Monday, July 23, 2012

A Few Thoughts on Debating Guns

Within hours of the news that early last Friday morning  a gunman had killed 12 people and injured dozens of other at a cinema outside Denver, there were pleas across the Internet for us not to, once again, turn the latest tragedy into a referendum on our gun laws. Before noon on Friday, a post had gone up on the major right-wing blog Red State, asking everyone to "Shut Up. (Please): Sometimes mass murder is just mass murder - and that's horrible enough."
That’s the [...] message I have for the folks who are using last night’s massacre at an Aurora, Colorado cineplex as an excuse to fuel their hatred of political opponents, to push pet issues like gun control, or simply to babble stupidly.
But the Redstate writer protested in vain. The calls for more gun control were quick, pre-existing hatred was quickly prompted by the usual suspects and as expected flared [read the comments], and, well, stupid babbling is the norm in response to any situation, so that's hard to tease out from any other day, but...if you feel you've seen this film before, you're not alone.
In fact, we're so accustomed to this scenario in the US, that one of leading parody magazines, The Onion, dared to "go there" the very same day of the shooting [h/t wf]: 
Americans across the nation confirmed today that, unfortunately, due to their extreme familiarity with the type of tragedy that occurred in a Colorado movie theater last night, they sadly know exactly how the events following the horrific shooting of 12 people will unfold.
While admitting they "absolutely hate" the fact they have this knowledge, the nation's 300 million citizens told reporters they can pinpoint down to the hour when the first candlelight vigil will be held, roughly how many people will attend, how many times the county sheriff will address the media in the coming weeks, and when the town-wide memorial service will be held.

Additionally, sources nationwide took no pleasure in confirming that some sort of video recording, written material, or disturbing photographs made by the shooter will be surfacing in about an hour or two. [...]
Read the whole thing. Unless, that is you've been watching TV or reading about the shooting in the other news channels, in which case you've already confirmed for yourself how precisely correct The Onion got it. 
Of all the hot-button issues in American (like gay marriage, abortion, separation of church and state, etc.), I have less clarity about how I feel about gun control than any other. I'm not so sure my stance on those other issues would get approval from God almighty, but I've done my homework and reflected on each and feel comfortable with the strong positions I've taken. When it comes to guns, though, I find it much tougher to decide. 
Most male members of my family own guns, and despite all the anecdotes about the "real danger" of guns (i.e., family members being killed through carelessness), knock on wood, they're all super careful and responsible about them. As an adult decision made by someone who is kind and thoughtful (I would describe each of them that way, yes), their choice to own a gun seems to be something I don't have much right to weigh in about. I wouldn't stand for them telling me I can't own a work of art they objected to, even if they were convinced it was dangerous (for my soul, or society, or whatever) or any other choice I legally and maturely make.
But I disagree that it's wrong for us to re-engage in a debate about gun control in the wake of a tragedy, because that would suggest we can't take into account such tragedies when crafting the legislation that regulates guns. That is like saying we can't consider the 30-car pile ups caused by a reckless, speeding driver when setting a speed limit on a treacherous stretch of highway. Extenuating circumstances and worse case scenarios should definitely be part of the equation, even though I would argue we keep their extreme rarity front and center in any debate.
I also disagree that we shouldn't re-engage in a debate about gun control in general, because that suggests that we either don't have a gun problem in this country or that the only problem is too much regulation. I would agree with the actor Jason Alexander (who caused a stir on Twitter with what stands as one of the most rational discussions about gun control in the US I've ever read), who wrote "this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent." At the very least, can we debate the value of a clear distinction between recreational firearms (including hunting weapons) and military firearms? The killer used, among other weapons, an AR-15 rifle (a firearm correctly termed "an assault weapon") on Friday. All the weapons he purchased legally and reportedly with ease. Alexander wrote:
These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.
The popular notion in the US that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is one of the more disingenuous platitudes we perpetuate, in my opinion, if for no other reason than the inescapable fact that people without military weapons can kill far fewer people in a public cinema than people with them can. The type of gun itself is unquestionably part of the killing equation. Assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons are designed to kill people, efficiently, so it's utter nonsense to suggest they don't do what they were designed to do.
Why they're available to the general public, legally and easily, then, would seem to be something reasonable people should be able to calmly discuss. 
Offered up as arguments for why they should be legally available are ideas such as:
  • You can't step on the constitution at any cost 
  • Problems of definitions: "Wouldn't any weapon be considered an assault weapon if it is being used even in self-defense against another individual?" 
  • "Some guns aren't used for home defense or hunting. They are just owned because people like collecting guns." 
  • "United States citizens should not be banned from owning assault weapons, because we never know when the war is going to tread on our home soil." 
  • and even "People who fear guns are mentally ill."
On the other side of the debate, each argument boils down to one idea: 
  • "Citizens in the United States should be banned from possessing assault weapons because they are too dangerous" 
With all due respect to those who support legal access to assault weapons by citizens, to my mind, that last idea is more convincing. It's the reason I'm comfortable with the government regulating nuclear materials, materials for making explosives, etc. etc. Those things are too dangerous in untrained hands or unstable/criminal minds for us to let the average citizen easily acquire them. Their potential for inflicting mass death and injury is too great. I'm terribly sorry for the people who just like collecting guns. I'm sure you're all really swell, but.... 
Actually, I'm not sure you are, and that's another big part of this equation. No one had any clue apparently what the killer here was planning, despite how many weapons and military accoutrements he had shipped to his tiny apartment. Had he not had a semi-automatic rifle, many more people would likely have escaped unharmed than did during his rampage. For that reason alone, I'm comfortable with two classifications of guns (and yes, I expect the definitions to be contentious, but at least it's a start): recreational (which law-abiding citizens can own with a background check and a permit) and military grade (which your average citizen is more than welcome to use upon signing up for the armed services).

