I suppose I should be used to it by now, but such is the state of journalism these days that you can be sure that most of what you see and hear and read is not only in error but usually tendentious, intended to mislead, to create an impression, to add emotion for a purpose.
Whether it's about automobiles, health and nutrition and especially if it's about firearms, you can almost be sure the story is misleading and often intentionally so. Certainly every story about firearms needs to be salted with buzzwords even if they don't apply. Anyone with more than two guns, for instance has an arsenal and even though it's common to buy ammunition in boxes of 250 rounds or more, the story must always stress how many "bullets" the owner has, (most often they're "high caliber, high velocity and armor piercing) and how frightening that is.
So although there are several important things to discuss, several questions to be answered in the story of a Darby Pennsylvania shooting of a social worker and a psychiatrist, the headline reads that the deranged shooter was carrying "39 bullets" in his pocket and obviously intended to reload his ".32 caliber revolver." Now to me, the question worth asking is how a convicted bank robber with many felony firearms convictions in his portfolio was walking about free, had a gun at all and got into a hospital with it.
Frankly I'm suspicious that the writer really doesn't know a revolver from an autoloader since .32 revolvers tend to be antique and use ammunition that hasn't been made in a long time, but it doesn't matter, the man had a gun, took it to his psychiatrist's office, flew into a rage about signs prohibiting firearms, shot a social worker at close range and shot the Doctor too, but only wounded him. Now if you believe the story, he was attempting to reload says the story but he was also tackled by two men and he was also shot three times by the psychiatrist (with a .32 autoloading pistol.) Will the real story please stand up?
Why did he need to reload after two shots? Was he really using a two barrel Derringer? Was he tackled after he was shot three times and critically wounded? Will the psychiatrist, who had a concealed weapon permit get into trouble for having a gun in a restricted area? Will he have to face trial, lose his job for saving his life? Do Pennsylvania laws require him to have run away instead of standing his ground? Perhaps he will be prosecuted, perhaps not, but our Federal and State gun laws are very complex, very tough and often punish the innocent, despite what you hear.
We can be assured that the NRA will use this to argue for more guns in hospitals and we will guffaw in righteous indignation, but the fact remains that Dr. Silverman saved his own life and likely that of others by having a gun, terrible shot although he appears to be. Democrats will fail to be embarrassed by the axiom that people cannot protect themselves with guns. We'll be demanding "tougher" and more strict laws without really having an idea what they might be or knowing what already is in place, but apparently we won't be asking why all those regulations designed to keep guns from crazy people with violent and lengthy criminal records are walking the streets and finding ways to get and carry guns illegally, seem no more effective for all the severity. Some will go on insisting there are no regulations or restrictions of any kind and perhaps one of those will post an angry comment, as they so often do.
It's not about 39 bullets, it's not about the childish terminology, its about the reliance on legislation to make crime stop, it's about reliance on severe and inflexible sentencing instead of spending money on security and enforcement. It's about refusing to look at statistics concerning types of weapons used in real crimes instead of hypothetical and highly inventive speculation. Everything this killer did was illegal and I want to know if he bought this weapon under the table and if so, from whom. I want to know if he passed a mandatory background check and waiting period -- if so, why and how and I want less hooha about ending crime by making it illegal. Murder has been illegal for a very long time.
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
The right to kill
No matter that states like Florida have a "stand your ground" law, you're always on shaky ground when defending your life with a weapon. If you don't get Current TV, you may want to watch this documentary giving examples of how the law has been abused; about how legitimate defense may ruin your life and how homicide may go unpunished.
Although the author of Florida's landmark law emphatically states that the law does not support confrontation, pursuit or aggression; although the law does not justify lethal force to protect property, nor shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, courts have acted as though it does and opponents of the law are quite happy to act as though the intent was precisely to give the right to kill to anyone who feels uneasy or annoyed for reasons not quite related to fact.
Consider the story of an IRS agent whose car was run off the road by two men who pursued him, threatening his life. Unable to get help from 911, Mr. Lewis used his pistol and wounded one of the assailants and in the lengthy process that ensued, lost his job, his home and his savings when the assailant sued him.
And then look at the story of a unarmed man, in some sort of religious state of Ecstasy was gunned down in the street by someone who felt threatened. Look too at a Texas Prostitute who was shot for refusing sex and refusing a refund. In both cases the murderer got off scott free.
When a Sheriff's deputy told me not long ago, that if I were to need to defend my life or family with a weapon, I should shoot to kill rather than face a decade or two of litigation that would surely impoverish me, I had to remember an acquaintance, a Baltimore policeman who was in fact forced into poverty after having justifiably shot someone in the line of duty. If you're trying to survive an attack, should you have to choose between being killed or maimed, sent to prison or being torn to pieces by the courts? That quandary is the origin of laws intended to protect those who need to protect themselves.
Evidently, "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws have failed in some cases to protect those legitimately protecting their lives as well as they have failed to protect harmless people. In a country steeped in the fear of crime; a country being convinced by false propaganda of the increasing dangers awaiting us from armed civilians and by armed criminals, is there a solution? Can we protect the right to self defense while protecting us from unwarranted prosecution, from armed aggression posing as justified use of deadly force? Will we even have the chance to debate this?
The unfolding case against George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin should be forcing us to consider whether the law should be changed, but of course it won't. Although it seems clear to me, as someone who has read the law that one can't claim self defense if one is himself the assailant -- if one pursued, harassed, confronted and illegally tried to remove someone from a place he had the right to occupy, the trial will not be about that and no minds will be changed. It will become a soapbox for airing ill considered and irrelevant opinion, both from people who aren't going to be hindered by objectivity or facts and has a vested interest in divisiveness and partisanship -- whether making at about racism, about the need for more guns, fewer guns, about whether strict gun laws have any effect, about the need for disarmament or any of the other passionately held and incorporated positions, everyone will stand his ground, defend his opinion, and nothing will change.
Is it really about 'gun cultures', the NRA or 20 round magazines or plastic gun parts or gun shows or waiting periods -- or is it about a nation crippled by gullibility, by activists and lobbyists and irrational fear?
Although the author of Florida's landmark law emphatically states that the law does not support confrontation, pursuit or aggression; although the law does not justify lethal force to protect property, nor shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, courts have acted as though it does and opponents of the law are quite happy to act as though the intent was precisely to give the right to kill to anyone who feels uneasy or annoyed for reasons not quite related to fact.
