Moristotle readers, my ear is close to my computer. Please take a breath and say in a loud, clear voice, "Enough is enough!" Louder, please! Or would you prefer to continue turning on your TV once a month and hearing the breaking news of another school shooting, movie theater shooting, shopping mall shooting, fast-food store shooting, or political assassination? No, I thought not.
I've had it up to HERE with the horrific accounts of massacres, the national mourning, the how-to-talk-to-children counseling, the interviews of the bereaved and their neighbors, and the sophistry of the gun fetishists. And I'm exasperated that the obvious way forward has no leadership. Isn't it time to rally the sensible people of our nation? Isn't it time for the incessant drumbeat of questions to begin—questions like:
- How can buying a gun require less personal disclosure than renting a car?
- Why shouldn't there be a "DMV" for gun owners? (Call it a DFR, Department of Firearms Regulation.)
- Why shouldn't gun selling be nationalized and handled as a government franchise?
- Why shouldn't buying a gun be a process that takes, say, a month, to allow for the appropriate screening?
- Why does anyone need an assault weapon or automatic weapon?
- Why should anyone, other than a licensed collector, be allowed to own more than one gun?
- Why should ammunition clips be available?
- Why should bullets designed to inflict massive damage be for sale?
_______________
Copyright © 2012 by Ken Marks
| Please comment |
Ken, you do a very nice job presenting your perspective on this horrific situation, and you raise some valid questions. Let's hope this event inspires people to take a serious look at the failings in our democratic system that enable someone to go unnoticed until they act out in such a brutal fashion. Hopefully something can be accomplished without overreaction, such as the infringements on civil rights perpetrated after 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI grew up near Virginia Tech, went to college there, and am friends with a family who had a daughter killed in that massacre, so I have seen firsthand how people respond to such an event. Some of that response is positive and helpful, much of it is hyperbolic and accomplishes little except providing a career boost to those in politics and the media. Seldom does any change occur that will actually be a step toward preventing future such disasters.
Maybe the horror of helpless children being killed in Connecticut will inspire real change. Maybe this time our democratic society will find the perfect balance in protecting the rights of all individuals while taking the steps necessary to identify and stop murderers before they strike, no matter if they use guns, cars, truck bombs, or airplanes.
Thanks for the comment, Moto. From my perspective, the failing in our democratic system has been chronic timidity and valuing continuation in office over innocent life. It's a disgrace. I know of no politician who got a career boost from advocating gun control, but there are hundreds on the federal level who have protected their careers by advocating against it. Is this what you meant by a "hyperbolic" response? Probably not.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be a legislative disaster, not to mention an evil diversion, if lawmakers undertook to enact omnibus legislation to stop murderers from using "guns, cars, truck bombs, or airplanes." The department of Homeland Security already has most of this covered. None of the massacres that now routinely occur in theaters, shopping malls, schools, temples, workplaces, etc. is caused by anything other than firearms. We have a well-defined target and need to hold our focus.
The local perspective: the Colorado Legislature, in imbecile congress assembled, has established an almost unlimited right to concealed carry. The University of Colorado had firmly forbidden weapons on campus, but was recently reversed by the state supreme court. I've been waiting with bated breath for the first drunken frat boy to off someone.
ReplyDeleteComing off that, my reaction to the latest atrocity is that we the people must rise up and put a stop to the NRA. Let those overgrown adolescents indulge their Rambo fantasies at the expense of someone other than our children.
Hear, hear!
DeleteKen, after the Virginia Tech massacre many people were saying the same things they are the day after the Connecticut slaughter. Many people, including elected officials, said they would push for more gun control, and a few were even saying things about doing a better job of keeping an eye on people with known emotional issues. Five years later, gun laws in Virginia have actually been relaxed, and I haven't heard anything about a better program for improved monitoring of what I guess are politely called "people with issues." That is the type of "hyperbolic" response to which I was referring. People get worked up, realize the magnitude of actually trying to address the problem - or get distracted by college bowl games or the holidays - and they move on.
ReplyDeleteChuck, since I quit the NRA over their stance on assault weapons - under the leadership of someone from my hometown, ironically - I agree with you in part. However, back when Rosie O'Donnell embroiled herself in the gun control debate, there was a bumper sticker that became very popular in the region where I live. It read "Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat." I have a hard time finding a way to argue with that.
To both of you, yes, guns are a well-defined target. But how much of that is because they are a convenient scapegoat for complex problems people can't find a way to address? Such as identifying the root issues that inspire people to act out the way they do and finding a way to spot them before they start shooting? In the case of the Connecticut shooter, he reportedly had very well known emotional issues, and yet his mother reportedly bought the guns and kept them in the house he shared with her! What law would stop a mother from making a decision like that?
Yes, the mass killings that have occurred in recent times are all gun related. Back in 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured more than 800 with one truck bomb. How many people have been killed and injured with guns in the mass killings in theaters, schools, shopping malls, etc, since then? When someone "goes off" and decides to kill a bunch of people, they find a way. Instead of passing laws to deprive people of legitimate and safe use of guns - or trucks - wouldn't it be much more productive to work on raising the standards for mental health, and to find a way to monitor and help those who show great probability of posing a risk to the public at large?
Moto, there are so many errors of logic in your response that it will be difficult to grab them all at one snatch. But I'll try:
Delete* I notice you failed to include the NRA as a reason horrified people give up. Or cowardly legislators, who are supposed to represent us horrified people. Or people in the opposition who have a congenital attachment to firearms. Or opponents who have a warped view of their rights. Distraction by college bowl games? Really, that's pitiful.
* Yes, people kill people, but if they don't beat their victims to death or strangle them, they use tools. A gun is a tool. It lets you kill efficiently with the speed and power of projectiles. It minimizes the victim's opportunity for self-defense. These advantages increase in proportion to the power of the weapon. They also confer a sense of confidence, safety, and invincibility in the murderer. If you're very angry, if you want revenge badly, you'll choose a gun. If guns or ammo are hard to get, you have to settle for a less effective tool, and you may be thwarted.
