Every time a shooter pulls a gun nowadays and uses it with lethal force, donations to political organizations dedicated to restricting firearms in some way skyrocket. No one can blame the donors; they see an out-of-control situation and seek a means to staunch the bloodshed.
Here's the kicker, though: after each of these incidents, donations to the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations also spikes. The reason is fairly simple. If the gun restriction crowd gets its way, the lifestyle of the gun rights crowd might well go away, no matter what positive benefit to society the restriction on guns might have. Which leads to the real split, as author Dan Baum puts it:
My point here is not to debate the rise or fall in gun-related violence, though, but to note that any rise in violence should be noted with equal focus. Which leads me to my Monday commute home.
Last Monday, I had to divert my normal commute. After work, I heard of a car fire on the bridge that gets me that last mile. It was a bad one, it seemed, and the bridge was simply closed. It was the interstate bridge, too, so this was no small fire.
Ah, but it wasn't closed simply because of a fire, but how it started.
Ah, but as weird as it is, it gets weirder: "Investigators later found an incendiary device in his truck. They are still investigating why." (I emboldened.)
So some guy comes unglued, cobbles together an incendiary device, parks sideways across two lanes of freeway traffic, sets his car on fire, and acts the loony, nutty enough—and knifey enough—to get shot when he advanced on the officers trying to subdue him.
Had he carried a gun in his last moments, all eyes would be on this scene. As it was, only a few of the outlets reporting the incident bother to mention the fiery death machine that failed to launch.
Let's get back to Baum for a moment:
"Everywhere but at social class." Which brings us to Pickett & Wilkinson.
Robert Reich ably introduces Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett's The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger:
It turns out that unequal societies experience greater bad stuff. Lots and lots of greater bad stuff, everything from greater infant mortality to greater random violence to shorter lives to greater incidents of mental illness. Worse, everyone in the unequal societies suffers, be they rich or poor, at least statistically.
But hey, you don't have to wade through their book to get a taste of the theory. I'll let one of the authors–wearing an obviously new shirt that he failed to press–give that taste.
Why this happens is less well understood that the fact that the data is pretty damned well supported that it does happen. Maybe Baum is right. Maybe the growing inequity is noticed by all, but this inequity is denied so vehemently, so strongly by our for-profit press—that, of course, needs to sell in its ads the very trappings of wealth that mark growing inequality. Because they would have to point to every ad they run as yet another reason for the problem's continuation, they simply don't bother looking at the problem.
And since the news whores cannot look at the real problem without damning their own profit source, they zoom in on the guns and ignore the other stuff, like boring incendiaries that failed to boom.
That said, you'll understand why I bow out of the high-caliber finger pointing every time a shooting occurs. The more the left pushes against the Second Amendment, the more it threatens the lifestyle of those enamored with the firearms protected thereunder, and therefore the more that subset of our society will resist with ever increasing thunder and might any move from the left. Dan Baum, a liberal gun loving guy, finds himself increasingly isolated as this happens more and more. Worse, he sees this as inevitably self-defeating:
And since the left cannot get a toe hold politically thanks to the demonization of liberal political thinkers and doers this demonization of guns creates, the source problem behind the shootings and attempted freeway bombings and other stuff—income inequality—gets completely ignored.
Which is exactly what the right wants. Which is why the Republican Party identifies so strongly with the NRA.
Perhaps we should follow Oscar Wilde's advice on this issue: "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them as much." Embrace guns, liberals, don't restrict them. Maybe then we can make some real progress.
Here's the kicker, though: after each of these incidents, donations to the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations also spikes. The reason is fairly simple. If the gun restriction crowd gets its way, the lifestyle of the gun rights crowd might well go away, no matter what positive benefit to society the restriction on guns might have. Which leads to the real split, as author Dan Baum puts it:
Data bout the effects of gun-control measures could be compared and contrasted. When it came to whether restrictive gun laws did good or did harm, reasonable people could disagree.
Finding reasonable people was the problem.
(Dan Baum, Gun Guys, Borzoi Books, 2013, p. 205.)
My point here is not to debate the rise or fall in gun-related violence, though, but to note that any rise in violence should be noted with equal focus. Which leads me to my Monday commute home.
