In Which the Second Verse Is the Same as the First

 The mind of a modern American (this modern American, to be precise):

“Indianapolis, now? Jesus, this is three mass shootings in just a few weeks. First, Boulder, then... No, wait, Boulder was the second one. First there was. . .  uh. . . Oh come on! First there was. . .”

Reader, we sincerely COULD NOT REMEMBER. 

Yes, eventually we retrieved Atlanta from our mental database of national tragedies, but for several minutes, we drew a complete blank. And it’s not incipient Alzheimer’s: We can still always find the car keys and recite Doc Gooden’s 1985 pitching stats.  Rather, it’s the unrelenting accumulation of similarly horrific incidents that just keep happening, with only the details changing—and those not so much. Flags get lowered to half-staff with such depressing regularity that the country should just mandate shorter ropes.

And yet nothing will change. The NRA is literally bankrupt, yet nothing will change.

We’ll see the memes from right-wing idiots claiming that there is no gun problem. That it’s a people-problem. That somehow the breakdown of traditional values embodied by—who knows—gay marriage or kneeling during the National Anthem, maybe, is to blame for the breakdown of society, which manifests itself in senseless acts of violence.

Leaving aside their confusion of cause and effect, let’s take up their argument, though: It’s NOT a gun problem. Guns don’t kill; people kill and all that. We don’t have a gun crisis, we have a mental-health crisis. Well, shouldn’t we still do something? Shouldn’t we do something to keep these avatars of a fallen moral order from getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction? Shouldn’t we pour money into mental health services to keep heavily armed people from going over the edge?

We’re not saying anything new here. The news is repetitive, and so is the response. 

Open Carry Query

Texas is an "open-carry" state, meaning people can walk around freely with their beloved rifles and machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction without fear of being persecuted for their fetishistic attachment to firearms.  At last week's protest march in Dallas--the one that ended in mayhem as a sniper opened fire on police and marchers, killing five police officers and wounding several others--"20 to 30" of the marchers showed up at the protests carrying assault rifles, and several of them were further wearing fatigues and gas masks and bulletproof vests.  Because 'MURRICA!  When the shooting started, these people--correctly--ran for cover, but their presence predictably caused confusion for the police, who were trying to determine who was shooting and from where.

Now, these "patriots" exercising their constitutional rights, were presumably examples of the semi-mythical beast that the NRA and its enablers keep telling us about: "good guys with guns."  You know, the ones who are supposed to prevent mass casualties by coolly and calmly using deadly force against the enemies of law and order.  Now, as I say, these people undoubtedly did the right thing in running away--the last thing anybody needed at that time and place was even more bullets flying in random directions.  But my question is: If these passionate devotees of gun-culture had absolutely no intention of using their weapons for self-defense or defense of others--the very thing gun fetishists insist they need their weapons for--then why were they carrying them?  And why in God's name should any of us listen when the NRA insists that that is that the guns are for?

In Which We Wait to Hear a Reasonable Reply

So President Obama made an emotional speech about guns yesterday, and Republicans predictably lost their minds.  From what I can see, the president's proposals essentially amounted to making sure that current laws are properly enforced--which, by the way, is exactly what gun enthusiasts say should be done any time there is a suggestion that the country needs stronger gun regulation: "We don't need no more laws!  We just need to enforce the ones we've already got!"  I guess that sounds good until Obama says it, at which point it becomes an unconscionable power grab.  Of course, enforcing the laws also requires resources that Republicans in Congress are unwilling to provide, but let's not quibble.  Still, in response to yesterday's speech, the Republican presidential candidates are screaming about a "gun grab" and that Obama's a-comin' for your guns!

I live in hope of one day hearing a cogent, reasonable argument against ANY of the standard suggestions put forward by gun-control advocates,  For example, one of the most popular proposals put forward is to close the gun-show loophole, which allows people to purchase firearms at gun shows without going through the same background checks they would need to go through if they bought guns at a store.  The NRA and others would have you believe that this is some sort of insane left-wing proposal that must be resisted at all costs.  And I would truly like to understand why--why should anyone have a problem with this?

Before you reply, let me say that the following are not valid arguments:

"This is the first step down the road to tyranny!"  No, it's really not.  This is an example of a "slippery-slope" argument, a well-known logical fallacy: "If A happens, then it's only a matter of time before B happens."  This argument seems to rest on the premise that a crypto-fascist government will become so giddy at its success in passing modest gun legislation that it will quickly move to seize all weapons and throw us all into concentration camps.  Anyone who truly believes this (as opposed to just saying it to score political points with the likes of the Birdbath Liberation Army) is suffering from acute paranoia and/or delusions and should probably not be armed.  And at any rate, this response fails to address the merits of the proposal.

"Forcing people to go through background checks at gun shows wouldn't do anything to stop crime."  Again, not a valid argument, for the simple reason that there is no way to know this unless and until we try it.  I can acknowledge that those who make this argument may be right: It is possible that we could impose these new regulations and see no decline whatsoever in the numbers of people killed by guns.  But we won't know unless we try, right?