* Guns aren't scapegoats. There are deranged people all over the world. We don't have a distinctly higher proportion in the USA than in other countries. But we do have a distinctly greater access to firearms, and we have a far higher homicide rate when the tool is a gun. Figure it out. I'm not saying that gun buyers shouldn't be thoroughly checked out. I think entire households should be checked out when a gun might enter their living space. But the firepower and availability of guns have to be controlled as well.
* Could a mother of the Newtown killer have been prevented from buying guns? Sure. First, she should have been permitted only one nonautomatic weapon. Second, a sane sales policy would have checked not just her but anyone in the household who would have access to the gun.
* People who "go off" may or may not find a way. If they do but their access to firepower is greatly compromised, the way they find will kill fewer people. Their plans are more likely to be frustrated. And the next lunatic may be a little slower to take the fatal step.
How does this become a zero-sum game? Can we not have both reasonable control over the distribution of firearms and raise the standard for treatment of mental health issues? While we are about it can we not also begin to do something about a society where violence is presented and perceived as a valid solution to problems? This is not a one-solution problem, nor is it one that will be easy and quickly fixed. We must tackle it on as many fronts as possible and even then, because we have allowed it to develop for so long a period of times, it will be difficult.
DeleteByron, thank you for your rational and reasonable input on the situation. This is indeed a complex problem that will be difficult to tackle and will take much time and effort. I hope people give thought to your words instead of taking the path of knee-jerk over-reaction, which always seems to make matters worse rather than better. I look at the rights snatched away from Americans in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor and in the post 9/11 hysteria, and I hope the same doesn't happen because of the Connecticut killings, tragic as they are.
DeleteYou're right, Byron, it's not a one-solution problem, but we do have to ask, Where does the emphasis belong to make the greatest impact on gun violence? By all means we should fund more mental health resources, keep gory video games out of the hands of children, find better technology for the parental control of computers and television, and put teeth into the ratings for graphically violent movies. All sorts of things can help. However, we must acknowledge that our society does not have a corner on a fascination with violence or on people who have anger problems. What really makes us different is our access to fire power and the continual denial of its significance.
ReplyDeleteKen, your well-written "one snatch" reply fully deserves a detailed reply.
ReplyDelete* People who care don't give up because of the NRA. They give up because after the warm, fuzzy glow of a candlelight vigil fades they realize the real work begins. They don't contact legislators, or write to newspapers, blogs or websites, or attend public forums and commission meetings. They go back to their usual distractions.
* Yes, people kill people, and they often use guns. But people do indeed beat and stab their victims to death with amazing regularity. FBI statistics show this fact. On the bright side, despite the attention-grabbing horrific mass killings, the overall murder rate in the U.S. is in rapid decline. FBI statistics show the 2010 murder rate was 14.8% less than 2006 and it has declined almost 40% since 1991. It is lower than in 1960. The murder rate rose with the "baby boomer" population surge and declined as the "boomers" aged. The math supports this fact.
* Guns are scapegoats. If guns are "the" problem, why has the murder rate declined while gun ownership has soared? We may not have a distinctly higher rate of deranged people in the U.S. than in other places, but the violent crime rate has always been higher here than in many other parts of the developed world. So there may be something about the American mindset that contributes. You say "entire households should be checked out when a gun enters the living space." Do you also think that if a husband is convicted of a DUI death his wife should have to give up her car because he would potentially have access to it? Cars kill many more people than guns.
* This is apparently news to many, including Warren Buffett, who tweeted on the matter, but "automatic" weapons have been illegal for some time. The Newtown mother's weapons, which her son used to kill her and the victims at the school, are "semi-automatic." A shooter has to pull the trigger each time a bullet is fired – they do not spray lead like a machine gun in a movie. I fully agree it is absurd to have weapons in the public domain with clips that hold an excessive number of rounds. As I mentioned previously, I quit the NRA over their stance on this matter. (As an aside, I may be the only person who was ever a member of Trout Unlimited, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife and the NRA all at the same time, so I am at least open minded on these matters.) The problem is defining an "excessive" number of rounds. Are we going to ban the guns our Olympians use? The revolver, the famed "six gun" of the Old West, has been around since the 1800s and holds five to nine rounds, depending on make, model and caliber. They also fire as fast as someone can pull the trigger - are we going to ban them too? And if we do ban such guns, how do we round them up and get rid of them? Stalin killed 25 million or more people because he saw them as a threat and shipped them off to Siberia. How many people are you willing to have our government kill to take away guns? Mass killings at schools, movie theaters and malls are horrible, but what would the death toll be from attempting to confiscate guns?
* To use your term, the next "lunatic" will not be slower to take the fatal step because they don't have the perfect weapon. When people "go off" they are not rational. When murderers were executed by guillotine, it was a public spectacle. If watching a killer's head being lopped off and dumped into a bucket didn't dissuade future murderers, what would? I fully agree limiting the firepower of weapons could decrease the death toll. However, when I think of the thousands killed each year by knife and blunt weapon, and the 168 killed and more than 800 injured by Timothy McVeigh's truck bomb, I still believe we need to put more emphasis on the possible task of changing the mindset, rather than on the impossible task of trying to take all possible weapons from all the people who might possibly use them on others.
Moto, I think the pains you've taken to state your position have paid a dividend: you've voluntarily given Moristotle readers the profile of the citizen that bars the way to progress. I suppose you deserve thanks for crystallizing the problem.
DeleteYour M.O. is deflection. "People give up." Yes, because your mindset dominates. "People kill people with fists and knives." Yes, and with ropes, lead pipes, and candlesticks. There are all sorts of ways to kill individuals in brutal ways. But this is completely off the point. When was the last time someone walked into a schoolroom and bludgeoned everyone to death? "The murder rate is in decline." The rate of individual murders, which dominates the stat, rises and falls for a host of complex sociological reasons. The mass murder rate is on the rise, however. "Should someone living with a drunkard lose their license?" So off the point, but no. However, spouses in this situation need a "breathalyzer lock" on their cars. "Guillotine, knife murders, Timothy McVeigh." Miles off the point. You're unable and unwilling to grasp a basic formulation: More firepower, more mass killing; less firepower, less mass killing—in all probability, just one-on-one killing.
