winterbadger: (russian badger)
Thanks to my friend David for linking to this piece by a former GW Bush advisor, which equates the NRA (and other groups) to racketeers. Hopefully the GOP will heed his call to "refuse to endorse anyone who runs in a primary with N.R.A. money against a sitting Republican".

And thanks to Nicholas Kristof for putting the lie to some hoary canards of the gun control debate and for linking to this study (PDF) that (so to speak) shoots holes in the faulty Lott research that sought to suggest that the answer to guns was more guns (it's not; in fact the researchers found that "there is stronger evidence for the conclusion that these [shall-issue] laws increase crime than there is for the conclusion that they decrease it.")

And thanks to Charles Blow for this graphic that shows how deplorably dangerous our country is in comparison to our social and economic peers.

On the other hand, a few factoids for those on the gun control side of the house.

"Assault weapons" is a meaningless term; it's a Humpty-Dumpty word, that means whatever its current speaker intends it to mean, but nothing by itself. What I gather, from watching the debate over most of my lifetime, the majority of people react adversely to are semiautomatic rifles.

"Semi-automatic" (or, as the British military used to call them "self-loading") rifles are ones that have a magazine (a container holding bullets attached to the gun) and which automatically (through the action of the expanding gasses of a fired round and a strong spring) load a new round from the magazine into the weapon when the weapon is fired. This is not a feature of restricted to military weapons, though most military weapons feature it. Almost all rifles and almost all pistols do this. Restricting weapons just because they are semi-automatic is not practical. Such a regulation would affect most weapons owned for perfectly legitimate hunting uses and would never get enough support to pass Congress.

Restricting weapons because they "look" like military weapons is also not practical because the look does nothing, because "style" is in the eye of the beholder and therefore hard to define, and because it can be easily changed to circumvent a law designed to limit "military style" weapons. The last assault weapons ban restricted weapons based on irrelevant features like the style of the grip or whether a rifle had military mounts--things that had nothing to do with the mass killings we have seen these weapons used in.

As scary as people seem to find the *look* of such rifles, the only relevant feature is the magazine. Most modern weapons (pistols or rifles) have detachable magazines, to allow quick reloading. The most productive restrictions on rifles would be to limit the size of the magazine that can be carried (the old assault weapons ban limited magazines to ten rounds) or, to take it one step further, to ban detachable magazines, which would force a shooter to reload a gun's magazine by hand, one shell at a time, after emptying it.

All of this doesn't get to the most significant fact, however: although rifles *look* scary (to some) and are often used in shooting massacres, these shootings constitute only a tiny fraction of the gun homicides in the US every year. Far and away the largest number of people are injured or killed, intentionally, accidentally, or through suicide, by handguns. If people want to affect the rate at which people are killed by guns, rifles are far less relevant--handguns are the place to look. And since the SCOTUS decision in Heller, which designated handguns as "an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense", banning handguns is a non-starter. Creative and thoughtful efforts to control who can purchase such weapons may help.

But, in the end, nothing will stop just what happened in Connecticut: an adult, non-felon citizen of (as far as anyone knows) sound mind purchased, over time, several weapons that were kept in the home and used for legitimate reasons (self-protection and target practice). And then someone stole those weapons, killed the owner, and went on to kill many other people. The only things, even under a strong and reasonable gun-control regime, that would have prevented some or all of this killing would have been the institutionalization of the shooter before he gained access to guns or an armed security officer at the school.

We can look to gun control to try ans stem the tide of killing, but we will never find a 100% solution to murder. And if we stop at guns, we will be missing some of the major elements of the tragedy that also need to be addressed.

winterbadger: (black)
I've been watching the wave of horror and anger and outrage from the shootings in Newtown, CT, wash over the various communities I belong to online. As always, the Internet is a huge sounding chamber, amplifying the noise, dampening the signal, providing immense amounts of heat, but very little light. So many people want to express fury and assign blame, and so few people--seemingly--want to take this opportunity to work together to do something practical.

Let me suggest one thing, at least. Let this incident, and all the ones that have gone before it, provide a final halt to calls for one single, simple solution, It is the heroin of the American psyche, the thing that everyone seems to crave, to demand, usually while knowing full well that it's unachievable and won't provide the surcease from fear and sorrow we seek.

