In a telling sign of Blue State frustration…
The New York Times is taking its gun control push a whole lot further with a page one editorial in tomorrow’s edition of the paper.
This is a mostly unprecedented move. The Times hasn’t run a front-page editorial since 1920, and according to the paper, the last time they did this, it was to criticize the nomination of Warren G. Harding for the presidency by the Republican party (he won that year).
Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. explained in a statement they want “to deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country’s inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns.”
There’s not much doubt that the Times was right about Warren Harding. It’s a little surprising that they haven’t found anything else important enough to editorialize about on the front-page in 95 years. And what they have to say about guns is mainly impotent bitching. They don’t call for a huge gun buyback or widespread gun confiscation, and one or both of those things would be required to do anything meaningful in the near-term about gun violence in this country.
The problem really isn’t that people can legally buy guns (regardless of type) in stores or special shows. Not anymore. The county has enough guns already to arm anyone anytime and anywhere with anything they might want to use to kill one or ten or a hundred and fifty people.
And, as we all know, there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it because the conservatives take every new gun tragedy as evidence that we need more guns.
It’s true that the public overwhelmingly supports some modest gun control measures, like more rigorous background checks. But the gun lobby is powerful enough that even these types of reforms cannot pass through Congress or many state legislatures. And there’s not much evidence to support the idea that background checks would put a significant dent in gun violence. It’s worth doing, obviously. But mainly its worth doing because something modestly helpful is better than nothing at all.
Yet, even that logic is subject to challenge. If you somehow get the political momentum to do something and what you do is wholly inadequate, perhaps you’ve squandered your best chance to make a real difference.
So, we’re back to frustration.
I just want to point out that those members of the public who are most attached to their guns are not necessarily a group that we (as a society) would want to confront. They are armed, they are angry, and they are not particularly in touch with reality. There is no legislation, no matter how insipid or eminently reasonable, that they will not react badly to.
Are we prepared for many of them to live out their fantasies of rebellion/civil war/race war? I’m not.
This “war” has to be won in the media (including the right-wing media) and in homes and neighborhoods all around the country first. I don’t see that happening in our lifetime.
Forget it Martin, it’s America.
I thought we already were living with that.
I thought that was why we are having this discussion.
I don’t live in fear of being killed by a gunman. You probably don’t either. One mass shooting a day in America still leads to vastly fewer deaths than (for instance)kidney disease.
Hell, most shooting victims aren’t killed because of extremism– they’re killed for far more prosaic reasons. I would guess that most mass shooting victims aren’t shot over ideology. Sandy Hook and Virginia tech are still the worst mass murders of recent years, and they weren’t over ideology.
I think that there is an enormous potential for violence among the insular, angry right-wingers that we have barely tapped. These fuckers have hardly evolved since Bleeding Kansas, and the right-wing media and politicians continue to egg them on.
Things can always get worse.
I’m getting awfully tired of cowardice no matter where on the political spectrum it arises from.
This is a nation of goddamned cowards and it disgusts me.
So, you’re afraid, for example, that if the government appropriates a giant sum of money to buy back guns from anyone who freely wants the money, that we’ll all get slaughtered by angry rednecks?
Please.
Buyback programs? THAT’S what you’re talking about? OK, fine, buyback programs won’t cause more violence. They also won’t accomplish anything other than symbolic victories, but OK. Huzzah for buybacks.
I’m not actually afraid for myself. I live on Long Island, where there’s no possibility of a political shooting.
I’m glad that you’re so brave with other people’s lives, though.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cops-find-assault-rifle-arsenal-man-backseat-article-1.2455344
Hey! We’re finally Real America!
Compared to their fantasies, we are only living with extremely low level unorganized bursts of gun violence. Violence that they relish.
The words coming out of the FBI are practically giddy at the prospect of tying the SB shooting to Islamic terrorism. PR to avoid the public noticing that all their anti-terrorism effort with its huge budget failed again.
“PR to avoid the public noticing that all their anti-terrorism effort with its huge budget failed again.”