Consider the story of an IRS agent whose car was run off the road by two men who pursued him, threatening his life. Unable to get help from 911, Mr. Lewis used his pistol and wounded one of the assailants and in the lengthy process that ensued, lost his job, his home and his savings when the assailant sued him.
And then look at the story of a unarmed man, in some sort of religious state of Ecstasy was gunned down in the street by someone who felt threatened. Look too at a Texas Prostitute who was shot for refusing sex and refusing a refund. In both cases the murderer got off scott free.
When a Sheriff's deputy told me not long ago, that if I were to need to defend my life or family with a weapon, I should shoot to kill rather than face a decade or two of litigation that would surely impoverish me, I had to remember an acquaintance, a Baltimore policeman who was in fact forced into poverty after having justifiably shot someone in the line of duty. If you're trying to survive an attack, should you have to choose between being killed or maimed, sent to prison or being torn to pieces by the courts? That quandary is the origin of laws intended to protect those who need to protect themselves.
Evidently, "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws have failed in some cases to protect those legitimately protecting their lives as well as they have failed to protect harmless people. In a country steeped in the fear of crime; a country being convinced by false propaganda of the increasing dangers awaiting us from armed civilians and by armed criminals, is there a solution? Can we protect the right to self defense while protecting us from unwarranted prosecution, from armed aggression posing as justified use of deadly force? Will we even have the chance to debate this?
The unfolding case against George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin should be forcing us to consider whether the law should be changed, but of course it won't. Although it seems clear to me, as someone who has read the law that one can't claim self defense if one is himself the assailant -- if one pursued, harassed, confronted and illegally tried to remove someone from a place he had the right to occupy, the trial will not be about that and no minds will be changed. It will become a soapbox for airing ill considered and irrelevant opinion, both from people who aren't going to be hindered by objectivity or facts and has a vested interest in divisiveness and partisanship -- whether making at about racism, about the need for more guns, fewer guns, about whether strict gun laws have any effect, about the need for disarmament or any of the other passionately held and incorporated positions, everyone will stand his ground, defend his opinion, and nothing will change.
Is it really about 'gun cultures', the NRA or 20 round magazines or plastic gun parts or gun shows or waiting periods -- or is it about a nation crippled by gullibility, by activists and lobbyists and irrational fear?
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Rampage
You know people do all kinds of crazy things to get in the Guinness Book of World Records. People do crazy things to get on TV and I'm convinced that what we have going on is a contest here. People who shouldn't be anywhere near weapons are vying to see who can do the most senseless act of senseless violence and some don't care if it's the last thing they ever do. Every shooting spree seems to trigger another in some sort of macabre chain reaction.
I don't know if rampage shootings are on the increase, or whether they're on the decrease I expect than in the long term it's the latter, but although we have evidently made strides in reducing most violent crime, we have more crazy people, psychopathic and schizophrenic people, treated or untreated roaming about looking for blood and despite our efforts at making mandatory background checks effective -- way too damn many are slipping through the gaping holes in the system.
I don't know if rampage shootings are on the increase, or whether they're on the decrease I expect than in the long term it's the latter, but although we have evidently made strides in reducing most violent crime, we have more crazy people, psychopathic and schizophrenic people, treated or untreated roaming about looking for blood and despite our efforts at making mandatory background checks effective -- way too damn many are slipping through the gaping holes in the system.
Santa Monica gunman previously hospitalized for mental health
shouts the CNN.com headline. So why, with all the gun control laws California has, was he able to get hold of a gun? Did he pass a background check, did he buy it illegally, at a gun show; did he steal a gun? I'm sure we'll find out, but the fact that he may have recently been hospitalized for urges to kill people and yet acquired weapons or retained weapons is inexcusable.
Yes, we are all upset at the failure of Congress to do something about our Swiss cheese system of background checks, but did we really read the bill or were we just satisfied as long as the title promised that everyone would have to pass a background check? Did it only plug a loophole through damned little was passing? Did it address the fact that 'no gun' lists are not adequately maintained or updated either because it's too much work for mental health professionals or because they are afraid of lawsuits or other repercussions?
Passing laws that are not or cannot be enforced and are proven ineffective is inexcusable and while an effective approach must include checks, it must also make those checks real by making the reporting of such mental health issues real and if some are so concerned that the evil Obama is going to take their weapons and put stooges on the court that will make the second amendment nugatory, perhaps they should stop the kind of stonewalling that is endangering the freedom they wish to keep. Perhaps our traditional practice of writing and passing bills without reading them, without examining the assumptions and looking at past experience is going to have to change as well.
Background checks are necessary but they may as well not exist if we're going to prevent them from working, if we're going to be satisfied with doing the same things expecting different results. But if we're to look at gun crime in general, I have to agree with the USA Today article that discusses the failure of our current approach that owes so much with our refusal to discuss or do anything about the poverty, the criminal subculture, the frustration and anger and hopelessness and yes, the untreated, unrestrained mental illness that that foster crime. The most severe restrictions have far, far less effect on crime than their passionate advocates insist they do and in my opinion the traditional belief in bans and licenses and registration programs are always going to fail if we do nothing about the vast Petri dish of depravity that is America.
Yes, we are all upset at the failure of Congress to do something about our Swiss cheese system of background checks, but did we really read the bill or were we just satisfied as long as the title promised that everyone would have to pass a background check? Did it only plug a loophole through damned little was passing? Did it address the fact that 'no gun' lists are not adequately maintained or updated either because it's too much work for mental health professionals or because they are afraid of lawsuits or other repercussions?
Passing laws that are not or cannot be enforced and are proven ineffective is inexcusable and while an effective approach must include checks, it must also make those checks real by making the reporting of such mental health issues real and if some are so concerned that the evil Obama is going to take their weapons and put stooges on the court that will make the second amendment nugatory, perhaps they should stop the kind of stonewalling that is endangering the freedom they wish to keep. Perhaps our traditional practice of writing and passing bills without reading them, without examining the assumptions and looking at past experience is going to have to change as well.
