Guns 3 | ***Dave Does the Blog

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our guns, but in ourselves, that we are bad-asses

David Niose suggests that debates over gun control and reining in gun violence in the US are useless because "American society reveres aggressive, take-no-shit behavior, an attitude that naturally sees violence as not just a plausible option, but often a desirable one."

http://davidniose.com/badass-the-culture-that-makes-gun-reform-impossible/

Our national mythology is all about that, from the take-no-shit Founding Fathers (who defeated the most powerful army in the world) to the take-all-the-shit settlers of the West, to the US as World Power that needs a bigger defense budget than the next ten countries (most of whom are allies) combined, to pretty much everything else in our collection of cultural icons where violent stands for principle are seen as the be-all and end-all of dramatic conflict and heroism.

It's a depressing thought, but it certainly explains some of the modern condemnation of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama (as "negotiators"), and the lionizing of folk like Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and even Vladimir Putin.

What it says is that gun violence is not the price of liberty, but the price of our preferred self-image.

The question then becomes, what the hell do we do about it. If we really think we should do something about it.

(h/t +Les Jenkins)

View on Google+

In fighting gun violence, knowledge is power

Which is one reason why the gun lobby is so keen to keep knowledge about gun deaths and injuries to a minimum, let alone addressing gun violence as a public health issue (besides vague handwaving about "the crazies").

The article's "new way" isn't all that new, but it's useful.

A New Way to Tackle Gun Deaths – The New York Times
The passivity of politicians has simply enabled mass shootings. It’s time for a new approach to gun violence.

View on Google+

Just because "stuff happens," you don't just pass a law

Unless it's 9/11. Or laws Jeb! himself signed. But not about guns. Never about guns. Never, ever, EVER about guns. Because "stuff happens."

You Don’t Pass a Pool Fencing Law After a Child Drowns, Says Jeb, Who Did Just That
“Stuff happens” was the dumbest and most unfortunate thing Jeb! Bush said Friday in reaction to the mass shooting at an Oregon community college one day earlier, but his fumbling attempt to clean up that mess was nearly as rife with dumbitude and non-fortune.

View on Google+

If we don't study it, we can just pontificate on it

Pontificate in sorrow, or in resolute love of freedom, or in angry tones about how "this isn't the time" (which time becomes much more difficult to pin down since the intervals between mass shootings keep growing ever shorter).

This is from back in July — right after another mass shooting that made lots of headlines — but it illustrates the real gun violence problem the US faces.

Which is, not only are our elected representatives (especially, but not solely, on the GOP side of the aisle) not willing to discuss gun violence in the US, they really don't want anyone else discussing it, either, and certainly not researching it in a way that would let us actually have sensible, fact-based discussions about its scope and possible solutions, because the conclusions of what could be done about it (nothing, because NRA) have already been drawn, and further discussions will only rile up valuable contributors and the rabble-rousers they pay for (see also: NRA).

Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence
Not long after the shooting in Charleston, a US House of Representatives committee rejected a measure that would have allowed the CDC to conduct research into gun violence, leaving intact a ban pushed by the NRA back in the 1990s.

View on Google+

On the faint fending off of "Criminals and Psychopaths"

The NRA insists that "gun-free zones" are simply attractors for murderous zanies and cut-throats, and loudly trumpet each time a mass shooting occurs in a place that has forbidden carrying of firearms, like a school or a movie theater. "If only," they cry, "the nanny state liberals in charge hadn't rendered all those poor victims defenseless against the slaughter. The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a good, anywhere, any time."

Their (largely) GOP politicians and pundits echo the the charge

And yet, there are a lot of places — bastions of GOP (and even NRA) activity — that very explicitly ban firearms possession, with nary a peep of protest from the conservative defenders of gun freedom:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/08/25/3694369/conservative-gun-free-zones/

For example, the George W Bush Presidential Library (sign posted below). Or GOP political events (including town halls, campaign stops, presidential debates). Or, heck, Donald Trump's golf courses.

Are they so reckless about the security and safety at these locations that they are dead set on preventing people there from defending themselves against thugs and assassins? Oh, the humanity!

(The argument that some of these venues control the policy over events held there — the excuse used at the last gun-less NRA convention — hardly holds water. First off, there are plenty of exceptions. Secondly, and most importantly, when it comes to personal security, to protecting friends and loved ones, to standing up for the Most Important Constitutional Amendment Ever, that these folk aren't demanding the venues they choose allow carrying to the extent of the law, or else choosing to hold their events somewhere else, is unconscionable. Or indicative of something else.)