Why won't it? Because, in the real world, there are no simple problems, and attempting to solve complex problems with simple remedies, will, if we are fortunate, not actually make the problem go away. That's the best outcome. The worst, which we far too often get, is the our "simple solutions" make the problem much, much worse than it was to begin with, in ways we can't anticipate.

As the latter half of the 19th century drew to a close, America was struggling with alcoholism. It had reached epidemic proportions, and to many people, there was a clear, simple solution. Ban alcoholic beverages entirely. Originally it was proposed to ban the sale of them, but this quickly transmuted into a ban on their manufacture and consumption as well. The result? Prohibition took the small, disparate, evil but fragmented criminal elements in America's big cities and built from them the organized crime syndicates that spread through America's economy and society like a fast-moving cancer. Even today, after nearly a century of fighting organized crime, we are further from eradicating it than we were during Prohibition.

Shootings like the one in Newtown take place all over the world, even in places with strict gun control laws, but they are more common in the United States than anywhere else. Ready access to firearms is a part of them, but so is mental illness. All the incidents like this that I know of have been committed by people who were mentally disturbed. We need to do something about guns, yes, but we also need to do something about mental illness. Think that's easy? Read this heart-rending essay. Then think about all the people like Michael who don't have someone who loves them and cares for them looking out for them (and for the rest of us).

Shootings like the one in Newtown are horrific, but they represent a tiny fraction of the over 10,000 annual homicides committed in the United States using firearms every year. We need to do something about guns, yes, and mental illness, but we also need to do something about the poverty that drives people to crime, especially to work in the narcotics trade (which, of course, is a violent industry created almost entirely by another "simple solution").

I keep adding to the list of horrendously complex problems that we need to address, and I'm insisting we give up on our national security blanket of "let's find the one thing we can do to fix this". And I'm going to suggest another deprivation: we also have to discard the mental pacifier of "it's all THEIR fault".

Whenever a gut-wrenching murder scene like this is played out, the first thing that happens is that some people, in their grief and anger, insist that the blame lies on those who own guns and demand that their rights be curtailed or eliminated entirely, as a solution, yes, but also as a collective punishment for the sins of whoever committed the crime. The instantaneous reaction is for those who own guns (all of them also horrified and angry) to deny that any sort of curb on their rights is called for and to insist that something or someone else is at fault, or that there's no way to achieve a complete elimination of this kind of tragedy, so let's not even try.

Get this, people: both of you are wrong. We are none of us directly to blame for shooting 26 people in Connecticut. The person who did that is dead; like most murderers in this sort of situation, he killed himself. And all of us are to blame, indirectly, because we allowed a situation to develop to which this miserable event was the outcome. We can't make this about blame; that's the solution we find every time, and it has never served to make anything better. We have to work together, coming from very different points of view, with very different concerns, and find a way of making this sort of thing much, much harder to happen. That's going to take cooperating with each other, instead of demonizing each other. It's going to take finding common ground, instead of focusing on our differences. It's going to take mutual concessions, instead of standing on our rights and demanding an absolute surrender of everyone else to our personal concerns.

We need to make gun laws consistent. I've had one real conversation about this tragedy, a conversation face to face--the sort of conversation that almost always ends up with people agreeing because they have to listen to and look at each other, instead of shouting into the Internet at people you can pretend you don't know and maybe aren't even real. In that discussion, the I spoke to person expressed views about how easy it was to purchase and hold guns that told me he either doesn't live in the state I live in or doesn't know anything about its laws. There are significant restrictions in my state, but almost none in some neighboring ones (perhaps the one he lives in). States to which I can drive in an hour, or two at most. These distinctions need to go away, and national rules need to be put in place that cover any type of sale, anywhere. Gun owners need to make some concessions to the sensibility of the rest of the population.

And those who don't understand the desire, the need for others to own guns also have to accept that just because they can't understand that sentiment doesn't make it any less real or any less Constitutionally protected. I can't foresee a future in which most of the Americans that I now who own firearms will agree to give them up. It's a simple fact that we are a nation of gun owners, and there is a fundamental belief at the root of the American experience that Americans have a right to bear arms. We need to make them more difficult to purchase than they are in some places, and safer to own and protect than they are in a good many homes, but guns are not going to disappear.