Background checks are necessary but they may as well not exist if we're going to prevent them from working, if we're going to be satisfied with doing the same things expecting different results. But if we're to look at gun crime in general, I have to agree with the USA Today article that discusses the failure of our current approach that owes so much with our refusal to discuss or do anything about the poverty, the criminal subculture, the frustration and anger and hopelessness and yes, the untreated, unrestrained mental illness that that foster crime. The most severe restrictions have far, far less effect on crime than their passionate advocates insist they do and in my opinion the traditional belief in bans and licenses and registration programs are always going to fail if we do nothing about the vast Petri dish of depravity that is America.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Justified
It isn't common for the US media to make an issue of the level of violence in South Africa, but Oscar Pistorius is a celebrity and the woman he's accused of murdering was a celebrity. The lives of our secular pantheon are important to the public and particularly if the celebrity has to do with sports. Are the successful athletes we love to appoint as role models, whom we love to pretend to emulate, really paragons of virtue and discipline or does their drive, their ego, their motivation spill over into something sometimes less than wholesome? I'm not going to generalize about the famous, but like the USA, South Africa is a violent nation and one with a long history of violent racism and violent crime and a population with a large difference between haves and have-nots. The murder rate is high, about 50 per day, and while I read that only about 12% of South Africans own guns, the probability is that many more are not reported and are illegally owned.
White, middle and upper class South Africans live in fear and those who can afford to, live in gated enclaves behind iron barred doors and windows; behind electrified fences with sophisticated alarm systems and armed security guards -- and they own guns. The standard of living is lower for non-whites but the level of fear is high for all and one can argue that it's justified. Guns are used in 77 per cent of house robberies and 87 per cent of business robberies, and they are the cause of death in more than half of all murders. Many burglars are seeking guns over other items.
South Africa is often described as a "gun-loving" country. Yes, of course if one lives on a remote farm in the bush, there are leopards and lions and hippos and elephants that argue for heavy arms, but I think that for the most part, owning a gun is all about crime and a sense of security in a violent nation. According to Wikipedia, A survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita in a data set of 60 countries. Total crime per capita was 10th out of the 60 countries in the dataset. A study by the government on the nature of crime in South Africa concluded that the country is exposed to high levels of violence as a result of different factors, including:
Much of this should seem familiar to Americans and the kind of justification many Americans feel in owning guns is the same. Discussions of gun control in South Africa have understandably become as heated as they once again have in the US after high profile, heavily publicized murders, but in neither place will effective debate be conducted without acknowledging the various reasons people buy and own guns: without acknowledging the kinds of perpetrators and their proportion. Not as long as we focus on undoing the latest headline, not as long as we depend on fear rather than fact.
In both nations, the murder rate is declining. In South Africa after tougher limits on gun ownership took effect in 2004, the number of gun-related crimes has dropped by 21 per cent. The Globe and Mail tells us that this decrease is not merely because of a general decline in crime in South Africa. One study of female victims, we are told, by the country’s Medical Research Council, found that gun-related deaths had dropped by nearly half from 1999 to 2009, while other causes of violent death were virtually unchanged. You'd think you'd hear us talk more about the how and why of it.
In the US, gun-related violence has been declining for longer and has declined further. Does this argue that gun control can be effective? I think it does. Does that prompt us to improve our efforts along the same lines and with regard to underlying causes? I think it does, yet in the US I see little effort being made to acknowledge this; to look at what works and what has not worked -- but rather we seem to champion ideas without support of experience, despite experience while demonizing the pragmatic, scientific efforts. Too many of our arguments and most of the angriest seem to have more to do with blaming certain weapons with certain appearances or often fictitious attributes and rely on using certain kinds of descriptions designed to inflame, not to inform -- and may people who agree in principle that there are things we can do to lower the violence and the fear find it impossible to work together, to cooperate through the barrage of passionate slogans and shoddy shibboleths. Too many of our arguments depend on denial and maintaining, despite the truth, that everything is getting worse as if hope were an enemy, confidence a conspiracy and truth irrelevant.
We Americans seem to think that nothing that works elsewhere can work here, that we are so unique in our nature and the nature of our problems that we retreat into solipsism and blindness. In fact, looking at our history of prohibitions and bans and the emotional dishonesty and selective blindness that supported them, it seems to be an American tradition of long standing.
White, middle and upper class South Africans live in fear and those who can afford to, live in gated enclaves behind iron barred doors and windows; behind electrified fences with sophisticated alarm systems and armed security guards -- and they own guns. The standard of living is lower for non-whites but the level of fear is high for all and one can argue that it's justified. Guns are used in 77 per cent of house robberies and 87 per cent of business robberies, and they are the cause of death in more than half of all murders. Many burglars are seeking guns over other items.
South Africa is often described as a "gun-loving" country. Yes, of course if one lives on a remote farm in the bush, there are leopards and lions and hippos and elephants that argue for heavy arms, but I think that for the most part, owning a gun is all about crime and a sense of security in a violent nation. According to Wikipedia, A survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita in a data set of 60 countries. Total crime per capita was 10th out of the 60 countries in the dataset. A study by the government on the nature of crime in South Africa concluded that the country is exposed to high levels of violence as a result of different factors, including:
The normalization of violence. Violence comes to be seen as a necessary and justified means of resolving conflict, and males believe that coercive sexual behaviour against women is legitimate.
The reliance on a criminal justice system that is mired in many issues, including inefficiency and corruption.
A subculture of violence and criminality, ranging from individual criminals who rape or rob to informal groups or more formalized gangs. Those involved in the subculture are engaged in criminal careers and commonly use firearms, with the exception of Cape Town where knife violence is more prevalent. Credibility within this subculture is related to the readiness to resort to extreme violence.
The vulnerability of young people linked to inadequate child rearing and poor youth socialization. As a result of poverty, unstable living arrangements and being brought up with inconsistent and uncaring parenting, some South African children are exposed to risk factors which enhance the chances that they will become involved in criminality and violence.
The high levels of inequality, poverty, unemployment, social exclusion and marginalization.
Much of this should seem familiar to Americans and the kind of justification many Americans feel in owning guns is the same. Discussions of gun control in South Africa have understandably become as heated as they once again have in the US after high profile, heavily publicized murders, but in neither place will effective debate be conducted without acknowledging the various reasons people buy and own guns: without acknowledging the kinds of perpetrators and their proportion. Not as long as we focus on undoing the latest headline, not as long as we depend on fear rather than fact.
In both nations, the murder rate is declining. In South Africa after tougher limits on gun ownership took effect in 2004, the number of gun-related crimes has dropped by 21 per cent. The Globe and Mail tells us that this decrease is not merely because of a general decline in crime in South Africa. One study of female victims, we are told, by the country’s Medical Research Council, found that gun-related deaths had dropped by nearly half from 1999 to 2009, while other causes of violent death were virtually unchanged. You'd think you'd hear us talk more about the how and why of it.