View on Google+

The irrationality of fight, flight, or freeze

And by "irrationality" I mean it doesn't necessarily involve thought. Indeed, if you have to think about a reaction to an immediate deadly threat, you're probably dead already (if not in any given instance, then over the long run).

That's part of why analyzing events like this from the comfort of our keyboard is missing the point; an unthinking decision to flee or freeze is just as likely to be right (or wrong) as an unthinking decision to fight. That plays into discussions of both blaming (or drawing moral conclusions) from these kind of events as well as of confidently being sure that, Hey, if only I'd been there, I'd have been able to be the hero.

Why Nobody Intervened in the July 4 Metro Murder
Criticism of witnesses’ inaction reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the neuroscience of how the brain responds to sudden threats

View on Google+

Gun-free zones are evil! Except, y'know, for ours

How do gun-friendly politicians justify protecting themselves — their legislative chambers, in particular — from people carrying fire-arms. If there were an armed attack in the US Capitol Building, wouldn't the best defense be everyone on a chamber floor and the gallery being armed and ready to take out the miscreants? Isn't every armed civilian in the building making things safer (and more polite)? Isn't the only real protection against an armed Congressional assassin an armed Congressman?

If freedom to carry is good for schools, universities, and everywhere else, then surely legislative halls should be similarly "protected."

(And, yes, I realize there are very good reasons why the GOP majorities in Congress haven't called for and end to the metal detectors and inspections and no-carry rules. I'm just curious as to how they justify it.)

If Guns Make Us Safer, Why Not Let Them Into the U.S. Capitol?
It’s a curious feature of American life that when four innocents are killed by a gunman in Chattanooga, or when a young white supremacist opens fire inside a historic AME Church in Charleston, we talk about loosening gun safety laws. In the aftermath of this week’s murders, Donald Trump managed the near-impossible—sounding like a…

View on Google+

RT @SarahKSilverman I think @iamjohnoliver put it best

View on Twitter

On what the Charleston shooting was REALLY about

Rick Perry referred to it was an "accident" and probably involved overuse of prescription drugs: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-perry-charleston-shooting-accident-due-drug-use-manipulated-obama-ban-guns

Michael Savage thought it might be drugs, too. Or maybe a government assassin: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/michael-savage-maybe-charleston-shooter-was-set-loose-government

But Rick Santorum said it was all about attacks on religious liberty: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/18/rick-santorum-reacting-to-charleston-shooting-denounces-assaults-on-our-religious-liberty/

Fox & Friends agreed, it might very well be part of the ongoing attacks on Christians: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/fox_and_friends_on_charleston_shooting_it_s_extraordinary_that_they_re_calling.html

Regardless of the motivation, we know why it turned out as tragic as it did … because the church was a "gun-free zone": http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/18/gun-free-zones-easy-target-for-killers.html

Brian Fischer confirms the shooting took place because it was a "gun-free zone": https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/status/611530746625421312

Fox & Friends is definitely behind the idea that more guns would have averted the tragedy: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/fox-amp-friends-exploits-south-carolina-church/204046

Mike Huckabee definitely thinks the prayer group should have been packing: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-charleston-shooting-couldve-been-prevented-if-church-members-were-armed

Yup, no question that it was because the church was a "gun-free zone": http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/discredited-gun-researcher-john-lott-botches-sc/204052

And one NRA board member makes it clear that it was actually the fault of the killed pastor of the church because of his support for gun control laws: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/nra-board-member-blames-murdered-reverend-for-d/204057

It surely had nothing to do with why a guy would wear a jacket with the flags of white-minority-government Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa on it, nor how he was able to get a gun because of loopholes in the law in South Carolina. That's just crazy talk.

View on Google+

Fear Sells Guns

Given that the NRA has morphed from a gun safety and hunter advocacy organization to a lobbying arm for gun and ammo manufacturers, it's little wonder that the NRA Convention is full of EVIL MUSLIMS HAVE TAKEN OVER OUR CITIES AND ARE INVADING OUR PORTS, SO YOU BETTER HAVE GUNS TO STOP THEM malarkey.

Gun purchases are up over-all in the US … but gun ownership continues to shrink, and that is the real threat facing the NRA's sponsors. And the only way to counter that is to gin up some existential terrorist threat to take over our cities (and, no doubt, to ravish our women-folk).

Islamic Extremists Have Seized Control Of U.S. Cities, Says NRA Seminar
“I have seen it with my own eyes, witnessed it in the backseat of a car and it is for real. No-go zones exist in the United States,” the speaker told the NRA audience.