Yeah, no kidding. You noticed that, too?? Geez. The Alphabets are such a giant SUCKING waste of our tax dollar$. Useless idiots. The Fibbies have been found out numerous time engaging in setting up citizens in sting operations that go badly wrong. Why are they doing this? Likely to up their quotas of catching “bad guys” to justify the money to keep them in business.
These blowhard citizen-spying organizations are largely still REACTIVE, not proactive. They allege they need tons and tons of tax dollars in order to keep us “safe,” but this kind sh*t keeps happening. Some people mealy-mouth and say specious garbage like “well their co-workers or neighbors shoulda contacted the FBI when Farook did the Haj twice and grew a beard.” Oh really??
My gym rat pal just grew a beard. So I guess I should call the FBI?? I have Muslim friends who’ve done the Haj at least twice, some have done it three times. I should turn them into the FBI?
STASI, much?
The FBI is a failed organization highlighted once again by their horrid communications – and probably arrogance towards – the local San Berdoo PDs that led to our putrid “media” breaking and entering the suspects’ house and publicizing for all the world to see (literally) SSNs, drivers’ licenses, photos, etc.
The FBI asshole just shrugged his idiotic worthless shoulders and basically said: eh? not MY problem.
Whyever would I call the FBI and turn someone into THAT worthless organization??
Spare me.
“My gym rat pal just grew a beard. So I guess I should call the FBI?? I have Muslim friends who’ve done the Haj at least twice, some have done it three times. I should turn them into the FBI? “
This becomes the danger of “No fly-terroist lists”. The current proposal to deny gun sales based on a secret list, compiled by secret people is crap. If you think firearm ownership is part of the Constitution, then denying that right is up to courts, not a desk in the J Edgar Building. And if they can deny that right, then why not the 1st Amd or the 4th? I mean speech can be weaponized as in Anti-Abortion proponents. Is it any different than jihadist websites? Should all those people be put on a list as well? What about environmental actvists? Anit-Wall Street types.? There are corporate intelligence/security services that monitor who opposes their activities and they work hand in glove with the FBI. and there is no way to know what they tell each other.
With current technology, visiting certain web sites can get you on the list. Saying certain things in comments sections can get you on the list. Exchanging emails with certain people, or their friends/relatives/co-workers can get you on the list. Maybe parking your car in certain parking lots (with lic plate readers) can get you on the list. Walking into a suspect building (facial recognition) could get you on the list.
The potential is there for Stasi on Steroids; once we start down that slope.
Commonsense gun regulation is possible. Banning is a fantasy. My idea would be to treat the wild colleting/stockpiling phenomenon like we treat smoking and drunk driving- a public health issue and with a campaign to make it questionalbe. There are still people who smoke. Who still drink and drive…but the numbers are way down. Changing attitudes by persuasion, not law. Because if you try law, you are playing right into their hands and you will lose 1/2 the country: and I don’t mean geographically. Combine that with a secret list and you will confirm the absolute worst fears against the Govt and the Democratic party.
Ridge
Is the problem the guns? Or a society that has been fighting a war for 14 years, with Hollywood and video games glamorizing killing [them vs us meme], [evil vs good meme]? Young kids growing up playing horrible violent games. Internet and cable exposing the inequities between people, and pointing out the bloody history of empires. Victim hood. Then mix in the use of anti-depressants and dependence on drugs. The alienation of individuals in our society, the destruction of families. I just think it is so much more complicated than “gun control”.
And ironically, I think the more politicians push for gun control the more guns are sold.
It’s not video games. It’s not even conceivable that it’s video games. Gaming has increased. Violent gaming has increased. And violent crime is down.
And societies have had “us vs. them” in their stories for as long as there have been stories.
This is a political problem, with certain groups feeling a grievance that they don’t know how to address other than with violence.
Mother Jones – Rate of Mass Shootings Has Tripled Since 2011, Harvard Research Shows. (Note: that doesn’t include the CS PP and SB shootings.)
Movies and TV have always depicted violence, but until some point in time, it wasn’t indiscriminate and seemingly pointless mass killings of innocent people.
The first shooter games came out in the early 90s. Grand Theft Auto came out in 1997. And they’re just having an effect now? I don’t buy it.