To make progress toward meaningful gun control, the horrified among us have to confront just this mindset. We have to change it—very unlikely—or grow enough in numbers to overrule it. It's as hard a challenge as any a citizenry has ever had to face, and that is why people have given up in the past. Yes, Moto, your thinking is enabling these national convulsions. I hate to be accusatory, but what am I to do? The facts are the facts.
Ken, clear thinking is not the problem. People who are too impassioned to think clearly - who refuse to let facts get in the way of their dogma - that is the problem. If a radical rightist took the same angle on a topic near and dear to them, let's use immigration as an example, would you not use facts and logic to challenge their opinion?
ReplyDeleteWhen the Bush administration used post 9/11 hysteria to snatch away decades of hard-earned civil liberties, did you agree or argue? If one side uses every possible over-reactive excuse to better arm the government and give it more control, and the other side uses every possible over-reactive excuse to disarm civilians and give them less voice, is either side right?
It is a tragedy to all personally involved when a group of school children is killed. Or a group of college students. Or a group of moviegoers. When one student is killed, or one moviegoer, outsiders don't notice because it isn't headline news - but it still matters just as much to those personally involved.
If people truly want to create change, why aren't they out there all the time, instead of just grandstanding on a hot topic? I saw firsthand how people played to the news cameras and made big promises after the Virginia Tech massacre. I also saw how they disappeared when the cameras left. It was repulsive.
The murder rate in America does not randomly rise and fall. It started rising in the 1960s with the "baby boom" population explosion and it declined as the "boomers" aged. The pattern has been consistent for 50 years. There have been no erratic, unexplainable, ups and downs.
You are obviously very concerned about mass killing yet refer to the far greater death toll as "just one-on-one killing." Mass killings that may total 100 or so victims this year are more important to you than the more than 20,000 one-on-one killings that are happening this year? How can that be?
If you can come up with the perfect way to stop mass killings by safely removing weapons from the streets, we commend you for it. Just please don't divert so many resources toward preventing the very few deaths from mass killings that the death toll rises from far greater risks - such as people who lose their tempers and bludgeon others to death, and who won't pay attention while driving.
All of us wish no one would ever be killed, by accident or on purpose. It happens, however. Given the limited resources, logic dictates we prioritize trying to save as many as possible of the 60,000 who die unnoticed in car wrecks and one-on-one violence above the unfortunate few who die in groups and make headlines.
Immigration, 9/11, playing to news cameras, crime-rate quibbling, all deflections. All but the last are gross deflections that are unworthy of you.
DeleteI never said that the crime rate changes randomly–your distortion. I only said it was tied to sociological complexities. We have hypotheses about it and no more. Much of the decline might be due to the Civil Rights movement, a better social safety net, Medicaid, food stamps—who knows? What I take away is that this subject is again a deflection from the subject of ready access to horrific firepower.
No matter what the times are or the cultural context, some people will always go into a rage over an unfaithful mate, an unfair boss, torment from their peers about their looks or behavior, etc. And some of these people will kill with anything that's at hand. If these people do not have access to guns, many of their murder attempts will be foiled, but this is still not the problem I'm writing about! Again, it's access to firepower. Easy killing. And doing nothing about it.
One more point. The mass killings of innocent people have a dimension that no other cases of violent death have. They leave scars on the nation. Not only are the bereaved scarred for life. Their siblings are, too. And their neighbors and the children of their neighbors can never live in the same way. There will always be fear. In fact, I've been marked. I have two granddaughters. So long as this madness continues, how can I believe that they are safe? The entire nation must think differently about the safety of their loved ones now, and with each new convulsion it will get worse. Adam Lanza probably didn't realize it, but in the results he produced, he was very much a terrorist. Can you sense the terror, Moto?
Ken, to address the last first, I fully agree Adam Lanza was basically a terrorist, but no I don't sense the terror. And neither does anyone else who was not personally involved in that horrific situation. For some sad reason many people may choose to imagine they sense, or feel, or know the terror, but if they weren't actually there fearing they were about to die it is no more real than watching a movie. Millions of people will waste hundreds of millions of hours watching the coverage of the event, but how many will actually bother to send a letter of condolence, or a donation to help a family recover? The answer is not many. The rest are just are just voyeuristic news ghouls on a level with people who frequent slasher horror flicks or that dreadful series of "Saw" movies.
DeleteFor many years I was a writer who did many, many stories on people who had been through bad situations here and abroad. From hearing their stories and writing about them I too thought I knew what it was like. It wasn't until I tried my hand as a photojournalist in a war-zone situation and found myself huddled against a downed helicopter with more than a dozen people closing in with machetes that I knew the real feeling of terror. Before that I imagined I knew, but I was clueless.
We have all been marked in one way or another. When someone near and dear is killed untimely, to those of us personally involved it doesn't matter if they were the victim of a mass tragedy or if they died a lonely death on a dark country road due to a drunk driver. If we see terror, that is our choice. If we see a horrible, pointless loss, that is our choice. Regardless that choice, I still don't see how people get so worked up about high-profile cases that kill few, but ignore the thousands upon thousands of equally pointless cases that kill many.
You can't teach your granddaughters how to avoid a disaster than no one can possibly know is coming. You can teach them how to be great defensive drivers and how to avoid those one-on-one situations in life where an out-of-control person poses a great threat. In other words, you can teach them to avoid the likely threats, instead of the unlikely. If you, and politicians, and law enforcement, and the legal system, would muster the same vehemence about the massive number of people being killed one at a time, as you do the few people being killed several at a time, you might actually create positive change in our society.
Moto, you twisted my question—Can you sense the terror?—in an absurdly improbable way. I wasn't asking if you could conjure up perfect empathy and feel what the little children felt! I was asking if you could sense the terror of the nonvictims who imagine the same fate befalling their loved ones. It is in nonvictim terror that the gravest social and psychic damage lies.
