Gun Guysby Dan Baum. So far so good. Especially if you don’t understand gun guys. Or if you are a gun guy but don’t like the NRA.
I’ve written about Baumbefore. Truth be told, I know the guy. Truth be told, sometimes when he’s in town he lets himself into my house and eats my food. But none of that would have happened if he weren’t a good writer.
I listened to the NRA press conference with interest. It was strangely moderate, by NRA standards. Your opinion of what was said probably comes down to whether you want to live in a more armed or less armed society. I prefer less. That said, I’m happy to have students with guns in my school. I feel safer (actually, I don’t think it about it much at all, but I don’t feel less safe) knowing there are some armed off-duty police officers in my class. Armed security does have a role in society. I’m just not convinced that place is every elementary school.
What many of my liberal friends may not grasp from the press conference is how the NRA reflects the Conservative World View. Conservatives who have internalized this world view may not fully understand it either. (Mind you there’s a Liberal World View, too, but that’s not the subject du jour.) I don’t post this to fault the conservative world view, but to educate the clueless.
To me, the key that NRA vice-president LaPierre was preaching to his fans came when he said, buried in his speech: “With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget…” This is a conservative talking point that his little to do with guns. It’s just there to press all the right [right’s?] buttons. People believe that a huge chunk of their tax dollars are wasted on “foreign aid.” In truth, such aid a tiny fraction (almost a rounding error) of the federal budget.
The conservative world view believes in good and evil. There is a strong dose of religion. There is a non-relativist idea of right of wrong. There is a strong defensive sense of people being out to get you. There’s an attempt to place blame. There is a heavy does of fear. Much of the conservative world view can be reprised with, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”
Another idea is the concept of true evil. I tend to see this as religiously based. Liberals like to think of people needing help and support. Call it New Testament. Conservatives like to believe in Good and Evil. Call it Zarathustrian (though you can call it Old Testament if you don’t want to google Zarathustra). Here’s the NRA:
The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day.
It’s almost zombie like. And when the zombies come get to get me, even I’m gonna want a semi-automatic by my side.
One of my first introductions to this world view was in the police academy. One thing (along with a nostalgic longing for corporal punishment in child rearing) really struck me: the demonization of the media. This surprised me, but it’s part of the reason for the rise of the ideologically “anti-mainstream media” Fox News. There’s a market there. (It was also why it was so fun to see their version of the truth collapse on election night.)
I’m pro-media. I grew up in a pro-newspaper household. In school I was taught the importance of freedom of the press. My uncle was the fine editor of many a-fine newspapers in Red and Blue states. I started writing for real — in print and for the public to see — for The Evanstonian, my high school newspaper.
I do not believe the media is the problem.
In the NRA press conference, the “media” was called out by name nine times. These shootings, according to this conservative world view, is the fault of the media.
Mind you we all love scapegoats. Because otherwise we’d have to blame ourselves for the our problems. And that’s no fun.
How can we possibly even guess how many [copycat killers are waiting in the wings], given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?
This one may not reflect a conservative world view. Regardless, I would like to highlight this statement about the mentally ill and also that the NRA is calling for the creation of a national database on US citizens. This is both horrible and strange.
…address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.
It’s not that this criminal class doesn’t exist. I don’t deny it (though it’s pretty small). But to say they “spread like cancer in every community.” Be afraid. Be very afraid.
And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
Again, the conspiratorial tone about the media. Them East Coast elites are all in cahoots, don’t forget. This time they’re marching hand-in-devil’s-hand with [be afriad, be very afraid], “the vicious violent video game [industry]” [da dum]! It’s their fault, along with the “media conglomerates [who] compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society.”
And throughout it all, too many in our national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders, act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators…. and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking.
He sounds like an Occupy person speaking here, doesn’t he? Seriously.
The conservative part is believing that the media isn’t just ignorant (like liberals are), but rather that they do actually know “the truth” and insist on purposefully feeding us lies.
[For instance, the media doesn’t know their gun facts well and often confuse automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. This is true, by the way. But such ignorance is hardly to blame for the downfall of civilized society.]
Then LaPierre talks about 20,000 gun bans already in existence, which, alas, isn’t true. But oh well.
[Reminds me of Animal House: “The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?” “Don’t stop him. He’s on a roll!”]
When you hear your glass breaking at 3am, and you call 911, you won’t be able to pray hard enough for a gun.