Yeah, the Sandy Hook shooter played FPS games a lot, apparently. I would say that it was his way of practicing for his big day of murder. There’s no video game where you kill your mother, and he did that too.
And the science just isn’t there: even though they keep trying, psych researchers have not found any consistent link between violence in video games and even mild aggression
When was Columbine?
Actually researchers have found links between entertainment violence and aggression. No link if the media violence is cartoonish. If realistic, a link exists.
This is a difficult area to study. One of the best experiments (iirc UCLA) was watching children in a playroom with and without the presence of a gun. Aggressive behavior increased when a gun was present.
“No link if the media violence is cartoonish.”
Like video games?
Anyway, the whole field is pretty much crap, and I don’t say that about any other research in psychology. Starting with the Bobo Experiment. Anyone who thinks that kids hitting a bounceback inflatable toy is a proxy for actual violence… there’s nothing I can say to people who think that. Not to mention that the adult “modelling” the behavior is really just giving permission to do something that looks like fun.
People who look at actually violent people, and where their violence comes from, can’t get funded. Meanwhile, people from sheltered backgrounds who no nothing of violence all make the same guess (“it must be those video games!”) based on the usual bullshit from the media. And they all get funded because our addled elites all “know” the same nonsense. And they keep getting funded even though the results aren’t there. Feh.
Re Columbine: I don’t think it has ever been linked to video games.
The best analysis of the shooters’ motives that I’ve seen is here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath
.single.html
While that’s all about the personalities, it’s pretty clear that Harris was a man of his own (evil) mind. He was not really subject to influence from anyone or anything, much less from a game.
As I baby boomer here, I was never exposed to the bloody very graphic depictions of violence that are now common place. It was just not commonly available. And even now, I can’t watch the stuff. It’s upsetting.
One thing I agree with is that people who use guns in crimes should be locked up for a very long time. I am not completely against reviewing gun controls, just that we should acknowledge violence in our culture does not have one cause. It a bit of a perfect storm. And I think it is only going to increase. Unfortunately.
Fellow booomer here. As a kid, wasn’t allowed to watch any TV shows that depicted realistic or substantial violence. “Perry Mason” okay. “Gunsmoke,” no way. No toy guns, and not because I was a girl, but because guns glorify violence. (Suspect my mother read something about child rearing that recommended not exposing children to guns and violence and she implemented that right along with everything she read about nutrition.)
We might just have to disagree.
“Call of Duty” is not a propaganda tool?
Violence is not only a political issue. Ask the Hells Angels about their recent turf wars. It can be about turf, it can be personal. There are many reasons for violence. But, one thing I know, we are becoming very desensitized to blood and gore. And repeatedly told aggression is a solution, i.e.[current USA forays into ME for regime change, control of resources].
Plus, I am not sure I believe gov statistics. People can easily be convinced not to file charges so LE can make their quotas. That is political.
Never played “Call of Duty,” but I can guarantee you this: if you want your group to become aggressive towards some other group, you should show YOUR group as the victim. Why do you think the left keeps talking about African-Americans being killed by the police, while the right keeps talking about white people killed by minorities?
If you want to make a group violent, make them feel victimized. If you have a group that feels they can ultimately dominate the other group, there is very little standing between them and uncontrolled violence.
I agree. That’s why I listed “Victim hood”. So much is perception. Whether something is true or not.
As far as our nature. I am reminded of a book that changed my world view. A Naked Ape by Desmond Morris.
We are apes at heart, imo. Yet we have a great capacity for reflection and co-operation. The world is getting smaller, what will we do? The Countdown has started.
And no one seems to be talking about population control and our dwindling resources. Another book that greatly influenced me was the Population Time Bomb, which reminds me of a study [Stanford?] where they measured the effects of over population on rats? Mice? It was not good.
…I think the more politicians push for gun control the more guns are sold.
The pattern is: 1) mass killing 2) public (and limited number of politicians) call for gun regulation 3) increase in gun sales.