In the US, gun-related violence has been declining for longer and has declined further. Does this argue that gun control can be effective? I think it does. Does that prompt us to improve our efforts along the same lines and with regard to underlying causes? I think it does, yet in the US I see little effort being made to acknowledge this; to look at what works and what has not worked -- but rather we seem to champion ideas without support of experience, despite experience while demonizing the pragmatic, scientific efforts. Too many of our arguments and most of the angriest seem to have more to do with blaming certain weapons with certain appearances or often fictitious attributes and rely on using certain kinds of descriptions designed to inflame, not to inform -- and may people who agree in principle that there are things we can do to lower the violence and the fear find it impossible to work together, to cooperate through the barrage of passionate slogans and shoddy shibboleths. Too many of our arguments depend on denial and maintaining, despite the truth, that everything is getting worse as if hope were an enemy, confidence a conspiracy and truth irrelevant.
We Americans seem to think that nothing that works elsewhere can work here, that we are so unique in our nature and the nature of our problems that we retreat into solipsism and blindness. In fact, looking at our history of prohibitions and bans and the emotional dishonesty and selective blindness that supported them, it seems to be an American tradition of long standing.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Baby on Board
If all that I read were the sporting goods catalogs that arrive in the mail I would still know something was up. There are suddenly pages of drum magazines for sale to fit everything from non-military versions of long guns to shotguns to semiautomatic pistols. Drum magazines, you'll remember seeing them on The Untouchables, great round things holding 75 to 100 rounds mounted on the infamous "Chicago Typewriter." One catalog even features violin and cello cases fitted out to carry them. Fedora and Zoot Suit sold separately. What you'd need to carry a Glock pistol with a 75 round drum mounted below the grip, I don't know, but it's next to useless as a concealable or even portable weapon. So why this feeding frenzy? Why just now? Is there an invasion coming?
Gun shops are getting very crowded again. There's a large supermarket style one under construction in my area of coastal Florida. Prices are rising and they can't seem to keep military-looking fake 'assault rifles' on the shelves. Another catalog features a kit allowing one to bolt together two Ruger 10/22 rifles - the kind of gun some country gentleman might give his son on his 18th birthday into a two barrel, crank operated .22 rimfire Gattling gun, complete with tripod. Only $397 but you have to supply your own pair of rifles. Their website bears a headline saying they're up to a week behind on shipping orders because of massive demand. In barber shops and hardware stores and the Sporting Goods department at the local Wal-Mart, you hear muttering and whispering about "that monkey" and they don't mean Wayne LaPierre. I heard an octogenarian friend say at dinner the other night "we don't have any freedom any more." She'd just sold her handgun from the fear that someone would steal it and murder someone and she'd be blamed. It isn't true of course, but the fear is on the street and in the retirement homes and the mansions and yachts and trailer parks. That monkey is after our guns.
Yes, it's gun control time again with one side arming themselves for war and the other side howling Gun Control like ragged extras in a Frankenstein movie. The President has offered a package of measures designed to calm the hysterical on both sides and it's not likely to do that, or so I think. It's the "biggest legislative effort in a generation" says the Huffington Post, "a bold and potentially historic attempt to stem the increase in mass gun violence." Lets see what it looks like after passing through the entrails of Congress. Surely some of the proposals were pinned to the coat-tails of a tragedy like a rider on an unrelated bill: ban the armor piercing ammunition? Well it's really not that nor are the hollow points we use for hunting "Cop Killer Bullets" either. How does one argue for meaningful gun control with all that lying going on?
Really most of these inflammatory lumps of high velocity hyperbole are just that: attempts to emotionalize and to dupe the uninitiated and succeed in polarizing the attempt to do something useful. To me, much of this heated argument is corrupted by dishonest coinage, invention and the refusal by both sides to examine the axioms their arguments rely on. GUN CONTROL! and when I ask "what kind?" The expression I get from either side is the same -- I must be one of them!
Will banning the millions and millions and millions of guns and accessories now in 150 million private hands do anything? By the time anything like another loophole-ridden, designed-to-fail ban hits the streets, the number of these things buried in back yards and hidden behind paneling in basements will have doubled and the ranks of camo-clad, militiamen and survivalists and preppers will have grown further and short of a house to house search of 100 million private residences and storage lockers and bunkers, very little will be done to reduce their numbers.And nice people, ordinary people, educated people, affluent people are buying guns they would have had no interest in -- because Obama's gonna ban them. The best way to create demand is to ban something.
And if Congress does do it again, and if they suddenly disappear with a wave of the magic wand, will someone still be able to find the hardware to kill a score of innocents? Could you get drunk in 1929? Can you get stoned in 2013? Of course.
Have all the miscellaneous and ballyhooed safety regulations done anything? Mandatory trigger locks, microstamping of firing pins, loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect regulations? No. Has there been an increase in the murder by firearm rate as is being said? No. It's lower than it was in the 1950's. The fear is oversold. Much of what is being proposed can be no more effective in protecting school children than those stupid, yellow Baby on Board signs people put on their cars in the '70s. It's just there for the "I hate guns" people.
I'm still wondering if there has been an increase in mass gun violence or if the handful in the last few years is a statistical blip and the result of the unrelenting "never forget" emotional media coverage that promotes repeat performances, but that question will never be settled when opinions on both sides are bolstered by selective facts, when the tenets of faith, the proclamations of activists and politicians and lobbyists are taken as axiomatic without question. Whatever happens, I doubt my shotgun will be confiscated, nor my Civil War pistols or my Flintlock Rifle. I'm sure I'll still be able to go to the outdoor shooting range and make holes in targets with a .22 pistol Top Shot will still be on the History Channel and the Biathlon will still be held and Sarah Palin can still hunt for moose. Floridians will still be able to shoot wild hogs and Burmese pythons and out in the bayou, they'll still be able to hunt 'gators with .22 rifles. The fear is oversold.
Whatever happens, much legislation will be designed by people who know dangerously little about firearms and in a state of near hysteria and much will be sabotaged by their opponents terrified of symbolic emasculation and little will change. No one will bother to mention or discuss or factor in the fact that gun violence is still on the decline and that the level of gun control in any particular state or city does not correlate to that decline. It's a battle of preconceived notions and it's all about irrational fear.