Last Monday, I had to divert my normal commute. After work, I heard of a car fire on the bridge that gets me that last mile. It was a bad one, it seemed, and the bridge was simply closed. It was the interstate bridge, too, so this was no small fire.
Ah, but it wasn't closed simply because of a fire, but how it started.
Two State Patrol troopers shot and fatally wounded a knife-wielding man Monday evening on the Interstate 5 Ship Canal Bridge in Seattle. . . .
Shortly before 7 p.m., the troopers responded to a report that a man had parked his truck across two lanes of the freeway and set it on fire, a Seattle police spokesman said in a statement.
“The guy looks insane,” one caller said in a 911 call tape released Tuesday. . . .
Arriving on the span, one of the troopers and a Department of Transportation crew went to work extinguishing the burning truck while the other trooper contacted the driver, the spokesman continued.
Seattle Police Department investigators reviewing the incident at the State Patrol’s request contend the driver then pulled a knife and advanced on the trooper.
The trooper used his Taser stun gun on the man, but it failed to subdue him, the Seattle Police spokesman said. Still armed with a knife, the man continued his advance until both troopers shot him.
The man was rush to Harborview Medical Center, where he died.
Ah, but as weird as it is, it gets weirder: "Investigators later found an incendiary device in his truck. They are still investigating why." (I emboldened.)
So some guy comes unglued, cobbles together an incendiary device, parks sideways across two lanes of freeway traffic, sets his car on fire, and acts the loony, nutty enough—and knifey enough—to get shot when he advanced on the officers trying to subdue him.
Had he carried a gun in his last moments, all eyes would be on this scene. As it was, only a few of the outlets reporting the incident bother to mention the fiery death machine that failed to launch.
Let's get back to Baum for a moment:
Americans, whether armed or not, were still looking everywhere but at social class when parsing the texture of their lives. It wasn't so much that stressed-out blue-collar folks were clinging bitterly to their guns and religion, as Barack Obama had posited while running for president. It was more that guns and religion were keeping them from feeling bitter about the indignities inflicted on the middle class.
(Baum, idid, p. 148.)
"Everywhere but at social class." Which brings us to Pickett & Wilkinson.
Robert Reich ably introduces Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett's The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger:
During the 1950s and '60s, CEOs of major American companies took home about 25 to 30 times the wages of the typical worker. After the 1970s, the two pay scales diverged. In 1980, the big-company CEO took home roughly 40 times; by 1990, it was 100 times. By 2007, just before the Great Recession, CEO pay packages had ballooned to about 350 times what the typical worker earned. Recent [reports] suggest that the upward trajectory of executive pay, temporarily stopped by the economic meltdown, is on the verge of continuing. To make the comparison especially vivid, in 1968 the CEO of General Motors -- then the largest company in the United States -- took home around 66 times the pay and benefits of the typical GM worker at the time. In 2005, the CEO of Wal-Mart -- by then the largest U.S. company -- took home 900 times the pay and benefits of the typical Wal-Mart worker.
(Reich's introduction to Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, Bloomsbury Press, 2009, p. vi.)
It turns out that unequal societies experience greater bad stuff. Lots and lots of greater bad stuff, everything from greater infant mortality to greater random violence to shorter lives to greater incidents of mental illness. Worse, everyone in the unequal societies suffers, be they rich or poor, at least statistically.
But hey, you don't have to wade through their book to get a taste of the theory. I'll let one of the authors–wearing an obviously new shirt that he failed to press–give that taste.
Why this happens is less well understood that the fact that the data is pretty damned well supported that it does happen. Maybe Baum is right. Maybe the growing inequity is noticed by all, but this inequity is denied so vehemently, so strongly by our for-profit press—that, of course, needs to sell in its ads the very trappings of wealth that mark growing inequality. Because they would have to point to every ad they run as yet another reason for the problem's continuation, they simply don't bother looking at the problem.
And since the news whores cannot look at the real problem without damning their own profit source, they zoom in on the guns and ignore the other stuff, like boring incendiaries that failed to boom.