The Guardian – Gun background checks hit new record on Black Friday – at two per second
The Intercept – Gun Industry Executives Say Mass Shootings Are Good for Business
Is #2 (above) a vital connection between mass shootings and increased gun sales? Or is it an irrelevant variable?
Is the NRA evil enough to …
This same old horrible argument. And black problems are because of a “culture of dependency” and a lack of “family values.” The poor “don’t believe in the work ethic.” Cultural ephemera are the problem; not laws, enforced inequality and entrenched predation.
It’s always our fault we’re getting screwed and/or killed.
You want to guarantee that anybody below age 35 is going to roll their eyes and tune out what you’re saying? Blame society’s problems on videogames and other violent media. They’ll be out like a light within seconds.
We need a buy back program and restrictions similar to the 1996 Law implemented in Australia. It has had a clear beneficial effect there, although NRA types and their politician allies still contest that of course.
Agree.
I think we need a buy-back program, which has worked in other countries and could definitely work here. It will at least somewhat allay some of the “Obama’s STEALING our GUNZ!!!111!!!” crap pushed out by the mega-irresponsible & insanely greedy guns & ammo industry fronted by their toadying greedy lobby pimp, the NRA.
Then sane gun regulations must be implemented. There’s been poll after poll highlighting that the VAST MAJORITY of US citizens want sane gun restrictions. What happens is the rightwing propaganda Wurlitzer – aka the entire M$M – churns into high gear and features incessantly any and every shrieking gun nut whore they can find to shriek about how this is the WORSTEST thing EVAH!!!111!!!
I have no links, but I suspect that the gun nut citizens who are potentially likely to go nuts and commence to shooting are a small group… and frankly, they’re doing it NOW and have been for some time.
I don’t see the downside at this point.
Sitting on our thumbs and saying “Well we simply have to do nothing bc the gun nuts are going to come out in force and kill everyone” is just ludicrous, IMO. JMHO, of course. I don’t see it happening that way.
What I do see is that if we insist on doing f*ck all, incidents such as the recent Dear massacre at the PP in Colorado Springs and the incident in San Berdoo earlier this week are definitely FOR SURE going to continue and possibly could increase and/or be worse.
From Charlie
If not for his mega-blunder in Vietnam, LBJ would have been one of the few excellent Presidents.
and he was dealing with handguns!
There is so much room for real regulation and reform–exempting hunting rifles, even goddammed home handguns for “personal protection”, hell we’d consider many exceptions—but the party of absolutes will have none of it. The people all have to be turned into zealots on every issue. Such patriots…
Two thoughts here.
First, the NRA in the 1960s favored sensible, practical gun control regulations that today’s NRA would characterize as dictatorial.
Second, while a big part of the reason the NRA changed positions was that the leadership was taken over by right wing extremists in the late 1970s as part of the overall Heritage-led conservative movement of the time, another extremely important factor is pure and simple racism. In the 1960s white people were scared poopless by all those reports of black crime and desperately wanted to keep guns out of the hands of “those people”. A lot of Reagan’s support for gun control as governor – if not all of it – was a response to increasing crime.
Today, the same racist whites understand that they possess far more guns than the other races, etc., and so of course don’t want any kind of gun control. More than a few of them, when they think only friends are listening, will reveal fantasies involving one-sided shootouts with minorities and liberals.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/heres-a-map-of-all-the-mass-shootings-in-2015/?ncid=newsltushpmg
00000003
Here’s a map of all the mass shootings in 2015
Perhaps what discourages me most is seeing America’s leaders and now Americans without an element of courage in their discourse and now, perhaps, their daily lives.
The race to use the most fearful rhetoric of the day is not acceptable. It’s teaching us so have a knee jerk reaction of ‘should I be afraid?’
All of us are more likely to be hit by a drunk driver and killed on any given day than killed in a terrorist attack. I still get in my car and drive where I want, I do keep an eye out, especially during the holidays and I have been known to pull over and call 911 to report a drunk driver. Maybe we need to relearn courage. I hate to think that the military we send to fight our battles would want to come home to a country where their people were pointing fingers and cringing inside their homes.
I’m hardly cringing inside my home.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what you wrote, but I find arguments about driving cars, drunk drivers and the like, to be a very specious tool of comparison.