I'm seriously looking for a reasonable argument--I would really like to understand.  I suppose some would say that requiring background checks at gun shows places unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens, but I truly don't see that.  I mean, if I want to buy a gun, I could presumably do so with no trouble: I am a law-abiding citizen, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, etc.  If I went to a gun store, I am certain I would pass any background check, so the only inconvenience would be that I would need to wait a little while to complete my purchase and take home my shiny new gun.  I honestly have no idea how long a background check takes.  Let's say it takes a week, though--and I suspect it takes less time than that (and could, theoretically, be completed instantaneously with the proper technology)--well, so what?  If I buy a suit, I need to wait to take it home until alterations are done.  I can wait.  And minimal safeguards designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them are, frankly, worth a little inconvenience.  The only people who would truly be inconvenienced by requiring background checks at gun shows would be the people who would fail a background check outside of a gun show.  And guess what?  I don't care if those people are inconvenienced.  They should be!

So, to conclude: No one is coming to take away your guns.  And based on what President Obama suggested yesterday, largely nothing will change.  Now, can someone offer me a reasonable, logical answer as to why things shouldn't?

In Which There Is No 'I' in Dannel

"Should being a terrorism suspect prohibit a person from buying firearms?"  According to Connecticut governor Dannel Malloy--and, for that matter, every marginally sane human being on the planet--the answer is, "Is this seriously even a question?"  But the political climate in this country has devolved to the point where, yes, it apparently is.

These days, people who find themselves on terrorist watch lists can freely and easily walk into a store and purchase all the weapons they want.  Gun rights activists explain that they are simply standing up for due process: People on terrorism watch lists and no-fly lists have not been found guilty of anything and thus should not have their constitutional rights infringed upon.  Furthermore, some people end up on watch lists for no clear reason and have difficulty getting their names expunged.  Fair enough: We should certainly make watch lists more transparent.  But the logic of this situation seems to be that some people are too dangerous to hop on an airplane but not dangerous enough to be prevented from amassing an arsenal of high-powered killing machines.  God bless America.

In Which We Talk about What We Talk about When We Talk about Guns

What really gets me is that, if you slice through the hyperbolic rhetoric--"Obama's a-comin' for yer guns!!!"--the actual proposals that most people talk about when they talk about gun control are things you would think the vast majority of people--Democrat or Republican, black or white, rich or poor--would have very little problem with: Close loopholes that allow people to avoid background checks when buying guns at gun shows.  Require people to undergo training before being licensed to carry a gun.  Maybe require gun owners to carry insurance.

It's not accidental, by the way, that many proposals mirror regulations generally associated with automobile ownership.  A standard (and oh-so-tired) argument put forth by gun enthusiasts is that, if we want to save lives, we should ban cars not guns.  A specious argument, of course, as almost nobody actually talks about banning guns, merely regulating them and making it more difficult for sociopaths to amass arsenals.  But still, if we're going to compare guns to cars, I'm all for that.  If we simply regulated guns as much as we regulate cars, we'd be well on our way to solving the mass shooter problem.

If it will make the enthusiasts happy, I will go on record (as I have before) as a proud liberal and say that I have no desire to see guns confiscated.  If it makes you feel safer to keep a gun in your house, fine.  I will even say that I understand the gun owners' concerns about legislation that would ban a particular type of gun or limit the number of guns a person can own.  I don't agree with those concerns, but I understand them.  To go back to the car metaphor, most people would take issue with the government limiting the number or type of vehicles a person can own.  So in that regard, I understand a person being troubled at the thought of government officials restricting his/her right to own, say, a small army's worth of guns.  Probably not as troubled as I am by wondering why someone would feel the need to own said small army's worth of guns, but troubled nonetheless.  Still, I would point out that different types of vehicle--motorcycle, boat, truck--require different types of licensure.  Maybe a person who wants to own a military-grade semi-automatic weapon should go through greater training requirements than a person who simply wants to pack a derringer.

My point is, I am willing to concede that some of the points made by gun-rights activists have merit.  Now, could the NRA return the favor and concede that some of the points made by those of us who simply want to live our lives without constantly wondering if we will be the next victims of heavily armed sociopaths also have merit.  Can we please find some common ground and do. . . well, something?!?

In Which We Can't Even

Originally published on July 23, 2012, and sadly once-again appropriate today:

Remember that time that a heavily-armed, law-abiding citizen stopped that maniac who was about to open fire on a crowd of helpless people?  And how everybody said, "Thank God for the Second Amendment, or this would have been so much worse!"  Remember that? Yeah, me neither.

Am I being lazy?  Maybe.  Or maybe I'm just expending the same amount of energy as the politicians whose job it actually is to do something about these never-ending atrocities.