Conservatives always talk about “when” and not “if” someone breaks into your home, robs, or rapes you. It’s the culture of fear. Be afraid. Be very afraid. If somebody does break into my home, I’ll tell what I’m not going to do: waste time praying.
LaPierre also said this:
How have our nation’s priorities gotten so far out of order. Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, court houses, even sports stadiums are all protected by armed security.
We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol Police officers. Yet, when it comes to our most beloved, innocent, and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it, and exploit it.
At first glance this makes sense. I took me a bit longer to figure out what is wrong with this logic.
The president and flying are special events. They doesn’t affect most of us on a day-to-day level. People who handle and transport large amounts of money are particularly at risk of robbery. They need to protect themselves and “target harden.” And anytime you get tens of thousands of random people together, it’s good to have a few cops around. Nobody argues with that.
And out of all of that, none of it affects our day-to-day lives unless you work in a bank, are a professional athletes, or the president. What the NRA is advocating — what they have always advocated — is that we bring guns into our day-to-day lives. What the NRA does not understand is the most people do not want to. And what’s more, we do not have to.
Most Americans want to live in a society where their six year old is not protected with a gun. Why? Because then we’ve let the terrorists win. The world simply isn’t that evil. America isn’t so evil. At least not unless Americans are so much more intrinsically evil (or so much stupider and thus demonically influenced by the media, movies, and video game conglomerates) than the rest of the civilized world. It is possible to live without a ubiquitously armed society.
Let’s remember that in large parts of the world — England, Ireland, Japan, Scandinavia — even police don’t need to carry guns. Though I doubt we’ll ever see a time when the majority of police in America are unarmed, the whole point of civilization remember that such a world is possible. If we forget that and abandon our ideals, we will have entered a true dark age.
What says the NRA?
Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing [to die at the hands of “evil monsters.”]
Consumed with fear and hatred? Perhaps the NRA doth protest too much, methinks!
[My answer, not that you asked: ban guns that use magazines. Keep your six shooters. Keep your shotguns. No more glocks (in civilian hands). No more semi-automatic assault rifles. Regulate and ban guns to the limits of the 2nd Amendment. Also, just for the hell of it, I’ll make a prediction and say all this brouhaha will create no real change in our gun laws or public safety. And we’ll just keep having these things happen again and again.]
I’ve said it before: “Barring some seismic realignment in this country, the gun control debate is all but settled–and your side won. The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay.”
And then there’s this gem of a cartoon.
“The absurdity of banning squirt guns but not being able to do anything about real guns is patently obvious.” Indeed that is absurd.
The BBC reports. And my response is once again to re-post a cartoon:
But relax! Your paranoid political fantasies notwithstanding, no one’s going to take your guns away!
…
Barring some seismic realignment in this country, the gun control debate is all but settled–and your side won. The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again, apparently.
In Indiana, you can now “stand your ground” against police. It would be ironic if this marked the end of police busting down people’s doors to find some drugs. Then the NRA might actually be defending liberty. But I suspect it’s just going to escalate matters. Yes, at least in Indiana, you can kill a cop… but only as long as you reasonably believe you’re in the right. Call me old fashioned, but I’m against this.
By the Force Science Institute and PoliceOne:
You may have heard of the bill passed recently by the Indiana General Assembly that gives citizens the right to physically resist — even with deadly force — any LEO they “reasonably believe” is unlawfully entering their dwelling or is about to cause them injury.
Last week, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the bill, meaning its now law in the state of Indiana.
“It will mean basically open season on police officers,” predicts Tim Downs, president of the state FOP, which campaigned vigorously although unsuccessfully against the bill. “Law enforcement officers are definitely going to be put in harm’s way.”
…
The bill specifies that even deadly force can be justified in resisting the police if a citizen “reasonably believes” an officer is “acting unlawfully” and “the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.” In other words, Downs states, “There is no limit on the resistance that can be used.”
…
Force Science News: Are there any subtleties in this law that make it less crazy than it seems?Downs: No, it’s insane.
…
FSN: Who was the driving force behind this legislation?Downs: Well, one group that sticks out and that surprised me was the National Rifle Assn.
Doesn’t surprise me. The NRA always chooses guns over cops. I wish more cops would realize that.
Gail Collin on gun control:
Personally, I’m worn down from arguing. Florida, follow your own star. Arizona, arm your kindergarteners. Just stop trying to impose your values on places where the thinking is dramatically different.