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is incredible that Holmes purchased all of this on the internet with no background check. The jaw-dropper from the link below was this:

"If I only had 6,000 rounds for my AR-15s, I'd literally feel naked," Brown said. Then he totaled up Holmes' firearms purchases: "Two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. That's the average male in Colorado."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-weapons-internet_n_1694451.html

-----ondine nyc

7/23/2012 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just heard on a round table discussion that 40% of all gun sales do not go through any background check. That means anyone can get a gun or assault rifle here.

7/23/2012 12:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The parents of james holmes are ultimatley responsible for their little lab experiment gone bad. How aboout a background check to breed.

7/23/2012 01:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I miss conversations about art...this story is already everywhere else. letas talk about teh salon 94 show that has been gettin so much art world buzz at least!

7/23/2012 01:49:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

If the Salon 94 show is getting so much buzz, then clearly it's already everywhere else as well, no?

This blog's tag line was chosen with a full awareness of what would be posted here" "art | politics...."

Truth in advertising :-)

7/23/2012 01:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fair enough... its just tough reading this long ass winded diatribe even from you

7/23/2012 01:55:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

well, the internet is full of other options :-)

7/23/2012 02:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's why I like you Ed. You take it as well as you give it. I'm going to read your article and offer some productive comment. Art and politics, you are true to life.

7/23/2012 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger Nancy Natale said...

Ed, I agree with you that there should be laws against owning assault weapons. I think it's the very least we could do to cut down on mass murders. I can't imagine that anyone would go hunting Bambi's mother with one of these as she would be shredded into nothingness, so I don't see it as necessary to hunters. As far as recreation, if some he-man wants to pretend to be Rambo or his ilk, why can't he can use paintballs or a souped-up watergun?

I really hate to see the hold that the NRA has on our political class and on the minds of most American citizens. Even Obama doesn't dare mention that perhaps, maybe, sorta , kinda we should limit such weapons. If he did say anything, he would guarantee his return to the private sector.

I heard from a friend in Australia that after they had a mass killing by a nut case, their government put into effect a ban on assault weapons and began a buyback program on them. They bought back more than 600,000.