Absurdity Du Jour

This is the world in which we live: Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, President Obama's nominee for surgeon general, faces major opposition in his quest for senate confirmation.  Not because he is unqualified, not because he is a bad doctor--not even because he has a funny name.  No, Dr. Murthy faces opposition because he holds radical views on gun control.  Or, at any rate, because he holds...views on gun control: You know, he has espoused those crazy, "fringe" ideas like limiting ammunition purchases or mandating safety training for gun owners.

This has the National Rifle Association up in arms (sorry), and promising to punish any senator (read: vulnerable Democratic senator) who has the temerity to support Dr. Murthy's nomination.  In response, the Obama administration is considering delaying the confirmation vote until after the midterm elections, or even withdrawing the nomination altogether.

Now, forget for the moment the fact that the surgeon general, whatever his personal opinions, has effectively zero authority over enacting or enforcing gun laws.  Focus instead on the apparent fact that, for the NRA, the only acceptable nominee for surgeon general would be one who believes that gun owners should not be required to know how to use their guns safely.

This is the world we're living in.

Gun Crazy

As long as citizens have a right to bear arms, I understand the quandary faced by law-enforcement personnel and gun-control advocates when considering gun-ownership restrictions on the mentally ill.  After all, those suffering from mental illness retain all other rights.  The very rise of the Tea Party can be attributed to the right of sociopaths to vote.  Nor do we strip Second Amendment rights from those suffering from other diseases.  Of course, diabetics seldom receive homicidal directives from their toasters.

What struck me, though, in today's top news article, "When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill," was the amount of weaponry amassed by the mentally ill: 18 rifles and shotguns; an SKS assault rifle and two handguns; 16 guns belonging to a veteran with PTSD.  I understand people wanting to own a gun for self-defense.  But maybe we could adopt a common-sense approach towards allowing mentally ill people to arm themselves: If the number of guns owned seems like a symptom of a mental illness--to wit, hoarding--then maybe it's time for the authorities to step in?

The NRA Does It Again!

Regular readers of this blog--all both of you--know my position on gun control: The more the better.  So you might expect I would favor disarming those gun owners against whom courts have issued orders of protection.  Relieving perpetrators of domestic violence of their violent paraphrenalia just makes sense.  Still, as I read an article today, about states' efforts to legislate or enforce such disarmament, I found myself wondering....

First, how useful is such legislation?  Don't get me wrong, in terms of strategy, I think gun-control advocates should flood state legislators with as many proposals as possible: As I mentioned in an earlier post, making the NRA and like-minded groups battle on as many fronts as possible is a good way to sap their resources and/or their will to fight against more mainstream, acceptable proposals.  At the same time, though, when questioning the effectiveness of this particular type of legislation, gun-rights advocates make a reasonable point.  By definition, those against whom orders of protection are issued are not exactly model citizens.  They have presumably manifested disregard for law and order.  Requiring these people to give up their guns is a fine idea, but are these people truly going to feel constrained by such laws?  Are they likely to hand over all their weapons--even the ones the cops may not know about?  Will they not just go out and buy another gun, assuming that is their weapon of choice.  (Arguably, laws against gun purchases by this population would be a sounder idea, from a prevention standpoint.)  By all means, pass these laws, but at the same time understand that this is just one of many possible remedies for gun violence.

The other thing this article makes clear, though, is the continuing tone-deafness of the National Rifle Association.  Seriously, if MoveOn.org or some other liberal advocacy group does not, within the next 24 hours, create an ad promoting the NRA as the "Wife Abusers Rearmament Society," then someone should be fired for dereliction of duty.

Glock for Teacher

Outrageous news out of South Dakota, where Republican governor Dennis Daugaard has signed into law a bill authorizing armed "sentinels"--including, potentially, teachers--in elementary schools, provided these sentinels undergo training similar to what law-enforcement personnel receive.

Are they fucking kidding me?  TRAINING?!? I wasn't aware the Gestapo had seized control of the South Dakota legislature!  I am a freedom-loving, gun-lusting American!  Last time I checked, signing up to be a teacher didn't require me to surrender my Constitution-given right to pack as much heat and flail it around as recklessly as I want, whenever I want, at whomever I want!  I mean, while I'm out receiving "training" and being taught to use my firearms "responsibly," exactly WHO will be protecting my students?  The police?  Ha!  What do THEY know about stopping psychopathic marauders armed to the teeth?  You better believe the maruaders aren't waiting to be trained!  If all responsible gun-owners have to be trained than only irresponsible lunatics will be untrained!  And you can all see where that will lead!

Look, I have been waiting a long time to receive permission to carry a gun in my classroom!  You have no idea how often I've thought about shooting-- Protecting!  I meant protecting!--my students.  And now that the opportunity is just a short, 1,000 mile relocation away, I refuse to be thwarted by Kommandant Daugaard and his namby-pamby, training-obsessed sycophants in the state legislature!  I say, No thank you, Sir!  I will take my skills for pedagogy and wanton mayhem somewhere where they will not be straitjacketed by minimal restrictions!  The Solipsist is going to Somalia!  WOS, pack up the cats!