DeleteYou continue to mix apples and oranges, the circumstances of mass murders with the circumstances of individual murders. Both are deplorable. Some strategies can be used to suppress the frequency of both. But there are strategies that are much more effective for suppressing mass murders, chiefly denying access to overwhelming firepower.
If we were skyping, you could see that I'm blue in the face from explaining this distinction. And so, before I have a massive stroke, I am washing my hands of you, at least on this subject. Rather than dwell on my failure to persuade you—my hopes were never very high—I'll focus on the plus side of our discussion: our forum is Moristotle, where we succeed if we delineate an issue in a thought-provoking way. I think we've done that.
Ken, yes I would agree we have delineated the issue in a thought provoking way. Regarding your concern about the sense of terror by nonvictims: all I can say is I know people who still have not been back in the ocean since seeing the movie "Jaws" some 30-plus years ago. If people choose to live in fear, or imagined terror, there really isn't but so much we can do to talk them out of it.
DeleteAs much as I would like to get you on Skype and say "if only someone in the school had been armed perhaps they could have stopped the slaughter," just to watch you morph into a Smurf, I will let it lie and instead follow what may become a very lively discussion between you and loneliestliberal.
Please do post another West Coast travelogue as soon as you can. Your last one was excellent!
I'm kind of sorry I stuck my oar in. Thinking about it, I haven't got a Position to defend on gun control. I only have a few observations, many of which Ken or Motomynd have already mentioned. A few points that haven't been made:
ReplyDelete- Semi-automatic weapons, and large ammo clips, have no apparent purpose but mass murder. I can see no rationale for permitting private ownership of these things. Certainly the Constitution can't justify it. Moreover, my impression is that they are legal primarily due to lobbying by the NRA. It needs to be held answerable for this.
- The other Western democracies have much lower murder rates than does the U.S. The reason seems to be that private ownership of firearms is uncommon in these countries, so those bent on violent mayhem can't readily obtain one. The remarks here about the availability of other sorts of weapons, and speculations about the American psyche, seem to stall against this fact. I think we have to accept that "an armed society is a violent society", pace Mr. Heinlein. However, as Moto says, I don't see how we get there from here.
- Every study I've ever read on this subject says that firearms hurt their owners or innocent bystanders far more often that they hurt violent criminals. In view of this, their utility for self-defense seems problematic.
- On the other hand, a recent newspaper article quotes a credible study (reference not remembered, alas) that mass murders are no more common today than at any other time in American history, and indeed reached their peak in the 1920s.
Happy to see your oar in the water, Chuck. I have no oar, but I have chimes, and I want to chime in on your last point. The 20s are an interesting reference point. The Valentine's Day Massacre occurred in 1929, and there were undoubtedly many gangland killings in that decade. Mass killings in later decades are unclearer to me, but I'd guess that these were crime-related, too. Perhaps tied to gangs who dealt in drugs. I also wonder how murders perpetrated by the KKK might figure in. In any case, I'll wager that none of the cases
Deletein earlier decades involved the massacre of innocent people at supermarkets, in theaters, in temples, or in schools. And none of them made people across the country fear for their loved ones.
I'm writing again to report on some googling I did on the claim that "mass murders are no more common today than at any other time in American history." My main source defined "mass murder" as having at least five victims, not including the killer.
DeleteI found no corroboration for "no more common" assertion. I didn't see anything before 1940. The worst was a circus fire in the 40s. One fellow bombed a plane, and three other murderers caused plane crashes. Other than that, all involved firearms, and at an accelerating rate. Six incidents have occurred since Obama was inaugurated in 2009.
Needless to say (except for Moto's benefit), no mass murder has ever been committed with the killer's bare hands, a knife, a blunt instrument, poison, a falling piano, or an appliance tossed into a bathtub. This might be explained by the enormous difficulty of the task.
Here is a link to a CNN article that gives a timeline to what they say are the worst mass shootings in the U.S. since 1949: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/worst-u-s-shootings-timeline/index.html Based on this it seems the Connecticut tragedy is, sadly, nothing new, and neither is people across the country fearing for their loved ones.
DeleteHere is a relevant link to a USA Today article that speaks to the impact of culture versus gun availability on mass shootings: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/guns-mass-killings-worldwide/1776191/ Based on this it seems such disasters are not nearly as much about the availability of guns, as they are about the culture.
The one point I will completely agree with both of you about is I can see no reason why assault rifles and large ammo clips are allowed on the streets. A semi-automatic target handgun with enough capacity to compete at a local range or in an Olympic event is one thing. A high-power assault rifle with a 30 or 50-round "banana" clip is another.
Which leads to my greatest concern about bureaucratic involvement in gun control. If memory serves me correctly, the last time politicians got involved, they legalized assault weapons instead of continuing the long-running ban on them. And the last time a government agency got involved, they apparently hatched a plan to let a number of assault weapons filter through to Mexico so they could follow them to various drug cartels. Due to some sort of mix-up, however, they lost the trail of the weapons and apparently managed to track only the ones that were used to kill U.S. Border Patrol agents.
So it seems the best thing for people to do is get busy changing the attitudes of their friends and neighbors and hopefully our society at large. That seems preferable to again turning the matter over to politicians and bureaucrats, who seem to only make matters worse, and may somehow manage to legalize machine guns if they get involved again.
This is a pretty lively altercation going on here. I'm glad that you're not all in the same parking lot with access to handguns.
ReplyDeleteMorris, no altercation here, just a splendid, lively discussion. And I plan to jump back in as soon as I can get caught up on a pressing project. It is always very interesting to be a part of a group where one can agree 100% with a majority of the viewpoints, yet disagree 75-100% with some of the viewpoints. That is what makes the world spin fast enough to be interesting. And your blog tagline does read "lively views on topics that touch everyone."
ReplyDeleteOkay, not an altercation, if you say so. But I knew I was right about "lively." In fact, I too was quoting our tagline, even if I didn't enclose the word in quotation marks.
