is it time to ask whether a solution to school shootings requires something else, something different or something more than just vague talk about gun control? Something more specific to school and rampage shootings?
Should we restrict gun ownership and sales to those over 21? Just a thought. . .
A Federal law to require all gun owners to purchase liability insurance. It would be hard for the NRA to argue against, since the NRA offers insurance through its organization. And consider this: The only reason why ObamaCare passed was because of the plum given to insurance companies. A similar plum -- with insurance industry backing -- might help break the legislative impasse.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that is that compliance would essentially be voluntary. It's hard enough to get people to buy car insurance or even to stop driving when their license is expired or revoked. I'm quite cynical about the idea that people respect laws and obey them and that goes double for safety regulations or laws limiting what we think we have a right to, from downloading music, to speed limits to guns.
ReplyDeleteSure, we require car insurance, but It's easier to hide that little Kel-tec .380 than an SUV, nor do we have a constitutional right to own cars or drive them. Most guns used in murders are illegally acquired anyway.
No I think it's unworkable and unenforceable and unenforceable, poorly enforced, unequally enforced laws often make things worse and always foster disrespect for law and law enforcement. This would be one of them.
I also see no mechanism that inhibits the insured, registered, fingerprinted or licensed gun possessor from suicide by rampage. There can be no legal consequences that affect him.
I don't think it can even be done because there is no national registry of guns or gun owners and those ineligible to own guns are not going to tell anyone what they own. Columbine was done with stolen guns as with virtually all gang murders and shootings and with estimates running from 100 to 300 million guns, the thing would be rather unwieldy, to say the least. There is simply no way to inventory the nation's firearms or even to list the firearm owners who don't want to be listed. I'm 100% sure voluntary compliance would be scanty and we would only know who owns what after something bad happened.
And of course an insurance payment would be cold comfort to those who lost a family member.
I wonder too, how many hours would it take for civil rights organizations to file suit on behalf of the less affluent minorities who can't afford insurance? Ownership is a guaranteed right that may not be "infringed" and that's the bottom line. Fortunately it does not say ALL firearms so there's a way to limit the definition to things less deadly -- and we can do that.
And are we assuming correctly that a majority of Americans really want to take dramatic and legally questionable actions out of a sense of outrage about rampage shootings? That outrage seems to be sponsoring all kinds of other proposals quite opposite and I fear our addiction to outrage and the propensity of the media to provide it is leading us away from objectivity as it is in all aspects of American politics..
There has always been an American romance about guns, blunderbuss, Kentucky long rifle, western six shooter, 30-06 and the .22. But, IMO, that romance has undergone a significant shift, thanks to the NRA.
ReplyDeleteIt is no longer the hunt, or target competition, but self-defense. (Primarily as the Dr. Carson put it, against our
own government). Indeed, Carson went on suggesting that we need put up with the continuing slaughter of
innocent people as a collateral damage that protects the rights under the 2nd; enough so that he regards those
deaths as unimportant compared to the right to carry your metallic manhood everywhere. Those of us with a modicum of knowledge about sports, military and competitive firearms find ourselves between the legitimate
gun owner and the 'gun nuts' (abusive husbands, gang guys, wing militia, runners, psychopaths, etc). Do we
stand with the rights of the former, while accepting that those rights mean we accept the redneck, who slings
an AR-15 over his shoulder to preen at McDonalds, or the woud-be mass murderer who collects enough ordnance to wipe out half a village? Carson thinks so. I think not. It is not easy, but the statistics (which the NRA has yanked from medical study) put we Americans at higher risk from our own than all other civilized countries. So the hinge has to be the legitimate responsible gun owner; he/she need address a serious problem, not of their making, but one that aligns them rightly or wrongly with the growing population of people
who need to carry concealed or open ,who pose a potential threat through temper, drunkenness, drugs or
accidental discharge and the not infrequent road rage...for what? I have personally met serious gun owners
who are fed up with the NRA and the resulting free-fire circus, and hopefully that sense of responsibility will
grow into something that protects the rights of gunowners while protecting the majority of families who choose not to keep weapons.
BB,
ReplyDeleteYou present as good an argument as I have ever read anywhere. What you say makes a lot of sense. Many thanks.
Would like to join this community of sea critters? Your voice would be welcome.
"I have personally met serious gun owners who are fed up with the NRA"
ReplyDeleteAnd you're chatting with one now. and I appreciate the well thought out comments.
I remember when they were all about safety and training people in responsibility. They've left a gap that no one fills any more and education itself is now suspect,
Yes, the NRAssholes have elected to develop a base much like the basement dwellers the GOP has enfranchised. Yes, there is a gun culture that's about history, a gun culture that's all about love of the wilderness and preserving pioneering skills. There's a gun culture about putting meat on the table and alligator control and there are people who love the difficulty of competitive shooting.
Sadly the only range around here that allows black powder guns requires you to join the NRA so my relics stay in the closet and the NRA wins another round.
The NRA and their sister organization the GOP have been courting paranoids, deeding them with the most outrageous claims and warnings to the point that millions really do fear the government is going to put them in camps, take away their guns and exterminate them and I get e-mails all the time assuring me that horrible, terrible outrages are soon to come. They have gone along way to assure the trembling he-men of America that gun ownership is the one true measure of patriotism and people who look for any measure of gun control whatever are enemies of the state, enemies of freedom and enemies of God.
