I have a lot to share regarding the mass shootings from the past week. It's going to take me some time to pull it together. So until then, here is a Catholic thought for the day: the right to life takes priority over 2nd Amendment rights.
We conservatives are known to enunciate the principle, "The right to life is the foundational human right, upon which all other human and civil rights depend." Usually, we articulate that tenet, which I accept as true, in discussions about abortion. But it applies to all other life issues as well - including the right not to be shot by a mass shooter.
These shootings show how much carnage can be inflicted in a a minute or so with a semi-automatic weapon firing high velocity rounds. They generate shock waves in the body that tear the innards apart. The people who survived don't have nice through holes in them. They have massive damage from which they'll never fully recover. No background checks on these weapons, just a total ban.
ReplyDeleteI heard somewhere that the Dayton shooter killed nine people, and wounded more, in the space of something like 30 seconds - the police responded, and managed to shoot him, almost immediately.
DeleteI have never understood why semi-automatics are available for purchase for civilian use. It's a pretty poor commentary on someone's marksmanship if they need one to bring down a deer.
DeleteI have heard gun enthusiasts say that it's a pretty thrilling experience to use one at a shooting range. But they are putting their freedom to own a thrilling toy ahead of people's lives.
I sure wish I could persuade my single issue voter family members that gun control should be a pro-life issue, and that concern for drowning immigrants and refugees and children who die while in US custody are also pro-life issues.
ReplyDeleteSome people say that most "pro-life" voters are simply "pro-birth", with no concern for the deaths of refugees and immigrants, much less for the babies of the poor. They support the cutting of social safety nets by the Republicans they vote for.
There is more than just a grain of truth in that criticism.
The Vox News site has some good articles today on the shootings. Aside from the visible from space problem of way too many guns (the US almost has more guns than people) there is the issue of radicalization. Besides the effect of irresponsible political rhetoric, there are hate platforms such as 8chan.
ReplyDelete"8chan is an online message board that since its 2013 launch has become the home of some of the most vitriolic content on the internet. It characterizes itself as the “darkest reaches” of the online world in its tagline and has fostered a reputation as a nearly lawless space for free speech — however hateful or dangerous it may be — to flourish."
8chan is an offshoot of another troubling platform, 4chan:
"8chan was launched in 2013 by Fredrick Brennan, but it didn’t really take off until the emergence of Gamergate in 2014, a widespread harassment campaign against women and progressivism in gaming culture. 4chan, 8chan’s progenitor that launched in 2003, was the platform for much of the Gamergate vitriol, and the site eventually decided to ban Gamergate threads. In the wake of the decision, some of the 4chan community moved to 8chan. Brennan told Ars Technica in 2015 that the platform went from 100 posts per hour previously to 4,000 posts per hour in September 2014, about a month after Gamergate began."
The El Paso shooter had links to 8chan.
DeleteWhat I'm gleaning from media commentary that needs to be addressed:
ReplyDelete--Gun violence stems from four causes: suicide, domestic abuse, organized crime, and hate groups. Each of these causes requires different solutions.
--Violent shooter video games do not increase gun violence in other cultures. Unknown is whether it might encourage gun violence in individuals predisposed to violence or in cultures more tolerant of violence.
--To what extent does Trump encourage or signal tolerance of hate groups prone to gun violence? Certainly, some of the Dem candidates are laying the El Paso shooting at his door. And the verbiage from Trump about immigrants shows up with chilling frequency on hate sites. I'm only willing to say that Trump is irresponsible and tone deaf, in the extreme.
--To what extent is the mainstream media guilty of hyping up these shootings such that they glorify the killers? Extensive coverage of grief and carnage, and hearing people of color say they are afraid is exactly what hate groups want.
--The rise of hate groups began not with Trump but with Obama's election.
--Psychiatrists say the mentally ill rarely commit gun violence except through suicide. Why are domestic abusers, organized criminals, and members of hate groups not considered mentally ill?
--Are there forms of gun sales (online) that should be banned?
--Outlawing certain types of guns is complicated. Hobbyists soup up guns with add-ons that give them more fire power. One expert compared this to people who customize their cars to turn them into hot rods. We got somewhere with bump stock bans, but what about other add-ons that increase magazine size, or add scopes, or night shooting enhancements?
--What do we do about the fact that there are more guns than people floating around our country?
--The Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated" militia. Nothing about mass shootings points to put ability to regulates citizen militia very well.
--The death penalty puts an end to most mass shooters, either by killing them at the scene or executing them. Or because they kill themselves.
--The gun lobby insists that the solution is for everyone to buy a gun, learn to shoot responsibly, and be "good guys" to take down the "bad guys." Given the number of guns in the country, does this make a sad sort of sense?
Anne, you raise some good questions. I am not quite as ready as some to write off violent shooter video games as a catalyst. I think most gamers aren't violent, and to them it's "just a game". But the Vox artcle I linked does mention Gamergate, which seems to have been a home for venom and vitriol.
DeleteYes, why aren't domestic abusers, members of hate groups, etc. considered mentally ill?
If good guys with guns could be a solution, El Paso should have been a test case. Texas is an open-carry state. But the massacre happened too fast for anyone to respond. and the cops were there in about a minute. But still, 20 people were killed.