Beat 'Em at Their Own Game

Did you see where Arkansas legislators have passed a law making abortions illegal after the twelfth week of pregnancy?  They didn't just pass the law, either.  They overrode a gubernatorial veto to do so.  Of course, the 12-week limit goes against established legal precedent, is blatantly unconstitutional, and stands virtually no chance of surviving the inevitable judicial scrutiny, much less reaching the Supreme Court.  Even most anti-abortion crusaders think the law unrealistically ambitious.  Are those Arkansan lawmakers nuts?

Sadly, no.  They know exactly what they are doing; they are doing precisely what anti-abortion activists have been doing for the last thirty-plus years.  They are shifting the ground on which abortion battles are fought.  They have not yet been successful in getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they have succeeded regularly in chipping away at its protections.  A woman's right to choose is gradually succumbing to death by a thousand legislative cuts.  In parts of this country, abortion is effectively illegal already, thanks to state and local laws on parental or spousal notification, "partial-birth" abortion, waiting periods, etc.--to say nothing of hostility towards abortion-services providers (including death threats and, in the case of George Tiller, murder).  In this environment, pro-choice advocates will take solace when they succeed slapping down Arkansas' paleoconservative abortion restrictions.  But when other lesser--but still onerous--restrictions are proposed or passed, the will and the resources to fight them will be that much more depleted.

It's a depressing scenario.  I would suggest, however, that liberals should make lemons out of lemonade and adopt this same tactic toward left-wing causes.  I'm thinking particularly of the gun-control debate.  There is no chance of a state legislature successfully passing laws to completely outlaw gun ownership (indeed, very few people--liberals included--advocate such a total ban).  But why not get sympathetic legislators to propose such legislation, the more implausible the better.  Flood statehouses from coast to coast with all manner of handgun restrictions, from the relatively benign (background checks) to the utterly unrealistic (a law forbidding private citizens from owning any firearm more powerful than a musket).  Make the gun lobby defend itself, make them fight numerous battles on numerous fronts.  As the ground under the abortion debate has been shifted inexorably to the right, let's shift the ground beneath the gun-control debate leftward.  It's worth a shot--no pun intended.

Baby Steps

I suppose in the current political climate, any suggestion that common ground exists between those who would increase restrictions on guns and those who would like to see a Sherman tank in every driveway should be celebrated.  Still, I'm not sure what to make of this article in yesterday's Times: "Both Sides in Gun Debate Agree: Punish Background-Check Liars."  According to this piece, last year about 80,000 Americans were kept from buying guns after they failed background checks.  Although it is illegal to provide false information in an attempt to buy guns, only 44 of those 80,000 people were charged with a crime.  Just about everyone involved in the gun-control debate thinks this number is too low.  Maybe.
Let's say, though, that President Obama issues an executive order requiring the Justice Department to investigate these liars more thoroughly.  What will this accomplish?  After all, in order to convict someone of a crime, prosecutors must establish that the person knowingly provided false information: A fair number of these people may simply have made a mistake.  As for those who tried deliberately to game the system, how many will be prevented from getting their hands on guns as a result of these new measures?  Since they were willing to commit one crime to acquire a gun, why wouldn't they be willing to commit another one, i.e., avoid the background check altogether and buy a gun on the black market?

If anything, the fact that 80,000 people were, in fact, prevented from buying guns suggests that, contrary to what gun enthusiasts claim, current laws DO (at least kinda sorta work) and ARE (at least kinda sorta) being enforced.  And yet we still have psychopaths managing to (legally) get their hands on guns.  So, y'know, maybe a little added regulation wouldn't be a bad thing?  Maybe?  Hm?

Three Cheers for Cancer (A Longish Post)

I saw this posted on Facebook yesterday.  A compelling point.  Had I too quickly condemned handgun enthusiast?

I engaged in a moment of soul-searching.  Then, I rebooted my capacity for rational thought and realized that the above statements are complete and utter bullshit.  No surprise, really. The source of the image--"The Republican Revolution"--is a proud Tea Party organization.  You remember the Tea Party, right?  Those are the folks who continue to insist in the face of all evidence to the contrary (and no evidence in support) that President Obama is a Kenyan-born, crypto-Islamofascist just waiting for the opportunity to impose Sharia law on the real Americans of Peoria.  Ludicrous!

Everyone KNOWS Obama was born in Indonesia!

Sigh.

Lest anyone come across this image and take the statement seriously, let's take a few moments to reflect:

First, consider the utter implausibility of the numbers: 1,100 murders prevented every DAY (their emphasis) by handguns.  According to the Department of Justice, for the last several years, the number of homicides in American has hovered around 15,000.  If the Republican Revolution's number is accurate, then, in the absence of guns, we could expect around 400,000 additional murders each year.  This would translate into a homicide rate of approximately 1 per 750 people--or over 133 per 100,000.  To put that into context, the deadliest country, in terms of homicide rate, is Honduras, whose rate is just over 82 per 100,000 people.  I find it difficult to believe the United States population is inherently 60% more murderous than that of Honduras.  But perhaps that's the gun enthusiasts' argument: Honduras is significantly more dangerous than the United States BECAUSE so many fewer people have guns: Honduras comes in 88th in per capita gun ownership (6.2), whereas the US is number 1 (88.8).