But is the "other side" helping with all the stereotyping, the fear mongering and hyperbole? Is the US really the most dangerous place on earth? Is it really legal to hunt black children? Is it really impossible to go to the movies or to school and is gun crime escalating wildly of late? Really? Must we attach gratuitous and inaccurate terminology to every mention of a gun to make it scarier and more threatening? Does that make people more paranoid? Does it convince the gun cultists that they are in no danger of losing the family shotgun? Every time the word gun comes out of Obama's mouth, regardless of the context, gun sales skyrocket. That happened the day he won the election. The anti-gun extremists are selling more guns than the NRA and their membership swells as we pile on the hyperbole and the adjectives. Tell me I'm an unstable, dangerous psychopath and general dirt-bag and suddenly the NRA doesn't sound so crazy!
Yes, absolutely some respect has to be shown to the legitimate responsible gun owner instead of insulting every skeet shooter as though he were Che Guevara, Machine Gun Kelly and Osama bin Laden rolled up into one. All the demonizing has left a big no man's land between the extremists and no one wants to go there.
"Is the US really the most dangerous place on earth?"
ReplyDeleteYes, it is. Our firearm homicide rate six (6) to fifteen (15) times higher than other "civilized" countries, making this country the most savage of all.
A recent Pew poll tells a different story: Overwhelming majorities of voters favor background checks (85%), keeping guns away from unstable persons (80%), and a federal database to track gun sales (67%). Even rank and file members of the NRA support many of these measures; yet their Executive Committee holds our nation hostage.
Meanwhile, we wrap ourselves mystification fallacies that perpetuate the impasse, the madness, and the carnage. Enough is enough!
"Civilized" is a subjective designation and I suggest the point begs the question.. I would argue that our life expectancy ( a measure of safety) in America is primarily affected by other factors than firearms. Our life expectancy is about the same as Denmark while we have far, far more people with untreated disease, living in poverty without medical care and a vastly larger criminal and anti-social underclass. The highest is Monaco which suggests wealth plays a larger part in survival than danger from guns..
ReplyDeleteThere are many non-inevitable things more likely to kill Americans than guns. They are hardly the sole measure of danger and I have to point out once again that the murder rate is where it was in 1966. The cluster of school shootings seen in context of declining or stable shooting rates suggests other causes that can be dealt with by any suggested measures so far. I don't think it's wrong to suggest that the massive coverage of Columbine inspired the trend and indeed some mass shooter have said that explicitly as have some who were caught before carrying it out. To some extent, the enemy is us.
Firearm deaths as a category includes a large proportion of suicides and a number of accidents and a number of police shootings but even ignoring them, it cannot be shown that such events are evenly distributed amongst the population in terms of geographic distribution, age and social status. That there are dangerous parts of the US might be a more accurate thing to say. Is the fact that we go bonkers at a handful of white people shot in public in a white area and 34 shot in a minority area gets no attention an illustration of the emotional nature of the 'increasing danger' argument?
Actual gun homicides are about 11,000 per year nationwide according to the CDC which is about a third of what's usually quoted, but even so,. Shootings are concentrated in certain areas and in certain age and economic groups. Doesn't it seem a bit a bit simplistic or maybe tendentious to lump it all together? Doesn't it suggest some ignored factors affecting safety? There are questions we don't ask. Is it because we don't want to talk about social factors and policies we don't want to challenge?
There's no question that a majority favor background checks and so do I, but that point assumes there are none which is not quite true. 18 States and Washington DC require them on most or all sales already. There is as yet, no Federal requirement. It's hard to argue that they have been highly effective though, I'm sure they've done some good, .hard as it is to substantiate. Yes the Bogeyman Rifle Association will accept the idea but only in the form of an ID card and instant checks - like Illinois. .The other side? As long as it's a gun law it must be good is too common an attitude. .
I've heard arguments for tighter background checks as a way to keep guns from minorities too. Beware of assuming motivation!. Previous Florida law used to give local sheriffs the power to deny carry permits to "undesirables" and we know who they are.
It worries me that we' offer background checks as a solution when we won't examine what's in place and how well it's working and how we need to make it better. Emotional arguments don't deal with details well, I guess nor the urge for pass and run legislation. The problem with current checks is poor information gathering, particularly by heath care providers, unwillingness to accept that certain conditions are associated with obsessive and irrational behavior and concerns for patient privacy. (Compelling article in the current New Yorker about this, by the way). The problem is insufficient staffing, insufficient motivation and unwillingness to anger the wrong citizens by local police, not the NRA.
ReplyDeleteControlling legal purchases and controlling black market guns and stolen guns however is another large and ignored problem. What kind of gun control will deal with criminal acquisition? I believe the recent spate of shootings in one neighborhood in West Palm involves illegal guns by drug dealing gangs. Why will no one talk about that? Is it because we can't blame the usual bogeyman and have to look at ourselves? Why do we want to make less controllable things the paradigm if anger itself isn't the goal rather than progress? Are we arguing to the extremists?
Yes the system can be improved and should be improved and needs to be improved, but improvement is all we can hope for. Saying there is no magic bullet and that the problem is complex and tenacious isn't "mystification" in my opinion, but realism. Emotionalism is what I see as the danger when trying to solve any problem.