Firstly, to my knowledge, all 50 states have pretty rigorous application processes to obtain a drivers license involving usually at least 2 fairly detailed exams. On top of that, there are highway and other cops out there routinely patrolling and handing out tickets for all sorts of violations, which are enforced and can lead to a citizen losing their driver’s license either temporarily or perhaps for a very long time. Plus there are also devices that some have to have on their car to test for drunkenness (breathalyzers) before the person can even turn on their car.
Drunk drivers may end up in jail or at least get hefty fines, in addition to losing their license.
I really see nothing similar happening with gun ownership, do you? If so, please enlighten me (not said in rudeness; I’m really interested to learn).
Yes, I have concern when I drive every day. I drive defensively and do my best to drive carefully and watch out for other drivers. But I can at least have the knowledge that most of the drivers on the road passed tests and that there are cops out there some of the time patrolling for dangerous driving habits.
I fail to see the connection between owning/driving a car and owning a gun/using a gun.
When a car is used in a crime, the police can identify the registered owner.
When a car is stolen, the police can identify and recover the stolen property.
All drivers must carry liability insurance for injury to other people; that monthly bill stimulates some minor reflection on how to reduce their risks and consequently the size of the bill.
Users of automobiles must prove to the satisfaction of the state that they are not hazards on the road before getting their first license to operate.
Using an automobile without a license also violates the law.
Using an automobile in certain crimes violates the law.
The common point is both are technologies that require mature and prudent use and allow the state to incentivize the reduction of instances of misuse.
The gun lobby is resistant to this logic, even though in practice is has not reduced automobile sales. Therefore legislators bought by the gun lobby are also resistant to this logic. That is why it has not been widely adopted. But if you look at all of what LBJ wanted to accomplish in his gun control bill, it looks like it was modeled on automobile regulations.
To tag onto TD, motor vehicle licenses and operation is an example of what can be achieved when effective legislation is in place. We don’t have effective legislation for gun control; in fact we have obstruction at every angle to even have a discussion from the Legislative branch. MADD were the workhorse group that forced effective legislation for drunk drivers, but then they got the alcohol industry to join in.
The problem is that Americans think guns=freedom
We have a culture that deeply believes in the fantasy of an individual using a gun to achieve justice, revenge, end corruption, defeat criminals. It is the magic wand in that can enable an individual citizen to achieve anything. All they have to do is wish hard enough and stock up on the ammo. It is probably a uniquely American belief due to a combination of our history and the corporate entertainment culture that evolved here that quickly figured out that portraying this type of violence was the easiest way to make a buck.
The cold hard reality that, on average, guns make people less safe crumbles under the weight of fantasy America. Gun worship is a huge part of American exceptionalism and it is going to take a huge effort to change those attitudes. It will take a concerted effort by society, similar to what happened with cigarettes, to make a dent in the problem. At the very least, we should start calling gun nut politicians like Ted Cruz, who thinks that the solution to gun violence is more guns, crazy.
I think this succinctly gets to the heart of the matter and why the problem is now intractable. Gun love has become a cultural matter for an enormous section of America and it will take a massive cultural effort/movement to begin to address the situation. Of course the vile and irresponsible Repub party has also seen fit to use it as a vehicle to power. But the days of an LBJ style bipartisan gun control bill are long long gone and talking about “folks coming together” for some band-aid bill is meaningless.
Booman is of course correct that we are now long past the “better background checks/gun show” approach. That is now hardly even tinkering at the margins. The gun lobby, the weapons industry, the “conservative” movement, the Repub party and the 5 conservative male activists masquerading as justices have ensured that we are now so awash in sea of guns and gun retailers (Black Friday gun sales, of all insanity) that the only meaningful steps that can be taken are either (1) banning manufacture, with the outlawing and removing of the deadly items from society or (2) registration, licensing and bonding/insurance. And obviously a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban and compulsory confiscation. Of course the 5 conservative male “justices” have made effective gun regulation an even more difficult end, and they, too, would need to be dealt with in order to solve the social crisis.