Just saying that there's nothing we can do because the guy was a madman (as I have heard so many say) is pretty ridiculous. At the very least, Obamacare should make mental health treatment more available to potential mass murderers, psychopaths and sociopaths. I only heard this pointed out on the Stephanie Miller show, but it's a valid point.

Thanks for your post on this topic. As you may have noted from FB, I like talking politics and gun control is nothing if not political.

7/23/2012 10:07:00 PM  
Blogger Nancy Natale said...

Ed, I agree with you that there should be laws against owning assault weapons. I think it's the very least we could do to cut down on mass murders. I can't imagine that anyone would go hunting Bambi's mother with one of these as she would be shredded into nothingness, so I don't see it as necessary to hunters. As far as recreation, if some he-man wants to pretend to be Rambo or his ilk, why can't he can use paintballs or a souped-up watergun?

I really hate to see the hold that the NRA has on our political class and on the minds of most American citizens. Even Obama doesn't dare mention that perhaps, maybe, sorta , kinda we should limit such weapons. If he did say anything, he would guarantee his return to the private sector.

I heard from a friend in Australia that after they had a mass killing by a nut case, their government put into effect a ban on assault weapons and began a buyback program on them. They bought back more than 600,000.

Just saying that there's nothing we can do because the guy was a madman (as I have heard so many say) is pretty ridiculous. At the very least, Obamacare should make mental health treatment more available to potential mass murderers, psychopaths and sociopaths. I only heard this pointed out on the Stephanie Miller show, but it's a valid point.

Thanks for your post on this topic. As you may have noted from FB, I like talking politics and gun control is nothing if not political.

7/23/2012 10:08:00 PM  
Blogger Richard G. Crockett said...

Interesting commentary. I feel a similar ambivalence about gun control. i too come from a gun wielding family and was raised in a tradition of carefulness regarding their use.

One point about assault weapons is that it is difficult to even define them. Rate of fire would be one criterium. Another would be the handling speed. Still another would be the impact power.

Another problem is that some "assault rifles" are just hunting rifles in bad ass drag.

Also, manufacturers, are clever. They could just dumb down the weapons to new specs, and then an aftermarket mod industry would just refit them to be assault weapons again.

So the laws themselves are tricky to even write.

Even so. I agree in principle.

I'm surprised no one mentioned that Canadians have many more guns per capita than the U.S., but much less crime.

It is easy to write new laws. It is difficult to address underlying causes.

Best,
<a href="http://rgcrockett.blogspot.com/>Rick</a>

7/24/2012 06:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Canadians have about 30 guns per 100 people and Americans 80 per. Even so, the murder by gun tally is 200 annually in Canada and around 8,000 in the U.S. something more than gun violence is going on here even given the difference in population. Also, in Canada, it's almost impossible to own a handgun or military grade weapon (comment above is correct, most hunting rifles are considered assault weapons) getting rid of hand guns would go far to reduce some of the killing, but I'm not sure how that could ever be accomplished here. And although I hate to use the word, there is a "culture" of violence here that also needs to be addressed.

7/30/2012 07:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you city folks need to face the facts. Statistics show that the majority of legally owned assault rifles are owned by rural gun owners. Statistically you will find that the use of legally owned assault rifles in rural areas are extremely low. The majority of crimes involving weapons like that happen in large cities.

Just because you people have created an environment for yourself that fuels violence does not mean that everyone else should be punished for it.

I do think that in order to own an assault rifle you should have to show that you compete with it or go to a gun range with it on a regular basis. In the past you had to have a military background to buy one in the first place. The ACLU had a fit about that. So blame them, not the NRA.

8/02/2012 04:20:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Any time you contribute an opinion with "us vs. them" delineations such as "you big city folks" or "you people" you've already declared you're not interested in civilized discourse.

I would agree that the larger issue here is the culture of violence that leads to these tragedies, but the truth is that massacres such as Aurora's are rare in cities like New York (have we ever had one here?), they tend to happen in smaller towns or campuses.

But I'm confused by your "statistics" as well. If use of legally owned assault rifles in rural areas is so extremely low, how exactly is it a "punishment" for them to be illegal? Seems they shouldn't care that much.

8/02/2012 08:18:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home