(DIGRESSION: THE US HAS ALMOST 90 GUNS FOR EVERY PERSON?!?! HONDURAS HAS MORE THAN SIX?!?!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD?!?!?!?!?!?!?  EOD)

Ultimately, we must guess at the basis for the Republican Revolution's argument.  Certainly there is no actual data to support it.  I went to the Department of Justice website, the ostensible source of the data cited.  For starters, it should be noted that there is no "National Crime Victims Survey"; there IS a "National Crime VICTIMIZATION Survey."  A small point, perhaps, but when trying to establish credibility, it would behoove one to correctly state at least the TITLE of one's source.  Unsurprisingly, I could find no measurement of "number of murders prevented"--whether because of gun possession or for any other reason.

Because how COULD there be such a measurement?  How can one quantify something that DOESN'T happen?  Even a theoretically cut and dried instance of murder-prevention-by-handgun doesn't withstand scrutiny.  Imagine: a gun-wielding miscreant confronts a little old lady, proclaiming his intention to murder her in cold blood.  Fortunately, an armed good samaritan overhears the threat and, brandishing his own weapon, frightens off the potential killer.  Surely, this is a clear instance of a homicide prevented by gun ownership?

Well, no, it isn't.  We don't know that the miscreant would have followed through on his threat.  We don't know if his gun would have jammed or if, had he shot, the wounds would prove fatal.  Certainly, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that no harm befalls either the old lady or her rescuer, and we could (and should) thank the civic-minded good samaritan.  But from a statistical perspective, even so clear a case of self-defense is of questionable value; and how many such "prevented homicides" are even THIS obvious?

Another way of thinking about this: If, as mentioned above, approximately 15,000 people are murdered in the United States each year, this translates into a rate of a little less than 5 per 100,000 people (given a population of about 300 million).  We could also say that the NON-HOMICIDE rate is about 99,995 of 100,000: Of every 100,000 people, 99,995 are NOT murdered each year!  Presumably, gun ownership saves some of these people, but other factors contribute as well: running away, not being targeted by a potential killer, even death by natural causes.

In 2010, over 500,000 people died from cancer in the United States (600 per 100,000 people)--or more than 1,100 people per day!  Thus, CANCER is a more effective preventer of homicide than handguns!  Yay, Cancer!

Look, statistics can be manipulated to support any political or ideological viewpoint.  The bottom line, though, is that approximately 30,000 people are killed with firearms in the United States each year (that includes suicides and accidents in addition to homicide), a fact that arises not through statistical manipulation but through physics and human biology.  When the gun lobby wants to address reality with reality, I and many others will be more than happy to listen.

Petitions and Remembrances

I am outraged by the petition posted on the White House's official website, seeking the deportation of television host Piers Morgan.  The petition was started by gun enthusiasts after Morgan vehemently expressed his support for strengthened gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. 

To be clear, I heartily support the petitioners' cause: What right-thinking American DOESN'T want Piers Morgan deported?  But I am outraged that I now find myself agreeing with sociopathic gun nuts.

Incidentally, do these petitioners, who claim Morgan's anti-gun comments represent a "hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution," recognize the irony of defending the Bill of Rights by punishing someone for exercising his freedom of speech?  Or do they just assume that the Second Amendment trumps the first because. . . .because. . . I don't know, because two is bigger than one?

******************
On a somewhat more reverent note, I was saddened to read of the death of Jack Klugman at the age of 90.

When I was a child, one of my favorite afternoon pastimes was watching reruns of "The Odd Couple" (7:00 on channel 11)--a perfectly written, perfectly cast show that retains its charm even forty years after its original airing.
Klugman, of course, played one-half of the titular couple, the slovenly Oscar Madison, perpetually at odds with his best friend and roommate, the persnickety neat-freak Felix Unger (Tony Randall).  While both characters were well-written, Oscar was clearly the one viewers were meant to identify with: His Everyman enthusiasms (sports, gambling, beer) more accessible to most people than Felix's upper-class tastes.  The only thing "unrealistic" about Oscar was his extreme slovenliness--and after spending a year with my sophomore roommate in college, I realized that even that was more plausible than I had originally thought.
Klugman had numerous other roles, including the title role in "Quincy, M.E."--basically "CSI" without all the DNA sequencing.  But Oscar Madison is the role for which he will be most remembered.  And frankly, that's not a bad thing at all.

Does Wayne LaPierre TRULY Speak for the NRA?

A few months ago, during the dog days of election season, I posted about my despair at the continuing offenses of the Republican Party. I mentioned that, up to that moment, I was willing to give my fellow citizens who happened to support the GOP the benefit of the doubt: I had assumed that the vast majority of Republicans were basically good and decent folk who shared a worldview with which I disagreed.  But with the seemingly constant drumbeat of Republican offenses to common decency--from talk of "legitimate rape" to expressions of contempt for 47% of the American public--I questioned the good intentions of those who would willingly allow such people to speak for them.

I now ask the same question of NRA members.

In the wake of last week's atrocity in Newtown, CT, the leadership of the National Rifle Association was conspicuously silent.  A curious nation wondered if the NRA was engaging in some long-overdue soul-searching, perhaps reconsidering its knee-jerk response to any suggestion of increasing restrictions (however minimal or easonable) on the right of private citizens to own guns.  Maybe some good could come of this tragedy if the premier firearm advocacy organization could be convinced to join a productive conversation about increasing public safety.

We should have known better.

Today, NRA Vice-President Wayne LaPierre broke the group's silence at a news conference.  The official NRA response to Newtown calls not for new restrictions on guns, but for the stationing of armed police officers at every school.  LaPierre went on to blame Hollywood and the makers of violent video games for the senseless violence displayed at Sandy Hook Elementary, along with the government's failure to adequately enforce existing gun laws or to create a national registry of the mentally ill.

Does Wayne LaPierre listen to the words that come out of his own mouth?

The NRA's raison d'etre is to defend gun owners' (theoretical) Second Amendment rights against governmental overreach.  Yet here is LaPierre, stating that the solution to gun violence is to garrison armed governmental representatives at our children's schools (not to mention creating a national database of the mentally ill).  By the NRA's logic, wouldn't the presence of armed governmental forces at a school turn Adam Lanza into something of a liberator?  And since when is the NRA in favor of national registries?

I've also had it with the NRA's disingenuous claims that if the government would only enforce existing gun laws, it would prevent psychopaths from building themselves arsenals.  Does it escape the notice of LaPierre and others like him that most of these mass slaughters are carried out with legally obtained weapons?  When the NRA whines that increased gun restrictions only keep law-abiding citizens from having guns, we should point out that keeping "law-abiding citizens" like Adam Lanza, James Holmes (Aurora, Colorado), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Arizona), Dylan Klebold (Columbine), etc., etc., etc. from having guns sounds like a pretty good idea!  Seems to me it's the "law-abiding citizens" we mostly have to worry about.  The NRA can talk all it wants about keeping high-powered weapons out of the hands of gangbangers, and I'm all for that, too.  At the same time, it seems like gangbangers mostly want to use their guns on other gangbangers--not on random strangers at malls, movie theaters, or elementary schools.

The NRA has millions of members.  I'm sure some of them agree with every word LaPierre spews.  But I don't believe that a majority of NRA members--most of whom are probably decent people who like to hunt or who own one or two guns for self-protection--actually support his views.  Maybe I'm wrong about that.  I hope not.  The time has come, though, for the rank and file of the National Rifle Association to make their voices heard.  Repudiate Wayne LaPierre.  Vote him out.  You are either reasonable people who care about, and are willing to work constructively with, your fellow citizens to improve everyone's safety, or you are the followers of a socioopathic demagogue.  You cannot have it both ways.

Wanted: G-Street

The leaders of the National Rifle Association hold, shall we say, absolutist views on gun ownership.  To listen to their public statements one would think Americans face a stark choice: Either guns of all shapes, sizes, and capacity for inflicting mass carnage must be readily available with minimal restrictions to anybody who wants them, or Americans might as well just surrender now to the dictator who will inevitably--perhaps instantaneously--arise once we sheepishly disarm.

I can't be the only one who sees this as a false choice, right?

I suspect a sizable majority of Americans--including, probably, a majority of gun owners and possibly even NRA members--subscribes neither to the extreme position outlined above nor to its polar opposite, what we might call gun-control absolutism or abolitionism.  I include myself in this majority.  Though no fan of firearms, I would not, even if elected to some Godlike position (late-night comedy show host?), advocate a complete ban on handguns.  I don't object, say, to a law-abiding citizen having a handgun for self-defense or to a hunter owning a rifle.

A majority of Americans could presumably reach agreement on a few sensible reforms that, while not eliminating the possibility of mass shootings, would make them more unlikely.  Most people, for example, would probably agree that guns and gun ownership should be regulated at least as stringently as cars and driving: People should have to pass a test before being given a gun license; guns should be registered and a state and/or national database of gun owners created; registered gun owners should be held responsible for any damage done with their guns, etc.  (I thank a Facebook friend, Andrew Pollack, for some of these suggestions.)  The specifics of a more sensible gun policy could be worked out, but most reasonable people could accept this as a starting point for a discussion.