That said, you'll understand why I bow out of the high-caliber finger pointing every time a shooting occurs. The more the left pushes against the Second Amendment, the more it threatens the lifestyle of those enamored with the firearms protected thereunder, and therefore the more that subset of our society will resist with ever increasing thunder and might any move from the left. Dan Baum, a liberal gun loving guy, finds himself increasingly isolated as this happens more and more. Worse, he sees this as inevitably self-defeating:
If liberals thought they were weakening the enemy by smashing its idols, they had it exactly wrong. It was hard to think of a better organizing tool for the right than the left's tribal antipathy to guns. . . . America was full of working people who wouldn't listen to the donkey party—about anything—because of the Democrats' identification with gun control.
(Baum, ibid, p. 270.)
And since the left cannot get a toe hold politically thanks to the demonization of liberal political thinkers and doers this demonization of guns creates, the source problem behind the shootings and attempted freeway bombings and other stuff—income inequality—gets completely ignored.
Which is exactly what the right wants. Which is why the Republican Party identifies so strongly with the NRA.
Perhaps we should follow Oscar Wilde's advice on this issue: "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them as much." Embrace guns, liberals, don't restrict them. Maybe then we can make some real progress.
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 05:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:57 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 05:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:56 (UTC)As long as someone wants to keep his/her guns, and as long as liberals are there as a boogie man ready to take them, liberals—along with all they support, such as access to medical care without danger of bankruptcy, higher taxes on the extremely wealthy, and strengthened unions that would all benefit the gun owners—is off the table.
Just as some elements of the religious have branded liberals as atheists, the NRA keeps those who feel threatened (thanks to economic inequities that abound) clinging irrationally to their guns and away from liberal politics.
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 06:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:52 (UTC)Ease the inequity, and the guns might follow. Baum in fact (in sections I chose not to highlight for brevity's sake) cites clues that this is already happening, though not for reasons relating to inequity.
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:30 (UTC)You have several options.
1) Shoot in the air, hoping to scare him.
2) Shoot him in the foot, thus stopping his advance.
3) Shoot him in the arm/shoulder, thus disabling his weapon.
4) Shoot him in the stomach, thus putting his life at risk of slow, painful death.
5) Shoot him in the chest or head, thus killing him.
Which of these options did the trooper opt for? Well, you guessed right. The easiest (read: deadliest) one. The guy who had been trained to shoot at targets, couldn't choose a limb to shoot at, but went directly for the kill.
And he knew well in advance that the man was acting like insane, was probably insane, thus didn't know what he was doing. And he shot him anyway. Because that's what troopers do, right?
Reminds me of that woman who drove a car erratically in front of the White House, and the cops shot directly at her, and killed her. Brilliant. Because she was going to break the fences, enter the White House and kill the president who wasn't even there. JUST... BRILLIANT.
Law & order for all!
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:48 (UTC)As was commonly said, if you go for a "warning" (as opposed to a kill) shot, make sure you have a smooth gun. That way it won't hurt you much as the assailant takes it from you and shoves it up your ass.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 19:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 16:38 (UTC)And that's because even though NYC cops are range certified twice a year with over 80% on target in actual emergency situations they hit only about 30% of the time. It's a combination of adrenaline, moving targets, being shot at themselves. Taking a TV stereotype steely bead and putting a shot into a nonvital part of the body? Isn't going to happen. Shooting a "warning shot" into the air? Gravity. The damn bullet comes down.
You can also fatally wound someone by shooting a "nonvital" part of the body -- hit the thigh, sever the femeral artery and you've got a gunshot wound that's a major problem.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 16:52 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 18:15 (UTC)That's a myth. You cannot shoot at a limb, or shoot to wound, that's comic book hunter stuff. You aim for the torso. Period. The other options are not reasonable options even under the best of conditions.
The woman in the car, that was bullshit and mishandled with deadly negligence.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 25/6/14 09:09 (UTC)Oh, I forgot about this one. Warning shots are severely frowned upon because you don't know where the bullet is going to go. Fire past the target? What's behind them? What's on the other side of that wall? Or a car, maybe? A glass shopfront?