"Psychiatrists say the mentally ill rarely commit gun violence except through suicide. Why are domestic abusers, organized criminals, and members of hate groups not considered mentally ill?"
DeleteMaybe that behavior is not a manifestation of illness - maybe it's sin. I.e. mental illness is not the only cause for criminal behavior.
Yeah, there are bad people. It reminds me of Bible class discussions about demonic possession in the New Testament. Some argue that it was mental illness. But neither mental illness nor demonic influence are mutually exclusive. It can be both.
DeleteI'm not trying to deny the notion of sin.
DeleteSorry, I replied to Anne above, but it should have been Jean.
Delete>>We conservatives are known to enunciate the principle, "The right to life is the foundational human right, upon which all other human and civil rights depend." Usually, we articulate that tenet, which I accept as true, in discussions about abortion. But it applies to all other life issues as well - including the right not to be shot by a mass shooter.<<
ReplyDeleteYah, sure, but most conservatives will also tell you it's a fallen world, and you cannot infringe on constitutional freedoms for the many just because there will always be a few who abuse them.
To me that = mass shootings are a regrettable but acceptable risk we have to take to keep America free.
No constitutional freedoms are absolute. Christian Scientists are free to deny medical care for themselves, but not their underage children. Religious observances cannot use illegal drugs. Free speech can and is often abridged: crying fire in a crowded theater, etc. Anyone who has served in the military knows how restricted their constitutional freedoms can be! Freedom of assembly can be limited by the need for a permit to gather. Gun ownership can be restricted by many different legal requirements.
Delete
ReplyDelete@samriegel
·
A white supremacist with a gun.
A mentally ill person with a gun.
A terrorist with a gun.
A homophobe with a gun.
A disgruntled employee with a gun.
An incel with a gun.
A troubled teen with a gun.
NOTICE A PATTERN???
Gene, yes, a pattern! It always amazes me the number of people who will insist that it's not guns, our problem is mental illness, dysfunctional families, whatever. Our problem may be all of those things. But even if they don't own a gun, the second amendment is some kind of a sacred cow with them.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/lydiacachosi/status/1158085695422062592?s=20
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me is this implicit assumption on the Right that all of these gun deaths are the price we have to pay for freedom (expressed in the Second Amendment).
ReplyDeleteBy "we" I mean "they" as in "the victims".
And like the illegal alien issue, in order for this story to work, it has to be underpinned by lies. In this case, there is the lie that one would ever be able to stop a government that wanted to do something that one would want to oppose by force. As I tell the gun nuts on FB, when you say that the first thing Hitler did was take away the guns (and he didn't by the way), you're neglecting the fact that in order to do that he would have to have already taken power.
Well, here's my feeling: We have so many gun nuts, racists, road-ragers, and general a-holes running around fomenting spewing b.s. that *I* want a gun.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is the problem.
No matter what side of the fence you're on, you feel besieged, upset, stirred up, fearful, and angry because everyone else is and we have no one calling for unity.
I agree.
DeleteIf I trust that the police will protect me, and that my neighbors and family will look out for me, I'm less likely to believe that I need a gun.
I am glad that this lawmaker from my state, John McCollister has called out the Republican party for enabling white supremacy. It is a little misleading that the article calls him a "Republican lawmaker". He is a Republican, but is a member of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, which is supposed to be non-partisan. (It isn't, just ask our governor, who has done his best to pack it with partisans). But at least someone is saying that the emperor has no clothes.
ReplyDeleteIt now appears that the Dayton shooter suffered from mental health problems and had a history of threatening behavior.
ReplyDeleteExpect that the GOP will emphasize Dayton and the mental health aspects of gun violence, which allows them to explore violence without offending their white nationalists voters.
Expect Dems to use El Paso and white nationalists as the primary problem, which gives them fire power against Trump. Also watch for Beto to gain some sympathy momentum. As a native of El Paso, he is getting a lot of attention and making the most of it with anti-Trump comments.
Will both parties now in Congress be able to hammer out any effective anti-gun legislation that Trump will sign? I'd give it a 50-50 chance.
explore s/b deplore
DeleteI'd like to see them pursue a licensing and insurance requirement, similar to driving a car. With an insurance requirement, there would be efforts by the insurance companies to minimize their risk. That would be a good thing. They would want to screen out people with obvious risk factors. Also somilar to cars, require a legal title. When you sell a gun, the title goes to the new owner, or the lien holder. So there is a public record of the chain of custody.
DeleteNot a bad idea. One of my somewhat naive friends was shocked that, when my mom died, I had custody of Dad's rifle and shotgun and could give them to anyone without some kind of oversight.
DeleteI agree - it's an excellent idea. Of course, it's probably unconstitutional ...
DeleteAt least one of my two dottier relatives have inherited firearms. Not good.
Interesting WaPo article about gun laws Trump, and NRA. God bless Joe Manchin, who has co-sponsored several bipartisan bills since Sandy Hook.
ReplyDeleteOops, link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-openness-to-extensive-background-checks-for-gun-buys-draws-warning-from-nra/2019/08/07/a5f82060-b92d-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html
Delete