Increased penalties and such won't effect anyone bent on committing suicide and taking a few dozen innocents with him. Banning an auto-loader with a 15 round magazine when Abraham Lincoln's brass bound Henry repeater will fire 16 rounds in 16 seconds will not make anyone all that much safer and we'll go on banning all kinds of things to "save the children" and setting the stage for a massive Republican victory in 2016. America loves guns or we wouldn't own 300 million of them. America loves guns the way it loves trucks and football and beer and that's not going to change.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Maybe now
Maybe now's the time. The NRA has taken a serious body blow and in general, the American public is losing faith in the extremists of the GOP and its ability to solve our problems. A CNN poll shows that a majority, albeit a small one, thinks the GOP is too extreme and I don't think we need a poll to show that the National Rifle Association, its frequent unindicted conspirator, is aware that it has blood on its hands. The nation's largest and loudest gun lobby all but turned out the lights and pulled down the shades for 4 days after the Newtown incident and had nothing to say as 300 protesters arrived at their headquarters on Monday.
They have scheduled a news conference for Tomorrow, Friday the 21st and have announced that:
Wouldn't that be nice, but while that remains to be seen, I'm given to wonder if the changes proposed by others will be meaningful as well, or as is often the case, haphazard, oblivious to facts and doomed to be ineffective at best. What I'm hearing and reading rather confirms my worries. My incompletely documented opinion is that most bans aren't effective because they weren't designed to be. Ineffective by design and ineffective because they're unenforceable, many make things worse. Looking at the Volstead act and our "war on drugs" I see massive increases in crime and harmless people having their lives ruined. If a ban is what we hang our hopes on, a ban without further characteristics, we'll be as successful as Reagan's "just say no" billboards or Ford's "WIN" buttons were. If we refuse to recognize that no weapons at all should be inside an elementary school, we'll get bogged down with descriptions and characteristics that most of us are painfully incompetent to handle. If we let the discussion revolve about ballistics and rates of fire, around plastic gunstocks over wood, gas or recoil operated actions and magazine capacity, we're going to pass more nonsense and walk away dumb and happy until some other crazy bastard pulls another trigger, or God help us, lights a fuse or opens a canister of ricin.
Damaging the influence of the powerful, fear mongering NRA, at long last, will not be all that we need if we truly want to protect our schools ( or theaters and shopping malls for that matter) unless we shed some of the self-righteousness we sometimes share with them and take an honest look at our own "meaningful contributions." Do we share that "more of the same stuff that didn't work" and that "we didn't think of it so it's no good" attitude? Do we steadfastly repeat party lines and refuse to consider inconvenient and contradictory facts as the economic extremists at the Tea Party do? Do we draft laws that address other forms of mayhem we haven't thought of yet or do we, as Generals are accused of doing, fight the previous war?
Times have changed. When my parents were in elementary school one could buy a Thompson submachine gun, the infamous Chicago typewriter, at the local hardware store, but there wasn't much demand except from the gangs and the company would have failed if the Army didn't buy some. As far as I know, nobody was shooting up schools with real, honest-to-Thompson assault weapons. Now they're illegal, but demand for things that look like them is soaring. I can ask why we are different now, but I can't answer the question. I just have to accept that we are.
Congressional gun rights supporters are suddenly willing to talk gun control. So will it be substantive gun control or will congress pull off another fast one giving us some paper that they call gun control but is designed to do nothing? Will we fall for the usual sophistry and sleight of hand or another toothless ban? Face it; for 50 years we've enthusiastically and fatuously blown it. Let's not blow it again.
So maybe it's the time and the season. It's surely not the time to do nothing or reprise our failures. I hope we can do it right. I hope to hell we can avoid the extremist and not always useful language we're hearing from so many sources. I hope we can address the question of why current policies have fostered or allowed a real reduction in aggravated crimes yet haven't had sufficient effect on "Amok" crimes; suicide-by-cop crimes where the perpetrator isn't concerned with remaining alive or was seeking to die in the process. This isn't time for shouting and screaming, wailing and mourning or for listening to hysterics. It may be time to listen to people who are used to dealing with suicide bombers and terrorists -- who are weapons experts, security experts and perhaps even psychologists -- and tune out the scared and angry amateurs like you and me.
They have scheduled a news conference for Tomorrow, Friday the 21st and have announced that:
"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
Wouldn't that be nice, but while that remains to be seen, I'm given to wonder if the changes proposed by others will be meaningful as well, or as is often the case, haphazard, oblivious to facts and doomed to be ineffective at best. What I'm hearing and reading rather confirms my worries. My incompletely documented opinion is that most bans aren't effective because they weren't designed to be. Ineffective by design and ineffective because they're unenforceable, many make things worse. Looking at the Volstead act and our "war on drugs" I see massive increases in crime and harmless people having their lives ruined. If a ban is what we hang our hopes on, a ban without further characteristics, we'll be as successful as Reagan's "just say no" billboards or Ford's "WIN" buttons were. If we refuse to recognize that no weapons at all should be inside an elementary school, we'll get bogged down with descriptions and characteristics that most of us are painfully incompetent to handle. If we let the discussion revolve about ballistics and rates of fire, around plastic gunstocks over wood, gas or recoil operated actions and magazine capacity, we're going to pass more nonsense and walk away dumb and happy until some other crazy bastard pulls another trigger, or God help us, lights a fuse or opens a canister of ricin.
Damaging the influence of the powerful, fear mongering NRA, at long last, will not be all that we need if we truly want to protect our schools ( or theaters and shopping malls for that matter) unless we shed some of the self-righteousness we sometimes share with them and take an honest look at our own "meaningful contributions." Do we share that "more of the same stuff that didn't work" and that "we didn't think of it so it's no good" attitude? Do we steadfastly repeat party lines and refuse to consider inconvenient and contradictory facts as the economic extremists at the Tea Party do? Do we draft laws that address other forms of mayhem we haven't thought of yet or do we, as Generals are accused of doing, fight the previous war?
Times have changed. When my parents were in elementary school one could buy a Thompson submachine gun, the infamous Chicago typewriter, at the local hardware store, but there wasn't much demand except from the gangs and the company would have failed if the Army didn't buy some. As far as I know, nobody was shooting up schools with real, honest-to-Thompson assault weapons. Now they're illegal, but demand for things that look like them is soaring. I can ask why we are different now, but I can't answer the question. I just have to accept that we are.
Congressional gun rights supporters are suddenly willing to talk gun control. So will it be substantive gun control or will congress pull off another fast one giving us some paper that they call gun control but is designed to do nothing? Will we fall for the usual sophistry and sleight of hand or another toothless ban? Face it; for 50 years we've enthusiastically and fatuously blown it. Let's not blow it again.