So, here's my question to gun owners: Why do you continue to let the NRA speak for you?  American Jews who support the idea of Israel's peaceful coexistence with other Mideast countries formed J-Street--a "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace" lobbying group--when they realized that AIPAC, the predominant Jewish lobbying group in Washington, was never going to moderate its emphatically right-wing ideology.  Why can't gun owners who favor sensible reforms that will truly help keep the public safe--I KNOW you're out there!--break away from the dead-enders (in every sense of the word) at the NRA?

OK, Here We Go. . . .

One cause of the Republican's shellacking in last month's elections was the inability (or unwillingness) of numerous conservative neanderthals to understand that rape is a crime, and that a pregnancy conceived as a result of this crime might be considered something other than a divine blessing.  That's what happens, though, when people hold an absolutist worldview: Abortion is only and always wrong, so any logically consistent argument supporting this worldview, no matter how repugnant, must be right.  One can almost admire folks like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock for their steadfastness and see something almost tragic (though hardly unwelcome) in their self-inflicted political deathblows.

One wishes some similarly logically-consistent gun-rights advocate would make the obvious comment in the wake of today's Connecticut elementary-school massacre: Those bullets that killed twenty children?  God-given early-Christmas gifts for kids lucky enough to live (briefly) in a country that protects the right to bear arms!  Imagine the backlash!

Of course, no NRA spokesman or (presumably) member would so blatantly blame the innocent victims of this horrific assault.  And yet, within hours of this morning's shootings, many gun-apologists predictably engaged in something only slightly less offensive, opining defensively that if only--If only!--teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary had been armed, this tragedy would have been prevented (or at least minimized).

See, everybody?  It's not the fault of Adam Lanza, the obviously deranged young man who apparently killed all these children, as well as some school personnel, his own mother, and, ultimately, himself.  The fault lies with those irresponsibile schoolteachers who failed to take full advantage of their constitutional freedoms and thereby failed in their duty to protect their young charges!  Why, they're practically as guilty as Lanza!  They ought to be arrested!  Well, the ones who survived anyway.

What gets me about this particular knee-jerk reaction to gun violence is its fundamental illogic.  The argument seems to be that, if we strengthen gun-control laws, we will effectively be unilaterally disarming--that law-abiding people will no longer be able to arm themselves against lunatics with guns.  The problem, of course, is that law-abiding people are NOT consistently arming themselves now.  So unless the NRA is advocating a law requiring gun ownership--they're not, are they?--this argument rings hollow at best, heartless at worst.

I keep waiting, though so far in vain, for the event that will trigger the backlash.  Maybe Sandy Hook will be it.  Maybe this will finally convince people that the NRA should not have a stranglehold on our politics.  I'm not optimistic.

Just a Few More Thoughts on Aurora, Colorado

Did you hear about the GOP Senator who said that, since he believes all life is sacred, and since he would therefore do anything in his power to make it as difficult as possible for women to obtain abortions, he must also do everything he can to make it as difficult as possible for unstable lunatics to obtain guns whose only logical purpose is to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible?  Did you hear about him?  Yeah, neither did I.

***********************************

Obviously, the more guns there are in a society, the more stable that society is going to be.  Just ask the folks in Afghanistan.  Or Ciudad Juarez.

***********************************

Remember that time that a heavily-armed, law-abiding citizen stopped that maniac who was about to open fire on a crowd of helpless people?  And how everybody said, "Thank God for the Second Amendment, or this would have been so much worse!"  Remember that? Yeah, me neither.

************************************

The right of American citizens to own guns is what separates this freedom-loving, democratic nation from all those totalitarian dictatorships around the world.  You know, like England.

Never Mind Yelling--What about OPENING Fire in a Crowded Theater?

Following up on yesterday's post, it now appears that James Holmes, the "alleged" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) shooter in the Colorado movie-theater massacre, purchased all his guns and ammunition legally.  So, I will now go ahead and say what I thought I would say yesterday: This country needs seriously to rethink its attitudes toward gun-control.

Of course, some of our more right-wing brethren suggest that gun restrictions are, in this case, part of the problem.  They claim that, if only--if only!--someone else in the theater had been armed!  He or she could have taken out James Holmes and put an end to his rampage.  I think this claim deserves serious . . . consideration.

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that someone else--some responsible, law-abiding citizen--at that ill-fated midnight show had been carrying a gun--

--and frankly, I find it difficult to believe no one else was carrying.  This was a packed theater--several hundred people, including, we now know, several members of the military.  Furthermore, this occurred in Colorado--not the reddest of red states, sure, but a Western state with a somewhat relaxed attitude toward personal gun ownership.  Is it really reasonable to assume that not one other person in the theater was packing heat?  Still, let's go along with the right-wing argument that overly restrictive gun-control laws keep guns out of the hands of everybody--except apparently unstable lunatics.

Where were we?  Ah, yes.  Let's assume that someone else at the theater had been carrying a gun when James Holmes burst in and began his rampage.  What would have happened?