Really, just leave us alone. If you don’t like our rules, don’t come here. Is that too much to ask?
The problem, of course, is that gun advocates are trying to impose their permissive carry-laws on the rest of us.
Maybe if New Yorkers are made to accept their guns, they should be forced to accept our gay marriages.
Video of Zimmerman entered the police station has been released. I don’t see any blood. I don’t see any grass stains. I don’t see anybody who looks faintly like they were on the loosing end of a fight. The clothes look neat and unripped and he’s walking well. I don’t see how it coincides with the police report.
All that said, Zimmerman’s nose is a bloody (or not) distraction. Zimmerman’s condition, though interesting, is irrelevant to the actually issues which matter. Namely that Martin, who was walking home and minding his own business, was shot and killed by a man who remains free. None of those facts, best I know, have ever been disputed.
Here’s a link to a Sanford government website that offers some answers to many questions.
Update, April 21: There is some blood. And no, it’s not life threatening. It’s also still irrelevant. And I can’t help but think that perhaps Zimmerman deserved a little ass-whupping for his incorrect pursuit of Martin.
Not in Florida. But in Chicago. He is 80 years old. Yeah, the gun was illegal… but still…
One of the thing 2nd-Amendment advocates love pointing out is the England has a much higher burglary rate than the US. Best I can tell this is due the mostly to the publications of one professor.
The subtext (or main text) of the more guns equals fewer burglaries argument, of course, is that if the government restricts guns (the U.K. has strict gun control laws) then burglars become fearless and break into our home, steal our property, and rape our children.
In the US, thanks to God and guns, we shootour burglars. Ergo there are fewer burglaries. Hence our properties (and children) are safe.
Could be true… but I’ve always been skeptical of this line of thought. Mostly because I simply do not believe that anycrime (except public drunkenness, hare coursing, and being pale and chinless) is more common in Britain than the U.S.
Well best I can figure (looking at those pesky figures we call “facts”) burglary in the U.S. is much more common than burglary in the U.K.
So why the confusion? Over here in England and Wales (that’s a statistical unit in the U.K., which is really what I’m refering to when I say the U.K.), if you’re trying to get into a property with intent to “cause damage,” that’s burglary. “Attempted burglaries” are counted as burglaries in the U.K. Not in the U.S. In the U.K., you don’t have to steal something to be a burglar. You don’t even have to break in!
Now I’m not here to tell you which is a better definition of burglary. Frankly, I don’t give a damn. But I do want to point out that the official stats for burglary in the U.K. are going to be much higher than the official stats for burglary in the U.S. because burglary in the U.K. is defined much more broadly.
In the U.S., a UCR-defined burglary means you broke into a place to commit theft. In the U.S., criminal trespassing as a seperate charge. In the U.K. it’s burglary. In the U.K., even attemptedcriminal trespassing is burglary. That makes a big difference in the stats.
So what are the stats?
Each year, according the UCR, there are roughly 2.2 million reported burglaries in the U.S. With 311 million people, that’s a U.S. burglary rate of about 700 (per 100,000).
According to NCVS (survey) data, there are 3 million burglaries in the US, or a rate of 960.
In England and Wales, the BCS is the equivalent of the NCVS (in that it’s based on random survey). According to the BCS estimate, there were 745,000 domestic burglaries in the last fiscal year. But get this… and this matters:
[Just] three in five domestic burglaries involved entry (452,000, the remainder were attempted burglaries) and about two in five involved loss(298,000, the rest being accounted for by burglaries with no loss, including attempts).
So by U.S. definitions there would be 298,000 burglaries in England and Wales. Given 53-million people, this is a burglary rate of 560 per 100,000, lower than the equivalent U.S. rate of 960.
Now let’s look at reported crime (the UCR equivalent): “The police [in England and Wales] recorded 258,148 domestic burglaries in 2010/11.” Assuming that same ratio of “2-in-5 involved entry” holds true (and it may not), then by the UCR definition there would be about 100,000 police-recorded burglaries in England and Wales. This is a rate of 200, much lower than the equivalent U.S. rate of 700 per 100,000.
No matter how you slice it, there is more burglary in the U.S. than England and Wales. And we have more guns. Many more guns. Seems like this matters, especially if you believe that more guns equal fewer burglaries. You’re not going to find supporting evidence in the U.K.
So what do gun lovers have to say? I don’t know. But usually they comment pretty freely.