So maybe it's the time and the season. It's surely not the time to do nothing or reprise our failures. I hope we can do it right. I hope to hell we can avoid the extremist and not always useful language we're hearing from so many sources. I hope we can address the question of why current policies have fostered or allowed a real reduction in aggravated crimes yet haven't had sufficient effect on "Amok" crimes; suicide-by-cop crimes where the perpetrator isn't concerned with remaining alive or was seeking to die in the process. This isn't time for shouting and screaming, wailing and mourning or for listening to hysterics. It may be time to listen to people who are used to dealing with suicide bombers and terrorists -- who are weapons experts, security experts and perhaps even psychologists -- and tune out the scared and angry amateurs like you and me.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Grimms tales
"They need to change the subject" writes Fred Grimm in the Miami Herald as though anyone who doesn't quite share his assumptions and
conclusions or ill informed and breathless opinions, must be of an
ilk. It's easier than to address real concerns after all. That might
require him to address my concerns and yours rather than to abuse a
straw man.
Suddenly everyone is an expert on guns and gun law, but although I'm hardly a "gun advocate" I do advocate the truth and the truth is that although the police and the military do use some autoloading pistols, real military assault rifles have been banned since 1937 and are not "easily available" at your local Bass Pro Shop or Wal-Mart. That dearly beloved ban left store shelves loaded with extended magazines and the kind of weapons it didn't actually ban. I'll just assume that my Grimm brother here is as ignorant as most journalists who think that BA in journalism grants poetic license and instant expertise on all matters and not just someone looking for ratings by reaching into that bucket of breathless hyperbole and cheap drama and pulling out plums about "high velocity bullets" without actually knowing anything about ballistics. Would the victims have been better off being hit by slow moving .45 ACP slugs or faster moving .22 magnums? Not really.
So am I changing the subject or is he avoiding honest questions by lining up straw men like -- well like targets in a shooting gallery? Is he being honest by asserting that unless you first accept his solution to the problem and don't ask any inconvenient questions you're either being a "gun advocate" or changing the subject? Well no, if you ask me. I think I'm right on topic.
No, what matters is the emotion he can cram into another tired repetition or our ritual morning and artisinal outrage -- and that's what sells papers. What apparently doesn't matter is a rational approach to school security. What's apparent to me is not some culture of violence and video games led by the black robed evil ones at the NRA, but the same kind of tunnel vision that made us spend a trillion dollars on airport security in response to another tragedy that could have been prevented for a few hundred bucks per plane by installing heavier and lockable cabin doors.
So am I changing the subject by insisting that we read the "assault weapon ban" before wanting it back or that we might look at our existing gun control laws with an eye to seeing what has worked and what hasn't? Am I avoiding a discussion or is he replacing discussion with stereotypes and straw men who can't fight back?
So am I "gun advocate" even though I'm not promoting more gun ownership and instead promoting a wider, more informed look at security? Or is Grimm a greedy, opportunistic hack looking for ratings? Your answer is more likely to describe you than me, sad to say, because this never has been a rational discussion about protecting the public but a battle of fairy tales and illusions where pragmatism and fact do fear to tread.
"Gun advocates — a polite term after the seventh mass murder of 2012 — would rather not fumble around on TV just now, trying to invent a sane-sounding rationale that pretends to find civic good in the easy commercial availability of military weaponry" he continues.
Suddenly everyone is an expert on guns and gun law, but although I'm hardly a "gun advocate" I do advocate the truth and the truth is that although the police and the military do use some autoloading pistols, real military assault rifles have been banned since 1937 and are not "easily available" at your local Bass Pro Shop or Wal-Mart. That dearly beloved ban left store shelves loaded with extended magazines and the kind of weapons it didn't actually ban. I'll just assume that my Grimm brother here is as ignorant as most journalists who think that BA in journalism grants poetic license and instant expertise on all matters and not just someone looking for ratings by reaching into that bucket of breathless hyperbole and cheap drama and pulling out plums about "high velocity bullets" without actually knowing anything about ballistics. Would the victims have been better off being hit by slow moving .45 ACP slugs or faster moving .22 magnums? Not really.
So am I changing the subject or is he avoiding honest questions by lining up straw men like -- well like targets in a shooting gallery? Is he being honest by asserting that unless you first accept his solution to the problem and don't ask any inconvenient questions you're either being a "gun advocate" or changing the subject? Well no, if you ask me. I think I'm right on topic.
No, what matters is the emotion he can cram into another tired repetition or our ritual morning and artisinal outrage -- and that's what sells papers. What apparently doesn't matter is a rational approach to school security. What's apparent to me is not some culture of violence and video games led by the black robed evil ones at the NRA, but the same kind of tunnel vision that made us spend a trillion dollars on airport security in response to another tragedy that could have been prevented for a few hundred bucks per plane by installing heavier and lockable cabin doors.
So am I changing the subject by insisting that we read the "assault weapon ban" before wanting it back or that we might look at our existing gun control laws with an eye to seeing what has worked and what hasn't? Am I avoiding a discussion or is he replacing discussion with stereotypes and straw men who can't fight back?
So am I "gun advocate" even though I'm not promoting more gun ownership and instead promoting a wider, more informed look at security? Or is Grimm a greedy, opportunistic hack looking for ratings? Your answer is more likely to describe you than me, sad to say, because this never has been a rational discussion about protecting the public but a battle of fairy tales and illusions where pragmatism and fact do fear to tread.
Monday, December 17, 2012
What's wrong with us?
This is what I'm going to say about this and this is all I'm going to
say. We have a lot of firearms in the USA. We always have had. For a few, hunting for food
or furs or hides and protection from wild animals makes them necessary.
For many, protecting the hen house, the livestock, the crops, might
require a firearm. For some a firearm is something you shoot at paper
targets or clay pigeons with at the country club. For others, it puts
meat on the table and for some, they can be relics of history prized for
craftsmanship or beauty or historical value. For many, living in a
violent and dangerous area, people who have to transport valuables,
people who are a target for criminals for many reasons; having a gun is
peace of mind. For such people, being associated with psychotics and
terrorists and hit-men and bandits and deranged murderers is offensive
and worthy of scornful denunciation. And don't we hear a lot of it?