View on Google+

Stand Your Ground is for me, not thee

Because, well, it's totally reasonable that a man's home is his castle and that if he thinks someone is threatening him or his, he ought to be able to pull out a gun and shoot them, rather than flee or lock the doors or call the police.

But if a woman stabs her boyfriend when she fears for her life — well, that's a domestic dispute, and we don't want the law to be interfering there, so we'll just say that "stand your ground" doesn't apply.

Makes perfect sense, right?

(Hypothetical, to control for other variables: Are the S Carolina prosecutors really saying that if a woman is standing in the doorway to her home, and someone is advancing on her menacingly, she can stand her ground and shoot said menace only if it's a stranger, not someone she knows or has had a relationship with? Really? Would the argue the same way if it was a man being menaced by a woman? Just trying to understand the [lack of] reasoning here.)

South Carolina Says “Stand Your Ground” Law Doesn’t Apply to Abused Women
South Carolina has an expansive “stand your ground” law that paves the way for someone to get immunity from prosecution by declaring that they killed another person in self-defense. Liberals have been critical of these laws, arguing that they make it far too easy for violent people to deliberately provoke…

View on Google+

An armed society is a politely disarmed society

Because carrying around a gun openly doesn't do anything but make you a target for folk who (a) want to commit mayhem, and therefore will shoot you first, or (b) really like that gun you're carrying, pull out theirs first, then ask you politely for yours.

This was, fortunately, an example of (b).

Man practicing open carry law robbed of gun
A man carrying a concealed weapon said “I like your gun, give it to me.”

View on Google+

When a warning shot backfires

Yup. If he'd just shot the kid and said he felt personally threatened, he'd have been "standing his ground." Instead, a warning shot lands him with 20 years in the slammer, mandatory sentence.

Justice is served, but I think someone brought the wrong order.

Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:

His mistake was shooting the wall instead of shooting the kid. Had he shot the kid it's likely he could've used the Stand Your Ground law in his favor. That said, he did the right thing in firing the warning shot. It's just a shame the law is structured in a way that killing someone is the better bet for not going to jail.

Mandatory minimum sentencing: Injustice served?
Lee Wollard fired a warning shot to protect his daughter in an altercation with her boyfriend; a judge was forced to sentence him to 20 years in a Florida state prison

View on Google+

When you make government dysfunctional, you have a dysfunctional government

For example, if you stall and block a Surgeon General nominee, then you don't get a Surgeon General appointed. And, sooner or later, when you actually need and want a Surgeon General around, you don't have one. At which point you can complain about how government doesn't work.

How the NRA is making the Ebola crisis worse
Why don’t Americans have a surgeon general to explain the Ebola crisis? Because the NRA-influenced Senate can’t get its act together.

View on Google+

Rights are inalienable (except when they aren't)

Mats Holberg has a point. You may disagree with Roe v Wade, just as others may disagree with District of Columbia v Heller. But it seems dangerous to me to treat one right as a sacred cow and the other as something to make as difficult as possible to exercise. Because tomorrow it may be turned the other way around.

(h/t +George Wiman)

Mats Holberg on Twitter: “Imagine the UPROAR if a court OK’d a law forcing Texans to drive hundreds of miles to buy guns they have a constitutional right to purchase.”
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel. Mats Holberg ‏@matsholberg 11h10 hours ago. Imagine the UPROAR if a court OK’d a law forcing Texans to drive hundreds of miles to buy guns they have a constitutional right to purchase. Reply; Retweet Retweeted; Favorite Favorited …

View on Google+

Using deadly force to "contain" a non-existent "risk"

Apparently, even in an open carry state, if you don't happen to hear the cops telling you to put down the BB gun you're carrying because you're on the phone, even though you're not actually pointing it at anyone or firing at anyone, it's perfectly legit for the cops to decide you have to be shot dead.

Quoth the police chief, "The quick response of officers was instrumental in containing this situation and minimizing the risk of customers." Except, of course, that there was no actual situation, and no customers were at risk. Except for Mr. Crawford.

Police Will Not Be Indicted in Shooting of Black Walmart Shopper Holding BB Gun
A grand jury in Ohio has chosen not to indict two police officers in the shooting of John Crawford, the Dayton-area man who was killed in a Walmart while carrying what turned out to be a BB gun. Crawford was shot on August 5, and a special grand jury was…

View on Google+

RT @TheAuthorGuy: In Missouri,…

RT @TheAuthorGuy: In Missouri, a woman now has to wait 72hrs for an abortion. There is no waiting period to buy a handgun. Choose your own …

"An Armed Society Is a Polite Society"

If by "polite" you mean "scared."

In many ways, this concept (quotation-attributed to Robert Heinlein, but adopted by scads of gun-ownership fans) is a new one. In most of human history, arms meant extension of the individual's physical ability to be violent toward others. A club, a dagger, a broadsword, a rapier — what physical attribute they compensated for (aided by the money to own them) varied, but owning one meant enhanced ability to take one's strength and agility and training (more money) to the Nth degree if someone crossed you.

Societies with such things built elaborate structures around them, which usually had two attributes: only the social elite could bear such arms (no swords for peasants), and in case of inter-personal conflict, lethal force was either fully justified (if it was the upper class striking down an uppity / threatening lower class) or only legally channeled into a duel (whether we're talking Medici Florence or Shogunate Kyoto).

I'm not sure either option is what most quoters mean when they talk about "an armed society is a polite society."

The coming of gunpowder changed the equation. Now lethality was not dependent on strength or (to a lesser degree) quickness, but on pointing and firing first. Everyone was equal — except that surprise and numbers could overwhelm righteousness and justice. If the only thing that could stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun, then the only thing that could stop a good guy with a gun was three bad guys with a gun.

Our Founding Fathers didn't open-carry muskets or pistols. To do so was to clearly mean harm to others. Such things were kept in the home, or at the militia armory. Still, their existence continued the tradition of dueling, as performed by Hamilton and Burr.

With the advent of the repeating rifle and the cylinder-based pistol and cartridge ammunition, the equation changed again. Now anyone could carry a firearm and inflict death as fast as one could draw it and point it and pull the trigger. Not surprisingly, the freedom-loving denizens of the Western US quickly put a stop to that. Law enforcement in towns, as soon as it was established, demanded folk entering the town to check their weapons. Outside city limits, where the law didn't reach, and there might be bandits or Indians or catamounts? Sure. Inside of town where there were women and alcohol and respectable people? Drop it there and here's your check ticket.

So we've never actually seen a society where everyone carries a gun, and is authorized to use it in case of — well, let's use the word and call it "impoliteness." Until these days, when "stand your ground" laws allow folk who can plausibly argue that they felt threatened to pull a gun and fire as many shots as they like. Politeness enforced!

Of course, that plausibility still depends on a court to decide, but they've been pretty lenient so far. Usually. Some have, in fact, decided that the person in question ought not to have felt threatened. Surprise! You asked for politeness a bit too vigorously.

Most of these cases have involved a single person who felt suddenly threatened by someone doing something around them — approaching their car, playing loud music and glaring at them, stuff like that. What happens when still more people start open-carrying and, each from their own perspective, starts feeling threatened by the impoliteness of others? Is the fear that someone is about to "stand their ground" sufficient justification to "stand your ground"? Is the answer to let the courts sort it out after the fact — whose shooting was justified, and whose wasn't, and how that ties into which bodies are lying on the ground afterward?

"An armed society is a polite society"? It seems to me that an armed society is a society where the only answer is to shoot first. Which is hardly polite.

Bang Bang Crazy, Part 10

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. – Robert Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon An armed society is a polite society. That’s what somebody said to me today. I…

View on Google+

Oh, Hick

Sigh.

Really, John — nobody likes a waffler. Hell, if you were against it, say so and stand up for your position; there's enough else positive there that I'd vote for you over the most likely GOP contestants. But weaseling on something as divisive as this is going to alienate everyone.

Reshared post from +The Denver Post

After several days of fallout over his comments on gun control laws to a recent gathering of county sheriffs, Gov. John Hickenlooper has managed to baffle both victims-rights advocates and Second Amendment supporters.
FULL STORY: http://dpo.st/1uJP6uU

Hickenlooper silent on gun law comments; supporters and foes baffled
After several days of fallout over his comments on gun control laws to a recent gathering of county sheriffs, Gov. John Hickenlooper has managed to baffle both victims-rights advocates and Second Amendment supporters.

View this post on Google+

Because not all shooting at a school is a school shooting, I guess

CNN had decided only to count people who bring firearms onto campus intending to shoot a bunch of people as "school shootings," not cases of accidental shootings, gun suicides, arguments that escalate into someone drawing a gun and shooting, gang activity, or other firearms-related incidents at schools.

That should make the NRA much happier, since it drops the number since the December 2012 Newtown shootings from 74 to "just" 15. Parents can certainly sleep tighter, knowing that.

CNN Decides Not To Count 80 Percent Of School Shootings
CNN joins the right wing media in calling into question what “counts” as a school shooting.

View this post on Google+