As other countries have demonstrated, there are many ways to begin to effectively regulate guns, the American Right just refuse to do so, and they promise that they will make a political issue of any attempt to solve the crisis. It is their insane vision which must be challenged over the long term—two long guns in every home, an armed sovereign citizen in every restaurant. And until some political movement begins to argue that the actual problem is the compete lack of any regulation of a highly deadly commodity, and acknowledges that the time for quarter measures is now long past, this will be just another quantifier of American insanity and downright lunacy.
The “exceptional nation” indeed.
There is one thing that is not entirely inconceivable that would make a palpable difference. That would be for the Democrats to sweep the elections next year, taking the presidency and both houses of Congress.
Of course, even that would just be establishing the bare minimal conditions where some kind of action might be possible, but that’s something. We know for certain that no gun legislation of any kind will come from a Republican Congress, so any and all solutions at this point are merely hypothetical.
Yes, given that the Repub party is rising, any and all proposals to address the nation’s gun insanity are necessarily hypothetical. Indeed their ascendancy is a principal component of the gun crisis, as they have succeeded in having their 5 conservative activist justices declare gun nuttery a protected class and gun worship a constitutional right. This was a monumental escalation of the national crisis.
But that’s why we desperately need some sort of long term cultural resistance or movement or whatever. Just like Mothers Against Drunk Driving turned the nation around on drunks and cars, we need a “Mothers Against Gun Lunacy” or something.
We need a War on Guns and what the conservative movement and its deranged Repub party gives us is a War on Women. Words fail.
At the moment per Gallup, 55% of Americans support stricter gun laws, 86% favor universal background checks. There’s never a majority in favor of loosening restrictions any time in the last 25 years, and I’m sure there never was before that. The fact is gun-worshipers are thin on the ground in most of the country, and it isn’t because of voters that we can’t have better gun control.
See David Atkins today.
Cultural problems are difficult but not intractable, but they are more tractable during periods of prosperity and good feeling. That cultural environment is something we’ve not had for 45 years. LBJ passed his law at the last moment that it was possible and coincidentally when the Black Panther Party was in the news.
What scares the gun nuts is #blackopencarry. Enough that even if legal, police will not allow it to happen. They will even shoot down a black man at WalMart looking a realistic toy gun to prevent it from happening even in an open carry state. That might not be conscious strategy on the part of the police, but it is a reality that any black group must consider in duplicating in white neighborhoods the sort of open carry demonstrations that whites regularly carry on in black communities in open carry states. This is why the instances of black open carry demonstrations have been in black communities with police watching at a distance, in particular the Dallas TX police.
If a substantial #blackopencarry movement happens in open carry states with police enforcing the “open carry” in open carry laws in the same way they enforce it for whites in those states, white fright will have laws passed in a heartbeat. The NRA will lead the charge.
It has been clear what lax gun laws and cheap firearms have been intended for as social policy for quite some time. And the GOP’s crocodile tears about black-on-black crime only make it highly visible.
Lets take it where the Republicans want to…..Let the government, local and state, issue all taxpayers a free gun for public protection. All Americans should be able to bear arms on the governments dime. Free guns for everybody!!!!
PLUS: they get entered into a lottery, and if they’re one of the lucky thousand winners, they get a free HYDROGEN BOMB to defend themselves!
This is a problem that will solve itself.
Look at television. Westerns and Mystery/Cop Shows ALWAYS have someone shooting someone else. Don’t even start on war movies.
Message: Good Guys shoot Bad Guys.
Secondary message: people without guns are victims.
Secondary message: people without guns are victims.
Maybe I haven’t seen enough of those violent movies, but of the ones I have, the “bad guys” always have weapons and always end up dead. Unarmed victims are a dramatic device to get and/or keep the story going which is always just good and bad guys duking it out, often in a fistfight when they’ve exhausted their weapons. Yeah, like that happens all the time.
Unfortunately, people don’t see this as modern myth but believe real life is like a tv show or movie. They probably see romance as the “meant for each other – happily ever after” myth also, which explains all the failed relationships. one or both parties were looking for a myth rather than a real human being. Real human beings have good traits and bad traits, none are perfect.