We have a lot of people in this country who cannot conceive that any of the above will own one for any justifiable reason or that firearms exist for any other reason but to kill someone, and so these horrifying and otherwise useless pieces of metal must be made to disappear and right now and at all cost. If you don't agree with that, words will be placed in your mouth that prove how deranged you are so don't even try to explain. Many of those people, and they are in the minority, refuse to discuss what needs to be done to protect us all from crime and the grotesque results of a madman with a gun or a bomb unless and only unless there's a prior agreement to reduce or eliminate or severely curtail the right to own one. For them it's guns and guns alone that explain the needless death of innocents and the notion that the murderer is more guilty than his weapon is offensive and well worthy of scorn and mockery. It's all about guns, guns, guns and guns alone and don't we hear a lot about it?
Welcome to American fear, American extremism and American intransigence. Neither side will talk to the other with the intent to understand, just as with so many things America concerns itself with. Neither side will brook any discussion of the complexity of human behavior and motivation, the cost of reducing risk, the efficacy of anything that has already been tried or proposed, the "other side" certainly being so far into a delusional state or simply so committed to brutality and mayhem that there is no middle ground between "we must trust the people" and "it's too dangerous ever to trust the people" and no point to looking for it.
What will never be discussed is the very reason discussion is futile. That reason is us. What we don't want to talk about and what we cover up and distract from with epithets like Libtard or gun nut, with shibboleths like the NRA or the Brady Bunch or the Gungrabbers or the Gun Culture or even made up discussions is that it just may be that the enemy is not some piece of metal and explosive, some nefarious group of bogeymen, but something to do with who and what we Americans are and why we seem to be different, so angry, so afraid, so filled with self pity and lack of compassion. It just may have something to do with the reason Switzerland with a widespread love of shooting and hunting; Switzerland where there are 46 guns per hundred residents has virtually no gun crime, nobody shooting up the schools and movie theaters -- and the US with about twice as many has vastly more than twice as much. What causes that difference is something we need to talk about. Without doing that, all we will hear are rationalizations of prejudice and peremptory proclamations of belief -- but that's up to you the people, because I'm too disgusted to give a damn any more.
We have a lot of people in this country who cannot conceive that any of the above will own one for any justifiable reason or that firearms exist for any other reason but to kill someone, and so these horrifying and otherwise useless pieces of metal must be made to disappear and right now and at all cost. If you don't agree with that, words will be placed in your mouth that prove how deranged you are so don't even try to explain. Many of those people, and they are in the minority, refuse to discuss what needs to be done to protect us all from crime and the grotesque results of a madman with a gun or a bomb unless and only unless there's a prior agreement to reduce or eliminate or severely curtail the right to own one. For them it's guns and guns alone that explain the needless death of innocents and the notion that the murderer is more guilty than his weapon is offensive and well worthy of scorn and mockery. It's all about guns, guns, guns and guns alone and don't we hear a lot about it?
Welcome to American fear, American extremism and American intransigence. Neither side will talk to the other with the intent to understand, just as with so many things America concerns itself with. Neither side will brook any discussion of the complexity of human behavior and motivation, the cost of reducing risk, the efficacy of anything that has already been tried or proposed, the "other side" certainly being so far into a delusional state or simply so committed to brutality and mayhem that there is no middle ground between "we must trust the people" and "it's too dangerous ever to trust the people" and no point to looking for it.
What will never be discussed is the very reason discussion is futile. That reason is us. What we don't want to talk about and what we cover up and distract from with epithets like Libtard or gun nut, with shibboleths like the NRA or the Brady Bunch or the Gungrabbers or the Gun Culture or even made up discussions is that it just may be that the enemy is not some piece of metal and explosive, some nefarious group of bogeymen, but something to do with who and what we Americans are and why we seem to be different, so angry, so afraid, so filled with self pity and lack of compassion. It just may have something to do with the reason Switzerland with a widespread love of shooting and hunting; Switzerland where there are 46 guns per hundred residents has virtually no gun crime, nobody shooting up the schools and movie theaters -- and the US with about twice as many has vastly more than twice as much. What causes that difference is something we need to talk about. Without doing that, all we will hear are rationalizations of prejudice and peremptory proclamations of belief -- but that's up to you the people, because I'm too disgusted to give a damn any more.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Oh my God, not again
What do we do to protect our schools? Is this one of those questions that have no real answer or at least not one definite answer? What can we propose that does more than give in to the predictable shouts and demands of the irrational and angry and fearful and uninformed? What can we do that isn't something that has already failed to have any effect or that we're already doing? What can we do to calm the irrational, the ill informed, the hysterical and fear ridden?
Certainly none of the solutions we've so passionately offered and instituted and defended against criticism have done anything we can point to as having helped: the three day waiting period, the background checks, the late "assault weapon" ban, the ban on "Saturday Night Specials," the ban on sending guns through the mail without a Federal license, the ban on automatic weapons that's been here since 1937, the restrictions on how many guns you can buy in a year, how much ammunition. . . the need for criminal background checks and fingerprinting -- how short a barrel can be and even whether a sporting gun can legally be made to look like a military weapon -- Sure, the overall rate of violent crime may continue to decline and perhaps some of that is due to these measures or to more people being in jail, but there will be more incidents as there are in countries with draconian gun control laws. At every one we can be sure there will be calls to make murder even more illegal, to somehow confiscate all guns from the 175 million people who own them -- and the same mouldy arguments will be trotted out again and discussion of whether experience anywhere has given us a reason to be hopeful, will not be heard. Still I have a good idea what will happen.
The media will chew on this for days striving to raise the discussion to the point of mania, because it's good for ratings. As I watch, the network nitwits are prattling about whether we should go back to that fraudulent "Assault Weapon Ban" which really only banned newly made fake assault weapons made overseas and left millions already in circulation. It made us liberals feel good. It made nothing better.
People will be afraid to send their kids to school. When heads begin to cool, there will be a search for heroes and the folk psychoanalysis of perpetrators by the usual hired opinionators. The same old axes will be ground.
There will be more earnest insistence that banning things make them go away, even if there are 200 million in the country, perhaps much more. More idiocy about making psychotics "just say no" by passing a ban, a restriction, a law.
What we should be asking is what I asked just now -- how do we protect the innocent, the helpless without increasing helplessness? How do we protect our schools? How do we keep the dangerously insane off the streets and how do we keep them from acquiring bombs, guns, crossbows, knives and yes, airplanes? How do we do this without harming those people who need guns: farmers, for instance and people who use them to feed their families. Do we need to argue for weapons with smaller magazines? Shorter barrels, longer barrels, longer waiting periods, sanity checks? All I can say is that we'll argue and in a fashion no more or less likely to produce an answer then in the past. There will be all or nothing parties and neither will make any sense. The NRA will act as though Obama is going to take all our guns, Fox will imply that he already has. Bumper stickers will appear on cars and trucks.