Many today want to limit or do away with public support for healthcare. Guess what? We can't restrict it further if we want to address some of these problems. On the contrary, we need to expand it. Thirty years or more ago, we began a grand experiment. We saw that many mental institutions had simply become like prisons--places for storing members of society we didn't know how to deal with in conditions that verged on the barbaric. So we began trying to eliminate as many asylums as possible, opting instead to try and socialise people, house them in the community, find ways to keep them with families or in local half-way houses. A wave of new pharmaceuticals promised that we could pill people into becoming functioning, effective members of society. And pills, of course, were a much cheaper solution than personal care--the personal care that was so expensive in institutions that it quickly devolved into simple warding, or even mistreatment and neglect, leading to the awful conditions that we reacted against.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the simple solution of just giving people the right pills has not worked. For some, the abolition of institutions has been a godsend, bringing them back to smaller, more friendly programs that can help them participate, at least a little, in their own care and make them feel like real people, not zombies. But for others it tore away the only safe place they had, throwing them into a world that they weren't equipped to deal with in the midst, as it turned out, of a recession that saw local, state, and national governments cut back on the aid they had promised would be there. And the wonder drugs? Worked for some people, some times, but not for everyone, and not always consistently. Many psychoactive pharmaceuticals are developed and sold without knowing exactly how they work, just that they do work...for most people, most of the time. And the more dispersed and divided our society becomes (and from the point of view of someone who's lived in it for nearly 50 years, it's doing so more and more every day), more and more people aren't even being identified as needing mental health treatment until it's too late. There's no point in any sort of gun-based solution whose cornerstone is keeping firearms away from mentally ill people if we don't even know who is mentally ill.

That's a dozen paragraphs or more on the simplest and smallest of the issues involved in gun violence. We haven't even gotten to the tough problems, like drugs and poverty. Which brings up my main point:

There are no simple solutions. If someone tells you that "all we have to do is..." begin distrusting them immediately and question all their premises. We have serious problems in our country. They cannot be solved by ten-word answers. We have to find solutions that work, though, and we cannot do that by reverting to black and white, red and blue. We have to come together. We have to look into the grey.. We must solve these problems together, by making concessions. And we have to accept that, at the end of the day, when we have given more than we wished to and done all that we feel we can, someone will still find a way to kill a dozen innocent people.

We cannot stop every tragedy from happening. But we have to try our best to prevent as many of them as we can, and to reduce their impact as much as possible. We owe that our nation today and to the nation we hope we will become.
winterbadger: (centurion)
Combat gnomes.  No words needed.

And sarcastic sign rejoinders. Awesome.

*sigh*

Feb. 20th, 2008 08:47 am
winterbadger: (londo_bombing_static))
Link provided by [livejournal.com profile] almariel: Exactly how stupid *are* Americans? If you need to ask...

Oh, and Bryan? Yet another Hello Kitty rifle, link thanks to [livejournal.com profile] peaceful_fox.

yikes!

Oct. 2nd, 2006 08:58 am
winterbadger: (bike)
I really am terrifically out of condition, even for me. I went out for a ride this morning, and it took me ages to get any sort of rhythm going. I was *tired* and had to take several breaks, which isn't usually the case on my morning route (~5.6 miles). I really *need* to start making this a daily habit, or some morning I'm going to roll out of bed and say "Jabba tu-wonga, Nicholas!" to my waiting cat...

I had a very nice but unproductive weekend. I got almost nothing done, with the exception of a trip to the farmers' market with Da Grrls on Saturday morning and a trip to the recycling center with [livejournal.com profile] redactrice on Saturday afternoon. She was a terrific help shifting all my cardboard and paper; it's so nice to get all of that out of the house and back into the recycling stream. Sunday I went (delayed by my own tardiness and a Beltway accident) up to MD and spent the afternoon shooting several of [livejournal.com profile] gr_c17's arsenal of exotic weaponry. He can correct me on the makes and models, but we tried out a rifle, two carbines, and two revolvers. I'd never shot a modern pistol before, so that was quite interesting. We had a late lunch, and I came back and read and napped until evening, when [livejournal.com profile] shy_kat made a delisvious dinner that I was invited to. I helped clean up, then she and I played a card game until bedtime. A very pleasant day!

I've hijacked "Wicked" from their library pile and am munching it up--it's quite enjoyable, and a terrifically interesting way to approach someone else's story, taking all the background (I remember a bit of Oz from being addicted to all of Baum's books in grade school) and subtly reshaping it.

OK, time for a shower and work.

Profile

winterbadger: (Default)
winterbadger

March 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
34567 89
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 11th, 2025 07:34 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios