Yaaay, I'm back! Yes, it's me, the Pedantic Gun A**hole guy who has been away for awhile but finally came back. I know what you're probably thinking: "I thought this guy was killed in a hideous drunken Zeppelin-piloting Twinkie-choking incident?" but no such luck, detractors! For those who are my friends, good to see you (round of high-fives) and for those who were glad I was gone, well, Ha. That's all I have to say, Ha... as I twirl my mustache, adjust my monocle, and stroke my Persian cat... Ha, again.
I was away because I (frankly) got tired of the election stuff. I took a break not just from here bot from a lot of news outlets. As far as I was concerned, there was no debate. I didn't need to hear how cool Barack is; I didn't need to hear what a tool Mitt Romney was. I knew all that. So there was no point in raising the blood pressure.
So... no, no one here chased me off with their sardonic wit or repartee. Ha, again. I'm sorry, I'm being silly. On to the meat and bones of what I promised: Thoughts on the looming Gun Control Debate from a Liberal Gun Owner (we exist).
Many here may remember me from previous diaries. In one of my last diaries, I explored the concept of the assault rifle, exact nomenclature, and how it applies to the "Militia" (which I agree should be "well-regulated")-- "Firearms 101: Assault Rifles and the Militia Concept":
http://www.dailykos.com/...
In another diary, I gave a brief rundown of what I thought might be reasonable gun control laws in "A Gun Owner's Proposal for Firearms Laws":
http://www.dailykos.com/...
These were written after the Trayvon Martin shooting, and I have always written of returning to them some day-- and in the recent spate of killings that have bombarded the media, I have gone back and looked at them again, and I think, for the most part, they are still valid.
Let's take a look at some of the things that shed more light on the coming debate, which I think has been a long time in the making.
First off, yes-- I am a gun owner and a liberal. I am one of many such creatures once thought to not exist-- sort of the political Bigfoot, if you will. I think it is worth remembering that there are tens of millions of gun owners in society, however, there are only about 3 million members of the NRA, or National Rifle Association.
So it is important to remember that the NRA only has the backing of anywhere from 10% to 5% or less of all American gun owners. And trust me, I think it is safe to assume that those tens of millions of non-NRA gun owners are aware of the NRA's existence. So their lack of participation in NRA membership probably can be interpreted as a active choice on their part-- many gun owners, apparently, do not feel that the NRA speaks for them.
Meanwhile, recent polls have shown that many people, including gun owners, are receptive to more gun control laws. Obviously, a lot will depend on what those gun control laws will be. Certain kinds will get sufficient support as to essentially be a free ride to becoming a law.
"They signed you, Bill! Now you're a law!" "Oh, yeah!"
Meanwhile, others will not get the support needed.
First of all, I'd like to say that I think this is an excellent time to have the debate. For one, I think President Barack Obama is a cool, level-headed and calculating person who will cautiously examine the issues and make rational decisions. Even if he makes a decision I won't agree with, I will probably find his methodology strong and reasoning supportable.
I also think the country is in a mood to sit up and see just what a bunch of throwback the GOP is. I know, I know-- if 8 years of George W. Faily McFailurepants didn't lay it bare for all to see, I don't know why now makes a difference, but for some reason there's change in the air.
"Look what I found in the sofa cushions! Change! Hyuk, hyuk."
But right now we have the decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, in which, while individual gun ownership was upheld as a right covered under the Second Amendment, the Opinion of the Court was also that the right is not unlimited; that a licensing scheme was not an infringement, and one of the Justices in favor of the ruling (I forget if it was Scalia, Alito or Kennedy) also consented that other controls and regulations could be applied, within the scope of Constitutionality, so long as basic rights and access were not infringed.
So what does it mean?
Confused Head-Tilt Puppy Wants to Know.
Overall, the corpus of law that is largely seen as pertaining to the Second Amendment states that while firearm ownership is legal, reasonable controls and regulations can be put on that ownership. The "well-regulated militia" part has been neglected while the "...right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been lionized by the NRA, which as we've mentioned before, represents a tiny fraction of all potential gun owners.
I've stated before "if you want to own a 'militia weapon', then you need to join a militia, and get proper training'. The NRA loves, loves, loooves to look to Switzerland as a model for gun ownership and militias.
In their defense, who wouldn't?
--And environmentally responsible, too!
But what they forget to mention is that the Swiss militia is well-trained, well-organized, and they have to qualify with their weapons at least once a year. They carry licenses that must be kept up-to-date, and while Switzerland is third to the United States in guns per capita, with 45.7 guns per 100 citizens--
(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/...) --they have so little gun crime that records aren't even kept. Other high gun-ownership rates per capita include such bastions of anarchy as Finland, Sweden, and Uruguay-- along with questionable places such as Saudi Arabia and Cyprus, which has a lot of criminal, mafia-like activity but low rates of gun crime, comparatively.
A Swiss-style militia system (which I believe also limits participants to one militia weapon per adult per household) with actual training standards would be useful, and if people really wanted to take this as far as it could go, perhaps the "guards at schools" proposal could be fulfilled by such a militia... although on a practical level it would probably only be activated in case there was a credible threat issued. And, ideally, any armed guard would also have a dress code-- no showing up in tactical battle-rattle, but rather slacks, a shirt & tie and modest handgun concealed in such a way as to not create consternation. Guards at schools is not entirely useless as ideas go, but there are other things that we can probably consider first. Armed citizens can (and have) stopped or mitigated mass shootings in the past, but it is almost always an off-duty or former police officer or military person-- someone who is trained beyond "target acquisition, aim, shoot":
http://www.slate.com/...
--If armed citizens of any stripe are expected to guard anyone, serve in a militia, or defend anything, then they need training, training, training.
Tactical Culture:
One thing that really got me thinking about the evolving gun control debate, and one of the obstacles we have to face, is the latest incarnation of what is being called "Tactical Culture", based on a recent article by Josh Marshal over at Talking Points Memo:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...
This is the culture of fear, of looming Apocalypse, and it is nothing new. In the 1990's it was the Militia Movement or the "Patriot Movement" as they preferred, and it lost credibility after the Tim McVeigh bombing in Oklahoma City. The "Culture of Fear" is a damn handy way to get people to buy lots and lots of tactical gear to be ready for a generally unstated (but certainly horrific) Doomsday, from a Communist invasion to Zombie uprising.
Come on, right-wing gun-toting Doomsday guy. I dare you to head-shoot Zombie Reagan. I double-dog dare you.
But seriously, you cannot live life on a razor's edge like that, convinced that nihilism is right around the corner, and not be touched by that. Wed that sense of pending nihilistic doom with an Apocalyptic Christian/Anti-Government world view, and the weak are going to crack. In this, the NRA actually has a point-- mental health is important. But what they fail to admit is that a lot of the erosion of sanity has been their fault. In a recent NPR interview, a commentator pointed out that it would be... impolitic, to paraphrase, for a private company to encourage people to buy guns specifically so they could rise up against the government. On the other hand, if a political opinion faction (like the NRA) were to say that it would be wise to be ready to rise up against the government at any time, and the gun makers simply took advantage of the resulting paranoia, then all would be copacetic, right?
But there is a price to pay for pushing apocalyptic anti-government doomsday rhetoric. Someone, sooner or later, is going to take it seriously, and they are going to realize that a "true patriot" (according to this twisted worldview) needs to act. To fail to act is a sin, or an omission of patriotic duty. What the NRA ends up doing is making a siren call that probably wouldn't be too out of place being shouted from a radicalist minaret in Waziristan.
What I am Afraid of Now:
What I am most afraid of now is that the Assault Weapons Ban will get passed, or the high-capacity magazine ban will get passed (probably both), and people will pat themselves on the back, say "well done", and meander off to bask in the warm glow of victory. There will probably be an assault-weapons and high-capacity magazine ban, and I think too many people will feel that the problem is "solved". But the problem will not be solved, only one head of the Hydra sliced off.
"I am the Hydra. Or a 30-foot tapeworm. Whatever scares you most."
Free Speech has limits. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is shorthand for the application of free speech limits in a responsible manner. We have laws against slander, and we have truth-in-advertising laws. I believe it may be time to look at the NRA's fiery, violent rhetoric as "incitement". We need to get serious about mental health, and stop pretending like we're talking about it. There's still a lot of stigma there to overcome. How much will the Affordable Care Act cover for mental health?
Gun laws will be one part of an overall package. But there is one more thing to point out: I probably have developed a reputation around here as a pedantic jerk about firearm terminology.
Hey. My face is up here.
There is a reason for that. Indulge me:
In 1989, Patrick Purdy went to a Stockton, California school and opened fire with a variant of the AK-47 civilian assault rifle. (Pedantic alert: it was a Type-56 Chinese variant), killing 5 children. The crime inspired a California assault-weapons ban, which later became the template for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The thing is, the law was drafted in such a way that random, arbitrary features that had nothing to do with firearm function were singled out to determine whether or not a weapon should be banned, and a number of weapons were listed by name.
What's wrong with listing them by name? Because then an argument can be made that any weapons not specifically named is therefore legal-- a way to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. Certain things were seared into people's minds about what an "assault weapon" was, and it led to a law based on pseudo-science and miscomprehended capabilities that were childishly easy to work around. The law was essentially toothless as a result.
Why is it important? Look at it this way: what if some prominent government official were to stand up in front of millions of people and issue a statement that he thought was indisputable scientific proof, except that everyone with two neurons to rub together knew that it was ridiculous bullshit.
Anyone who has made themselves look like a total tube steak in front of three hundred million people, please raise your hand.
Fortunately, our fine nation has never been subjected to the public humiliation of having a United States Congressman stand up and say out loud that magic lady parts prevent rape babies. That would be insane! But the threat of passing a useless bill based on erroneous assumptions, motivated by ideology instead of facts, can turn a boatload of good intentions into a sunken wreck. That is why we need to dot i's and cross t's and make sure that any potential legislation is sound, based on actual knowledge and understanding, and is supportable by objective facts. Otherwise, we'll be back where we started, and there'll be another shooting, and a lot of people asking "why?".
So if I (or other knowledgeable types) correct you on a firearm misconception, I'm honestly not doing it to be a jerk.
Pictured: Not me. Honest.
I'm trying to keep things on the right path, and not let the arguments get bogged down in misconception, witchcraft, or Hollywood misconception. I have a stake in this because, as Representative Mike Thompson opined, gun owners should embrace new gun laws because every mass murder or school shooting makes the rest of us look bad: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
In closing (finally!) I'd like to say that I hope no one was offended by the attempt at humor here. I did that, not to make light of the Newtown tragedy or any other tragedy, but simply to balance a powerful topic with the possibility to devolve into a shouting match with a bit of levity. None of my humorous asides were digs at the perpetrator, the victims, or any other person connected with shootings-- we've had a lot of grim news to absorb recently and a person can take so much. If I offended anyone, or if people find this to be a bit too "gallows humor" for their tastes, I sincerely apologize for such was not my intent.
PS: More interesting information --Since 1980, 297 People Have Been Killed in School Shootings... An interactive chart of every school shooting and its death toll:
http://www.slate.com/...