DeleteI hope our newest contributing editor will join in with his own information about guns, current laws affecting them, and the National Rifle Association. There may be a few NRA members audibly blasting away in the fields near our home these days, though I'd bet, going by the local letters to the editor I read, they're neither liberal nor lonely.
It is interesting that the general public still references the NRA when discussing gun issues, when many of its old-school members have long since abandoned it. The reasons they did so are amazingly divergent. One large group did not like the new leadership's overly aggressive push for legalizing assault weapons and for concealed carry permits for handguns. Another large faction thought the NRA had become more interested in making money than winning issues and considered it mostly ineffective in securing what some term "true" gun rights.
DeleteThis latter group feels that if you have no record of criminal conduct or mental issues, you should be able to carry a weapon anywhere you wish, anytime you wish, concealed or not, without any special permit. Amazingly to some, there is an eastern state that actually embraces this mindset and has fully legalized it. Can you guess where? No, it is not some staunch bastion of conservative thinking such as South Carolina, it is instead the generally ultra liberal state of Vermont. Believe it or not.
At Morris' urging I am posting this reply which offers answers to the questions posed by Mr. Marks that got this grand old row going. Some have already been answered previously. A longer, but not necessarily better reply will be coming soon to be published Saturday.
ReplyDelete* How can buying a gun require less personal disclosure than renting a car?
It would appear Mr. Marks has never bought a gun in California. I've bought several cars and never was I asked if I was a fugitive from justice, mentally ill or had been convicted of a domestic violence crime.
* Why shouldn't there be a "DMV" for gun owners? (Call it a DFR, Department of Firearms Regulation.)
At present all transfers of guns must go through an federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL).
And in California there is a background check which the purchaser pays for every time he/she buys a gun. Buy a gun on Monday, pay the fee. Buy a gun on Tuesday, pay the fee again.
* Why shouldn't gun selling be nationalized and handled as a government franchise?
See FFL.
* Why shouldn't buying a gun be a process that takes, say, a month, to allow for the appropriate screening?
Right now it takes 10 days in California. Additionally, California citizens are limited to the purchase of one new handgun per month.
* Why does anyone need an assault weapon or automatic weapon?
To people familiar with guns, assault weapon/rifle says more about the cartridge that is fired than any gizmos like a- pistol grip, handle, detachable magazine or bayonet. As for automatic, I assume the author means a fully automatic firearm that continues to fire as long as the trigger is depressed as opposed to semi-automatic firearm that requires the trigger to be pressed each time a round is fired. At present it is VERY difficult to own a fully automatic/machine-gun.
* Why should anyone, other than a licensed collector, be allowed to own more than one gun?
If I have two guns and two hands, I cannot fire any more guns. There's an economic principle at work here, the same one that comes into play when using a newspaper machine, but I forget the term. My point is, I can use at most two guns at a time. And I've NEVER used two guns at a time.
* Why should ammunition clips be available?
Because a clip-fed gun is pretty useless without one.
* Why should bullets designed to inflict massive damage be for sale?
Ask a hunter. But for what it's worth, even full metal jacket bullets (fmj), the ones approved for use on human beings by the Geneva Convention, can create pretty horrific results.
LL, many of your answers beg the question. My impression is that you often prefer a glib answer to a direct one. For example, the ammunition clip question. You say they should be available because there are clip-fed guns. Perhaps I should have asked, "Why are clip-fed guns available?" Would you have answered, "Because they're manufactured"?
ReplyDeleteAnother case is "Why shouldn't there be a DMV for gun owners?" You reply with information about FFLs, which have none of the regulatory functions of a DMV. Nothing about "why shouldn't we." Not responsive at all.
Why shouldn't the purchasing process take a month? Your answer: "In CA it takes 10 days, and only one per month may be purchased." Again, not responsive at all.
I hope your Saturday column is more serious than your response here.
Sorry, LL, but I meant to say something about your answer to "Why allow ownership of more than one gun?" The answer that "a person can fire only two at a time" is shallow and dismissive. Can't I give two more to a friend as crazy as I am? Can't I grab two more without fishing for a clip to reload? Didn't Adam Lanza carry more than two weapons? Don't multiple guns create a gun security problem in my home? Please try harder.
DeleteI urge all the readers of Moristotle & Co. to read a brilliant post in the NYR Blog by Garry Wills. It's titled "Our Moloch."
ReplyDeleteHere's the link: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/
Extremists who choose to believe one way have Mike Huckabee to pander to them. Extremists who choose to believe another way have Garry Wills to pander to them. And extremists who choose to believe yet another way have the NRA to pander to them. And it is extremists, blindly pandered to by family, friends, and those they see as authority figures and heroes, who come to believe in destroying the lives of innocent people.
ReplyDeleteHere's a news story reported in Slate yesterday that you probably won't see on your TV...
ReplyDeleteThe day following the Newtown massacre there was another attack on school children! This one was in the Henan province of China. As 23 children and their teacher cowered in their classroom, a lunatic attacked them with... a knife! So many nasty injuries; it was horrible. However, no one died. Curious how often murderous intent fails when no gun is at hand.
According to a CNN poll published today, 52% of Americans now believe that either there should be major restrictions on owning guns or they should be illegal to possess except by police and authorized personnel. Progress.
ReplyDeleteKen, 51% of American voters thought George W. Bush did such a great job in his first term as president that he deserved a second term. Do you think that majority was correct too?
DeleteThis started with a call for action and the urging of readers to call/tweet/write their representative. Ok. But what do you want Ken? What's the end game here?
ReplyDeleteI want to not hear about another Sandy Hook, Red Lake, Columbine and I want to be able to go the range a few times a year and use what must be the most expensive paper hole puncher. So far the two extremes I've been offered are: More guns, to include armed guards at the schools- Afghanistan. Or no guns- China. I want to believe that there's a middle ground, like Switzerland but with a coastline.
Fair enough, LL. I can only speak for the endgame that I prefer, which is suggested by the list of questions in my post. I could just leave that as my answer, but I've learned a few things since I posted and have thought some new thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the disclosure requirements and waiting time have to be uniform throughout the USA. Right now, they differ from state to state and even from city to city. And it seems they're nonexistent at gun shows. We'll accomplish nothing if purchase requirements are strenuous in some places and lax in others: gun sales will simply flow most readily from wherever the requirements are the least strenuous. And of course, new laws have to say something about private sales. Probably the best we can do here is require something akin to the transfer of cars, only with more disclosure. The law should threaten jail time and a stiff fine if a gun transfer occurs without the appropriate reporting. I know, enforcement is almost impossible, but we have to at least put the requirement out there.
I still believe we need a national organization for data storage, skill certification, licensing, and the enforcement of gun laws. Otherwise, the entire effort would fall into an unmanageable kluge. I'd like to see this organization require license renewals, and the fees should be steep, especially if the stated reason for the gun is self-defense. Why? Because I believe no one really needs one for this purpose, and if they insist on one, they must pay a discouraging price. (Data shows that gun owners are 22 times more likely to shoot a friend or relative in their homes than someone who has broken in.)
Collecting guns would be especially expensive, and no collector would be allowed to buy bullets, except for one gun. In fact, I still think regular owners should have no more than one defensive gun, but I'm open to the idea of multiple guns so long as such people are automatically reclassified as collectors.
Yes, automatic weapons should be kept out of civilian hands. As to semiautomatic weapons, I'm willing to make make an exception for a gun that takes a very small clip of, say, 6 bullets. I don't have any problem with single-action guns, hunting rifles, or rifles used in competitive sports. (If you want to practice your shooting, you'll just have to put up with reloading your gun often.)
I still want to disallow ownership to anyone who lives with a person who is mentally disturbed or has anger issues. I'm in favor of asking any would-be owner to take a serious screening test—a personality inventory. They would have to pay for this privilege. They would also have to submit written testimony to their good character by a nonrelative. And they would have to show they can lock up guns and ammo in a way specifically sanctioned by the licensing agency.
If Joe Biden and his committee recommend all of the above, I'll be thrilled. Of course, they won't, and even if they did, it wouldn't pass. But that's my endgame.
Please ignore my two earlier sharings of the following; I'll delete those comments when I have access. (I'm sitting in a doctor's waiting room.)
ReplyDeleteFYI. the following letter was printed in today's Burlington, NC Times-News:
Put gun sales into the hands of government
My proposal for the nation’s gun culture (which has absolutely no chance of adoption).
Preserve the 2nd Amendment
Each household will be allowed to possess a maximum of one weapon per adult for home protection.
All weapons to be sold out of government-run retailers, like ABC stores in North Carolina which are the only legal outlet for liquor by the bottle.
Each household will be allowed the limited amount of ammunition necessary for practice, etc. Ammunition will also be sold by government-run retailers.
All purchases will be tracked by computer.
Privately run gun ranges for practice and sport shooting will be allowed. They will be able to sell ammunition for use on site.
Additional ownership of hunting guns will be allowed, which must be single shot only (good enough for Dan’l Boone, it’s good enough for you).
Possession of guns/ammunition over the limit will be penalized much as possession of meth is now.
Excellent! I see only two respects in which this proposal might be improved. It lacks a provision about the stringency of personal disclosure and ownership qualifications. It doesn't mention costs—of licensing, relicensing, gun collecting, and the installation of an approved gun safe. Gun-control activists rarely mention deliberate discouragement of gun demand by making acquisition difficult and expensive. To understand how to control guns effectively we should think "cigarettes."
DeleteCharles Blow has an eye-catching op-ed piece in the New York Times this morning. He cites data from the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD's mission is to help governments deal with economic, social, and governing problems. Here's Blows conclusion:
ReplyDeleteAmong the O.E.C.D. countries that the World Bank groups as “high income,” America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita and the highest rate of deaths due to assault. In fact, America has more homicides by gun than all of the other high-income O.E.C.D. countries combined.
My first answers to the questions posed were dismissed as shallow and dismissive. Ken, it is my acting that is shallow... and shame-based. Here is a second attempt with revisions italicized.
ReplyDelete* How can buying a gun require less personal disclosure than renting a car?
It would appear Mr. Marks has never bought a gun in California. I've bought several cars and never was I asked if I was a fugitive from justice, mentally ill or had been convicted of a domestic violence crime. I think this question was adequately answered the first time, but I can elaborate further. In fact I did at one time in my life rent cars for a living. Through that experience and my experience buying a gun in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation I can assure you buying a gun requires more personal disclosure than renting a car. But are buyers being asked the right questions? The Sandy Hook shooting is not one to consider for this question because the shooter did not purchase the guns he used. But I do believe it is one of the areas where we can do better. Now that I look at that question, I should have just replied, “It doesn't.” Live and learn.
* Why shouldn't there be a "DMV" for gun owners? (Call it a DFR, Department of Firearms Regulation.)
At present all transfers of guns must go through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). And in California there is a background check which the purchaser pays for every time he/she buys a gun. Buy a gun on Monday, pay the fee. Buy a gun on Tuesday, pay the fee again. I'm assuming that this is one of those glib answers. There is a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) that is famous for the Fast and Furious debacle, (good initiative, poor judgement as we used to say) the Waco stand-off and the Revenuers of moonshine lore. It is not a popular agency in the gun culture. So perhaps a new agency formed with input from the gun community could be more effective. The fear among gun owners is that registration will lead to confiscation. They've heard stories from other democracies like the U.K. and Australia and they don't want to that happen. Myself, I'm not worried.
* Why shouldn't gun selling be nationalized and handled as a government franchise?
See FFL. I don't know. Presently we are unable or unwilling to have a nationalized health-care system which I believe is a more pressing issue. Beyond that I don't believe nationalizing a retail enterprise is a good idea. And this is not based on some utopian view of "...the transformative power of free enterprise." Mitt Romney, 2012
* Why shouldn't buying a gun be a process that takes, say, a month, to allow for the appropriate screening?
Right now it takes 10 days in California. Additionally, California citizens are limited to the purchase of one new handgun per month. Another answer you didn't like. Does it take a month? Should it take a month every time? But here's a counter offer—let's figure out what sort of time period is necessary. I can tell you that in the shootings in Aurora, CO, Tuscon, AZ and Virginia Tech, the shooters purchased their guns within 66 days or less of the incident. So close monitoring of new gun owners would be a good idea. But, I want something in exchange—I have proved myself a responsible gun owner. Why do I have to pay that background check fee over and over? I also believe the gun community needs to communicate within its population and with those not in its group so as to have a better idea of who's doing what.
Here's the second half. You must admit that "shallow and dismissive" has the advantage of fitting in one posting.
ReplyDelete* Why does anyone need an assault weapon or automatic weapon?
To people familiar with guns, assault weapon/rifle says more about the cartridge that is fired than any gizmos like a pistol grip, handle, detachable magazine or bayonet. As for automatic, I assume the author means a fully automatic firearm that continues to fire as long as the trigger is depressed as opposed to semi-automatic firearm that requires the trigger to be pressed each time a round is fired. At present it is VERY difficult to own a fully automatic/machine-gun. My original article talked about who needs a gun and who doesn't. Most people DON'T need a gun, myself included. My interest is based on curiosity about guns, the things they teach me about the culture that produced them and clues about history one might find. But more importantly, I believe this question points to a fascination the non-gun owning world has and the importance it places on types of guns which is not, in my view, the most important factor of this issue.
* Why should anyone, other than a licensed collector, be allowed to own more than one gun?
If I have two guns and two hands, I cannot fire any more guns. There's an economic principle at work here, the same one that comes into play when using a newspaper machine, but I forget the term. My point is, I can use at most two guns at a time. And I've NEVER used two guns at a time. Yet another one that didn't satisfy. No, lugging around extra guns, that may or may not use the same ammunition is not a more efficient way of doing things. I was issued one M-16 in boot camp and had I been assigned to the infantry I would have been given more ammunition, not more guns. Again, not the most important part of this discussioin. And what is a licensed collector anyway? There's a special FFL that allows individuals to buy guns with Curio and Relic status, but acquiring one of those is as much about avoiding transaction fees as it is about being a collector. Oh, the bit about loaning/giving to a crazy friend... I broke up with my crazy girlfriend a decade ago and no one handles my guns without me being there. That's what should have been the case in Newtown. That's what needs to be addressed. Security question-gun safes come in all sizes.
* Why should ammunition clips be available?
Because a clip-fed gun is pretty useless without one. You may not like my answer but it's true. I would point to the wording of your question as an area where you could do better. William Ruger, the co-founder of Sturm, Ruger Firearms of Connecticutt proposed limiting capacity to 15 rounds and he was villified by the gun community for it. Why do people buy extra magazines? Convenience, it's easier to load three at once, shoot at your target and then re-load the three again. I believe your follow-up is why clip-fed guns? I don't know how to answer that. They've been in existence for over a hundred years. That genie is out of the bottle and I don't think we'll have much luck getting it back in. Again, we have to do a better job of figuring out who has mastery of the genie.
* Why should bullets designed to inflict massive damage be for sale?
Ask a hunter. But for what it's worth, even full metal jacket bullets (fmj), the ones approved for use on human beings by the Geneva Convention, can create pretty horrific results. I don't recall any issue with this answer, but for what it's worth, the Mafia was known to prefer the .22 Long Rifle cartridge for carrying out sanctioned hits. Quiet, cheap and one of the least powerful cartridges on the market, the r .22LR works so well because it has enough energy to penetrate the human skull, but not enough to exit. So it just bounces around the cranium scrambling the victims' brain.
One more thing- As this... "discussion" has gone on I've been reminded of something I bring up with my theatre students. It is the idea of realistic vs. truthful. The simplest way to think about it is porn- it's very realistic and completely lacking in truth. That seems like something both sides might consider. For instance, realistically bad people can kill others with any manner of "weapon." The truth is they usually use guns.
ReplyDeleteOk, two more things. Right now, with parents grieving, facing this holiday season without the one thing that makes it the happiest time of the year, my feelings are not what we need to worry about. But I must say, I have a much better understanding of Edmund from Shakespeare's "King Lear."
"...Why brand they us with base?
With baseness? bastardy? base, base?"
Sorry, I couldn't penetrate this comment at all, but I can say some things about your extended re-comments:
Delete* The gun-buying process in CA is irrelevant. This is not a CA problem but a national problem. Whatever diligence CA brings to it is drowned by the overall laxity in gun commerce.
* Mafia preferences are irrelevant, and shooters of semiautomatic weapons don't specialize in precise shooting. They spray bullets. Special bullets should be banned because they cause survival rates to drop. It's that simple.
* Your former girlfriend and the variety of gun safes are not relevant.
* Your academic reasons for owning guns cannot justify your owning them. For decades I've been fascinated by the construction of flame throwers.
* If you're not in favor of nationalizing gun control, you're not at all serious about gun control in any form. It seems self-evident to me that gun control is impossible within a hodgepodge of state and local rules and enforcements.
* Gun owners, even responsible ones like you, should continually pay their way. It's a policy that suppresses demand. Very effective with all sorts of commodities.
I have presented the counter offer of taking whatever time is necessary to do a thorough background check and I will add here that it should be nationwide.
DeleteYou brought up the subject of special bullets, not me. My response points out that the most mundane of bullet is lethal. Your remark regarding shooters of semi-automatic guns not being "precise" sounds like it's rooted in a knowledge of action movies and little else. Further, one of the only valid reasons you offer for gun ownership is self-defense. It's not my reason. But, if that's the only acceptable reason, shouldn't the homeowner have access to the ammunition best suited to the job?
You brought up my handing out guns like popcorn to crazies. I would argue that the majority of shooters act alone. You also raised the question of multiple guns being more difficult to secure, so I answered that question. (isn't that what I'm supposed to do?)
I've touched on self-defense not being my reason for owning guns. But it's interesting to note that it was the reason the Sandy Hook shooter's mother owned the guns he used. You've also stated previously that "collectors" would be allowed. But doesn't that mean some sort of academic reason which you've just dismissed for me?
I'm in favor of something like the tragedy of December 14th not happening again. And I would in all likelihood go along with whatever Federal regulations come from this. But I'm one of the more agreeable gun owners you're going to meet.
Fees, taxes and the like work for cigarettes. And given that I would be limited to one gun in your world it would be a moot point.
Edmund's crime is that he is "twelve or fourteen moonshines lag of a brother." Mine is that I own a gun.
I'm afraid we're at an impasse, LL. I tire of playing Whac-A-Mole, but I'll make a final attempt to be clear.
DeleteMuch as I'd like to hear your stories about gun buying in CA, the craziness of you ex-girlfriend, and the storage provisions for your guns, they have no bearing on the matter of national gun-control policy. They are only personal data points.
I not only brought up the subject of special bullets, I brought up every subject in my initial post. So what? I thought this discussion was a thread. On the matter of "precise" shooting, you're being absurd in suggesting that my knowledge is rooted in action movies. Do you really imagine that as Adam Lanza put 4 or 5 bullets into each kid, he took careful aim each time? I made a simple deduction.
If you are actually a gun collector and have guns that are actual historical artifacts, I think you have a credible reason for gun ownership. "Curiosity" does not a collector make.
Every time you buy cigarettes, you pay a huge tax. The same should be true of buying a gun—a single gun for use or each additional gun in a collection. I grant than the cigarette analogy doesn't work for re-registering and reliscensing. An automobile analogy works here. I bought up cigarettes only because they're an excellent example of how to curb demand by adding a burden to the purchase.
I don't think you're base for buying a gun, but I do think it bespeaks an insecurity that too often has tragic consequences.
Two articles in today's NY Times that might be of interest: "The N.R.A. Protection Racket" and "Lessons in Politics and Fine Print in Assault Weapons Ban of '90s."
ReplyDeleteAnother NY Times article today: "Gaps in FBI Data Undercut Background Checks for Guns." States are not required to provide the information needed for background checks....
DeleteEvery wonder what goes on in the subconscious mind of the American male who buys guns? I have heard explanations from the gun owners themselves, and I usually come away thiking, "Nah, that's BS." Well, I came across a piece on the CNN website that really nails it. Here's the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/opinion/waldman-guns-manhood/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
OH MY GOD! Ken, you so nailed me with that one. The part in Waldman's piece where Steve misses poker night to go to a musical? That was sooooo me... in the musical.
ReplyDeleteHooray for Wayne LaPierre! Hooray for the NRA! Our schools are safe! Now we need only put armed guards in our playgrounds, amusement parks, theaters, churches, temples, malls, restaurants, and office buildings and we'll at last be safe. What relief!
ReplyDeleteHere's the first editorial reaction from the New York Times to this morning's drivel from the NRA:
Deletehttp://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/the-more-guns-argument/?hp
So the New York Times feels we should not only not use weapons to defend ourselves against someone with a gun, but we shouldn't even try to use force, because it may somehow make matters worse? If I'm in a movie theater, and someone seated in front of me stands up and starts shooting people in the rows ahead, how could I possibly make matters worse by jumping on him? I am to believe I would be better off to sit quietly and hope he runs out of ammunition before he thinks to turn around and shoot in my direction? Same for the Connecticut school situation: A deranged man was shooting innocent children, how could anyone possibly make matters worse by trying to intervene?
ReplyDeleteDuring the Virginia Tech massacre many students tried the "do nothing" tactic of curling up in a ball and waiting and hoping. Most of them were killed execution style at point blank range.
This article recounts two incidents that paint a pathetic picture of the shooting capabilities of New York police officers. One case cited was from 1999, the other from "last August." I have heard New York is much safer than when I used to work there in the late 1970s and early '80s, when riding a subway was extremely dangerous due to roaming gangs of thugs, but is it really so secure that officers had to shoot at felons only twice in 13 years? Or is it very possible the writer of this drivel, to borrow your word, dug through the files long enough to find two cases that proved his preconceived notion on the matter, and ignored the hundreds or thousands of cases that disproved his viewpoint?
motomynd, I just read the Times editorial also, and the paragraph,
Delete(That’s actually a step up the logic food chain, believe it or not, from Charlotte Allen, who wrote in the National Review Online that we should all think of “what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on” the killer. Answer: two dead teachers and some dead 12 year olds.)
does seem to be counseling complete non-intervention. I agree with you that that is not the correct counsel. I hope that, in a "situation," I would be not only brave enough to try to intervene, but smart and skillful enough to do so successfully.
I'll give the writer the benefit of the doubt, though, on your suggestion that he cherry-picked incidents to establish a false contention, trusting (until shown otherwise) that he chose the cases he did because they were more dramatic. Even I remember reading about the case "last August" and thinking how dangerous it is for bystanders when police fire on a crowded street....
Morris, why didn't you give the writer the benefit of the doubt in both cases? I find the following interpretation natural and logical: Semiautomatic weapons are so formidable that intervention by anyone facing them simply results in the certainty of more dead people. This isn't counseling nonintervention. It isn't saying, "If you can jump the guy from behind, forget about it." It's only underscoring how overmatched we are in the face of these weapons.
DeleteWell, maybe so, Ken, but the paragraph I quoted said "converged on" and didn't specify from what direction. I do now see, though, the the "facing them" in your quote could be taken in the literal sense that anyone looking at the gunman face-on would be in deep trouble. I remember not reading it that way the first time, however, but in the sense of "taking the offensive against them." I'm not sure, now, though, whether I'm seeing the "face-on" interpretation mainly because of the way you're couching it. I would hope that the NY Times writer would sanction "jumping from behind," certainly. Maybe I was reading it Paul's way before because of the way he was couching it!
Delete