Holmes would still have enjoyed the advantage of surprise.  Apparently, several moviegoers at first thought the whole thing was some kind of publicity stunt.  Not unreasonable: This was a premiere of a major blockbuster--an action movie--and based on descriptions of Holmes' attire, it sounds like he closely enough resembled one of the film's characters that most viewers, in a festive mood and certainly not anticipating danger, would suspected nothing was wrong, at least until they realized that the smoke-bombs Holmes released contained real tear gas or some other irritant.  And then, of course, the shooting started.

So now, imagine what confronts our hypothetical hero--sitting somewhere with her pistol tucked in her purse: A darkened theater, filling up with caustic smoke (to which, of course, she is not immune), and dozens of people screaming and frantically trying to escape the carnage.  If she actually tried to shoot Holmes, what are the odds she would hit him and not one of her fellow theatergoers?  For that matter, the shooter was reportedly wearing all manner of body armor; unless our hero were carrying a very powerful little gun, and/or found herself right next to Holmes so she could shoot him directly in the head, it seems unlikely she could have been all that effective.  Given the circumstances, unless you're a member of Seal Team Six, or maybe Andy Garcia's character from "The Untouchables," your best course of action would have been to leave the gun in your purse or pocket and hightail it out of the theater with the rest of the audience.

********************************************
Honestly, I don't know what the solution is.  Of course, people determined to commit gun-fueled mayhem will find a way to arm themselves despite any laws that gun-control proponents manage to pass.  But, seriously, could we just maybe consider making things a bit more difficult for the James Holmeses of the world?  Surely some middle ground exists between outlawing guns altogether and allowing absolutely anybody anywhere to buy as many guns and as much ammunition as the market will bear?  Surely it's not unreasonable for law-abiding citizens to want some assurance that the guy walking down the street toward them is not packing more firepower than an average Israeli commando unit?

Is it?

12 Monkeys and a Few Thousand Concealed Handguns--and I'm More Worried about the Monkeys!

What is the world coming to when I find myself more worried about science than I am about right-wing gun-nuts?  I blame the New York Times.

First, I flipped to (well, OK, clicked on) an article entitled "Guns in Public, and Out of Sight," about laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns.  Now, being a firm believer in robust gun-control laws, I prepared myself to look down with liberal disdain on the benighted proponents of such barbaric legislation.  And the Times' reporter, true to the paper's liberal-leaning editorial policy, clearly intends for the reader to find concealed-carry laws dangerous and wrong-headed.  Then I read these paragraphs:

"The New York Times examined the permit program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.

"More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun."

Sounds worrisome, no? Well, actually, no.

Consider the numbers: "More than 2,400 permit holders" is of course vague.  We don't know how many more than 2,400, but we can assume that it is less than, say, 2,500, or the writer would have said "less than 2,500.."  Still, a couple of thousand convicted criminals running around just one state is no small potatoes.  Except note that "or" in "convicted of felonies OR misdemeanors."  Reading on, we see that, "more than 200 [i.e., less than 300] were convicted of felonies."  Well, OK, but still: a couple of hundred felonies committed by gun-wielding reprobates.  Except note that only 10 of these felonies were "murder or manslaughter."  And "all but two of the killers used a gun."

So another way of looking at this is that, over a five-year period, of the 2,400 crimes committed by people licensed to carry concealed firearms, less than 15% were felonies, and only five percent of these felonies involved the death of a victim--and 20% of the killings were not done with a gun anyway, making the whole concealed-carry permit somewhat irrelevant.  So even if we assume causation (which we can't), we can only conclude from this that concealed-carry gun laws led to eight homicides over a five-year period.  And note that the reporter stipulates that the 2,400 crimes committed by licensees represents "a small percentage of those with permits."

Obviously, any felonious homicide is unacceptable, but looking at these numbers carefully leaves one with the distinct impression that concealed-carry laws are hardly the threat to public safety that a liberal like me would tend to believe.

Well, OK, maybe I have to think more critically about my position on gun-control, but I can maintain my faith in science as an advancer of human well-being.  What;s that?  Oh, scientists have figured out a way to genetically alter bird flu so that it can be transmitted through the air?  And bird flu is about 50% fatal (compared, say, to the horrific flu pandemic of 1918 which killed about 2% of its victims)?  And they are thinking about PUBLISHING the information on how-to-engineer-a-world-killing-virus?

Look, I believe in the free exchange of ideas as much as anybody, but I would suggest that this is one piece of information that should, maybe, be guarded very very very carefully.  I mean, the fact that this genetic alteration can be done is scary, if not entirely surprising.  But you have to ask yourself who REALLY needs to know HOW to do this?  Considering that governments tenaciously guard secrets on things like how to make nuclear bombs, I would think that guarding secrets on something that is exponentially more dangerous to the human race is a no-brainer.

But what do I know?  After all, I'm beginning to think concealed-carry laws may not be such a bad thing.  Next thing you know, I'll be supporting Rick Perry for President.  The man does have nice hair.