Will anyone ask that we calmly assess how much danger must be seen as unavoidable in a free society and how much authoritarian control and how much less liberty we will or can accept in the interests of safety. One side will say arm the kids and blame Obama, the other will insist that the theoretical saving of one life justifies anything at all. Anyone in the middle won't be heard and the extremes won't listen.
I've always thought that the outcomes of a policy are the necessary test of it's effectiveness, but we're talking about America the hysterical and ill informed. It's about believing in a policy and if it doesn't work, it's because you didn't believe or didn't make it authoritarian or even Draconian enough. And so I have to ask again -- what can we do to protect the weak, the helpless, the innocent that works and doesn't unnecessarily tread on the rights of all? I fear, given the way we are, that the answer is nothing.
Certainly none of the solutions we've so passionately offered and instituted and defended against criticism have done anything we can point to as having helped: the three day waiting period, the background checks, the late "assault weapon" ban, the ban on "Saturday Night Specials," the ban on sending guns through the mail without a Federal license, the ban on automatic weapons that's been here since 1937, the restrictions on how many guns you can buy in a year, how much ammunition. . . the need for criminal background checks and fingerprinting -- how short a barrel can be and even whether a sporting gun can legally be made to look like a military weapon -- Sure, the overall rate of violent crime may continue to decline and perhaps some of that is due to these measures or to more people being in jail, but there will be more incidents as there are in countries with draconian gun control laws. At every one we can be sure there will be calls to make murder even more illegal, to somehow confiscate all guns from the 175 million people who own them -- and the same mouldy arguments will be trotted out again and discussion of whether experience anywhere has given us a reason to be hopeful, will not be heard. Still I have a good idea what will happen.
The media will chew on this for days striving to raise the discussion to the point of mania, because it's good for ratings. As I watch, the network nitwits are prattling about whether we should go back to that fraudulent "Assault Weapon Ban" which really only banned newly made fake assault weapons made overseas and left millions already in circulation. It made us liberals feel good. It made nothing better.
People will be afraid to send their kids to school. When heads begin to cool, there will be a search for heroes and the folk psychoanalysis of perpetrators by the usual hired opinionators. The same old axes will be ground.
There will be more earnest insistence that banning things make them go away, even if there are 200 million in the country, perhaps much more. More idiocy about making psychotics "just say no" by passing a ban, a restriction, a law.
What we should be asking is what I asked just now -- how do we protect the innocent, the helpless without increasing helplessness? How do we protect our schools? How do we keep the dangerously insane off the streets and how do we keep them from acquiring bombs, guns, crossbows, knives and yes, airplanes? How do we do this without harming those people who need guns: farmers, for instance and people who use them to feed their families. Do we need to argue for weapons with smaller magazines? Shorter barrels, longer barrels, longer waiting periods, sanity checks? All I can say is that we'll argue and in a fashion no more or less likely to produce an answer then in the past. There will be all or nothing parties and neither will make any sense. The NRA will act as though Obama is going to take all our guns, Fox will imply that he already has. Bumper stickers will appear on cars and trucks.
Will anyone ask that we calmly assess how much danger must be seen as unavoidable in a free society and how much authoritarian control and how much less liberty we will or can accept in the interests of safety. One side will say arm the kids and blame Obama, the other will insist that the theoretical saving of one life justifies anything at all. Anyone in the middle won't be heard and the extremes won't listen.
I've always thought that the outcomes of a policy are the necessary test of it's effectiveness, but we're talking about America the hysterical and ill informed. It's about believing in a policy and if it doesn't work, it's because you didn't believe or didn't make it authoritarian or even Draconian enough. And so I have to ask again -- what can we do to protect the weak, the helpless, the innocent that works and doesn't unnecessarily tread on the rights of all? I fear, given the way we are, that the answer is nothing.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Much ado
Appearances can be deceiving. I get e-mails with pictures of huge crowds rallying against Obama because only the far left liberal cringe loonies would think Obama had any support in "forcing his ideas down our throats." All the conversations I overhear, all the bumper stickers I see and all the viral e-mails I get support the idea that nobody likes Obama, everyone is drinking the tea and that 2012 will be the "End of an Error."
But Obama's ratings are on the way up, they've been no worse than Reagan's. Sarah Palin's are on the way down and at this point more people have favorable opinions of Socialism, than of the Tea Party.
Where was the "there are no legitimate uses for guns" crowd when a bomb was found at an MLK parade Monday? There are sure as hell no legitimate uses for IEDs, so why is there no attempt to make them go away by "tougher" ' assault bomb ban' legislation? Why aren't we terrified of bombs now? In fact there isn't even increased support for more gun bans - just a lot of sound and fury.
I keep reading that since this latest assassination, America is for "stricter gun control" That's deceptive too, since what the vast majority is in favor of isn't what you'd think from those articles and blogs. The country is hugely in favor of the second amendment, doesn't want any more bans on types of weapons and accessories. What they do want - nearly unanimously - is a massive effort to improve the background check system to keep certain people away from firearms says The Huffington Post. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the blogs may be blaring, the activists may be active, but there really isn't a renewed support for more of the same old "gun control."
You know, it's isn't only Fox News making things seem other than they are.
But Obama's ratings are on the way up, they've been no worse than Reagan's. Sarah Palin's are on the way down and at this point more people have favorable opinions of Socialism, than of the Tea Party.
Where was the "there are no legitimate uses for guns" crowd when a bomb was found at an MLK parade Monday? There are sure as hell no legitimate uses for IEDs, so why is there no attempt to make them go away by "tougher" ' assault bomb ban' legislation? Why aren't we terrified of bombs now? In fact there isn't even increased support for more gun bans - just a lot of sound and fury.
I keep reading that since this latest assassination, America is for "stricter gun control" That's deceptive too, since what the vast majority is in favor of isn't what you'd think from those articles and blogs. The country is hugely in favor of the second amendment, doesn't want any more bans on types of weapons and accessories. What they do want - nearly unanimously - is a massive effort to improve the background check system to keep certain people away from firearms says The Huffington Post. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the blogs may be blaring, the activists may be active, but there really isn't a renewed support for more of the same old "gun control."
You know, it's isn't only Fox News making things seem other than they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