Ah, well, just shoot into the air, there's nothing up there! Except that the bullet comes down sometime, and can cause just as much damage and injury as a bullet coming directly out of a weapon, and there's even less control in where it comes down than with firing past someone.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 26/6/14 18:35 (UTC)A trained trooper knows to aim for the ground in front of the target (warning shots) or for center of mass. Anything else introduces the risk of over-penetration or an out-right miss. Remember that pulling the trigger means you own that bullet, where ever it lands. Shooting into the air in a populated area, or trying to shoot an extremity, especially in the heat of the moment, would be stupid and dangerous.
(no subject)
Date: 29/6/14 19:48 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:40 (UTC)Some countries with highest social equality in the world: Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Czech Republic.
Some countries with lowest homicide rates in the world: Japan, Norway, Czech Republic, Austria, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg...
It's been recently argued over here that, while correlation may not necessarily equal causation, it sure does wink at it. Vehemently argued by gun advocates, by the way. Perhaps they should own their words - you know, for a change.
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:49 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:58 (UTC)Duuude. You and Mr Wilde must be some hopeless romantics. ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 19:34 (UTC)And since the terrorists in this case are fanning the flames of irrational dissension by funding the very organization responsible for the dissension, taking this issue off the table draws gun owners to the other side, where we have both cake and social justice.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 20:14 (UTC)He spoke to gun violence himself. During a speaking tour of the US in the 1880s, someone asked him about the violence in the Wild West (the question was asked in Colorado). Many felt it a frivolous question, but he said (according to Stephen Fry) in effect that he knew exactly why there was so much violence. The wallpaper was so ugly.
Mr. Wilde was, you see, an aesthetic. He thought not only that pretty surroundings made for more civilized society, but that ugly surroundings brought out the worst in people. And I feel the same way, sometimes.
Take that Ship Canal Bridge in Seattle, the one that almost got firebombed by a loony. Built in 1962, it is the height of the brutalist period, a concrete brute of a structure with only one redeeming value—it gets cars across and ships beneath (provided the ships are under 130' in height). Compare it to the far more graceful nearby University Bridge (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7245559) or, even better, Montlake Bridge (http://depts.washington.edu/dphs/postdoc/montlake.gif) or Fremont Bridge (http://www.historylink.org/db_images/PL68.JPG). No one has tried to blow or burn up these more graceful beauties.
One salient fact of US living that is often missed is how ugly many of our structures and surroundings really are, compared especially with Europe and Asia. I have little doubt living in such bleak, brutalist and stark surroundings, as Mr. Wilde opined, leads quite a bit to the violence that inhabits such surroundings.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 21:45 (UTC)Meanwhile, I will remember to stay as far away from the US as possible.
As for inequality, the situation will be getting worse before it possibly gets better (if at all). So brace yourself for witnessing more shootings.
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 22:07 (UTC)Sad.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 04:30 (UTC)I hear this often enough between LJ and other forums that it's starting to bug me. Especially considering it's us who are supposed to have the market cornered on being prejudiced towards 'the other'.
I got to travel to all corners of the country growing up here (my parents were big on getting me to see as much of the country as possible), all those road trips around the country on vacation, and never once was I or anyone in my family shot at. It's not exactly easy to find someone who has born witness to such an event. either. I do not fear for my life when I go out in public.
While it's impossible to say you're just as safe anywhere you could choose to go in the country as anywhere else, the fact of the matter is, you can't say that about any country, and those places are not the rule, they are the exception. Avoiding the whole 10 million sq. kilometer country as if you're taking your life in your hands by showing up on the doorstep is not a judgment rooted in reason.
We have law and order. We are not in a state of anarchy or the wild west (which in itself wasn't as 'wild' as the movies let on - a lot of what is seen was based on legend and taking exceptional headlines and making them appear commonplace well after the fact).
So yeah, if you were serious and not trying to be sarcastic, then the sentiment comes off as xenophobic; inflated fear based on a false impression rather than as part of a well-reasoned strategy for self-preservation.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 16:13 (UTC)I want a tax on gun sales that goes to help the victims of gun violence. If you got lifetime health care for being a gun victims, people would be staging shootouts to get on board.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 05:22 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 18:01 (UTC)The two women in the truck both survived - one was only hurt by glass.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 22:51 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: