This article dealing with gun reform, by author and speaker Brené Brown, is worth reading.
Excerpted from the article:
"The ability to think past either/or situations is the foundation of
critical thinking, but still, it requires courage. Getting curious and
asking questions happens outside our ideological bunkers. It feels
easier and safer to pick a side. The argument is set up in a way that
there’s only one real option. If we stay quiet we’re automatically
demonized as “the other.”
The only true option is to refuse to accept the terms of the argument
by challenging the framing of the debate. But make no mistake; this is
opting for the wilderness. Why? Because the argument is set up to
silence dissent and draw lines in the sand that squelch debate,
discussion, and questions—the very processes that we know lead to
effective problem solving."
"...Of all of the lobbying organizations I’ve studied over the past twenty
years, not one of them has done a better job using fear and false
dichotomies than the NRA. Today’s NRA rhetoric employs the ominous they
and forces “us versus them” language over and over. Allow anyone to
buy any type of gun and ammunition, when and wherever they want, or they
will break down your door, take away your guns, crush your freedom,
kill everyone you love, and put an end to the American way. They are
after us. They are coming. That’s the biggest bunch of bullshit
I’ve heard since someone told me, “If you own a gun—any gun—you might as
well be the one pulling the trigger in all of these terrible mass
shootings.” No and no."
"...The only way to successfully bring about gun reform is if a critical
mass of us are willing to have honest, tough, civil conversations
outside of our ideological bunkers. Gun reform will not happen unless
the silent majority of gun owners who passionately disagree with the
NRA’s divisive rhetoric and complete lack of respect for responsible gun
culture speak out and take political and economic action.
When we engage in the “us versus them” argument, we lose. The only
person who wins is the person who owns the framing of the argument."
The thought I took away from this is that the NRA can't be part of the solution because they are to a large degree the problem. They have forfeited the right to frame the argument.
Update: Here are some thoughts by Phyllis Zagano on the roots of the NRA and support for the students taking part in the protest against gun violence.
And here is an Atlantic article on a darker aspect of the origins of the 2nd Amendment that no one wants to talk about.
That's a great article, and I agree that, morally, ethically, logically, the NRA lost the right to frame the argument.
ReplyDeleteBut they have a lot of rich supporters who don't think critically, and in Amerika Today, dumb asses with dollars will get you a lot farther than carefully crafted arguments.
Trump's election proved that, if nothing else.
The only solution now is to require that teachers have automatic weapon training, and pass a sharpshooter's test as part of their state credentials. Keep schools on lockdown, make sure armed guards roam the halls, mandate that every classroom be equipped with a bulletproof safe room, and install ditches and razor wire perimeters.
Think of the jobs that will create!
I have always had mixed feelings about the home schooling movement. But these situations certainly might lead one to seriously consider the home schooling option.
DeleteYeah, well, Adam Lanza was homeschooled by a mommy who was sure her son was brilliant and misunderstood, and whp thought teaching him to be a crack shot was good therapy.
DeleteNope, I think if we start designing schools and other places like bunkers, with all the expense that involves, people might be able to see that their rights are being trampled by the gun nuts who insist, as did a former colleague fired for referring to Latinos as "wetbacks," that every citizen has a constitutionally mandated duty to own a gun.
Speaking of Adam Lanza, Mommy also had an large arsenal, also referred to as a "gun collection". Adam had previously well known serious mental health issues. Wouldn't you think prudence would dictate that the arsenal should be stored where he didn't have access? He wasn't the only crazy person in that household.
Delete... and every one of them purchased legally.
DeleteSadly, I think we have passed the tipping point on this issue, and the guns are here to stay. I will vote for pro gun control legislators, but I think it will be up to Our Young People who have lived through this senseless violence to have the will to do something about it.
A stressed out, alienated population swimming in guns is the formula for mass gun shootings. Outlawing certain classes of small arms would work as in Australia. But, if the country continues to vote dimwit, which it well may, I would recommend security systems that use AI driven nonlethal drones to disable the attacker. Nonlethal operation primarily protects the kids in case it makes a mistake, and AI will. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to "upgrade" to lethal slaughterbot and now we have a new bright shiny technology for killing humans. All in all, it would be great if we could stop being crazy.
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be enough anymore to remove the NRA from the discussion now that the Supreme Court of the United States -- carefully constructed to de-legalize abortion, which it didn't do -- has effectively removed the militia from the Second Amendment by making gun ownership a personal right. But it would help. The only good thing Trump has brought about is killing gun sales.
ReplyDeleteThe industry that sponsors NRA made a fortune by convincing dolts that Obama was about to take away their guns and ammunition. Except for collectors, nobody needs more than one or two guns for hunting, target shooting or killing varmints on the ranch, and a gun can last a lifetime. So think: One rancher = two or three guns per lifetime. Nobody can build an industry on that. Hence, the industry had to sell fear to sell guns. But nobody believes the pudgy guy will come after their guns. And Addison Mitchell McConnell let a gun bill pass the Senate? After he spends a week registering Latino voters, maybe. Thus, Remington files for bankruptcy. Bloomberg News says there may be more to follow.
The main point of the Brown article, though, is oh so true. When I say a good word about guns to people who don't know me, they assume I'm pro-NRA and voted for Trump. If I say a bad word, they assume I want to take their guns away. Happens all the time. But I do wish Brown and others like us would get rid of that term "commonsense gun laws." The rightwing echo chamber has already turned "commonsense" into "liberal excuse for taking away your guns." I think we have to talk about specific laws and not speak generically because the fear is in the generics.
Commonsense? What would that be, I haven't seen much lately. One thing that drives me up a wall is semantics hairsplitting by the gun crowd. If you talk about banning "assault rifles" they will pedantically 'splain that it isn't really a term, and anyway AR-15s, or whatever, aren't that. I don't bleeping care what you call them, ban large magazine weapons capable of spraying bullets into a crowd. And adaptors like bump stocks. No hunter worth their salt needs those, and no one needs that kind of weapon to defend themselves.
DeleteNow, now Katherine, a fella may need to be able to spray enough bullets to bring down a medium-sized oak tree if his home is being invaded by, say, 30 or 40 immigrant rapists from Mexico wielding machetes. It could happen.
Deletehttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
ReplyDeleteAmerica's gun culture in 10 charts
snip:
In total about one in five US gun owners say they are members of the NRA - and it has especially widespread support from Republican-leaning gun owners, according to Pew Research.
In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy.
The chart shows only the recorded contributions to lawmakers published by the Senate Office of Public Records.
The NRA spends millions more elsewhere, such as on supporting the election campaigns of political candidates who oppose gun controls.
See also:
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence
Mass shootings in the US: there have been 1,624 in 1,870 days
No other developed nation comes close to the rate of US gun violence. Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every adult.
Data from the Gun Violence Archive reveals there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter – nine out of every 10 days on average
$3 million/year? That's amazingly low. That's basically salary and benefits for two senior lobbyists.
DeleteSome weapons we do have against potential shooters are data bases. Of course data bases are only as good as the information entered into them. And only as good as the degree to which the various agencies share relevant information. It is a pattern with shootings that red flags were not shared or paid attention to. The church shooter in Texas was court martialed and had a dishonorable discharge from the military, and a record of domestic violence. This information didn't show up on his background check to legally buy a gun. The Florida school shooter was able to buy a gun despite numerous and longstanding red flags. Maybe they don't even do background checks in Florida. But he was on the FBI's radar. The Las Vegas shooter didn't have a lot of evidence that he was mentally unfit. Except he was on record as buying enough ordnance to outfit an infantry unit. Quantity ought to be a red flag. I'm sure some of the young cyber wizards could figure out a way to coordinate the information that's already out there, and keep it current.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of red flags, five states have "red flag" laws that allow law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals who pose a risk. About 20 other states (including mine, astoundingly) are considering them. A baby step in the right direction.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/five-states-allow-guns-to-be-seized-before-someone-can-commit-violence/2018/02/16/78ee4cc8-128c-11e8-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html
If anyone thought that worshipping graven idols was just an Old Testament problem, they should tune in to Facebook today. Gun-olatry is on full display. There are more people offended by the suggestion that gun access needs to be tightened up than that 17 people were killed.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, Well, that's Facebook. And these days Facebook may just be what Putin's puppies are trolling about. Polls show the other side has majority support for improving background checks, eliminating the gun-show loophole and even for registering weapons.* It's true that 50 years of hysteria mongering has made NRA types more rabid than normal folks, but I believe it is also true that the percentage of gun owners in the population has declined.
ReplyDelete* So we were at Colonial Williamsburg a few years ago, and the George Washington personator was chatting with a group of us. "What would you think of gun registration?" asked a lady from California. At first Washington didn't seem to understand the question, but when she explained (indignantly) that authorities would know what guns you owned, Washington said, "Oh, ma'am, we do that. Otherwise, how would we know which citizens are ready for militia duty?" The questioner was not pleased.
That is a *great* article.
ReplyDeleteDuring the gay marriage debate (which I guess is still on kind of a low simmer), proponents did the same sort of dishonest framing: if you oppose gay marriage, you must hate gay people. The Catholic church says, "Not true; we oppose gay marriage and love gay people". But that sort of simple and elementary distinction isn't allowed.
If I didn't know better, I would ask, "So you're equating gay marriage with mass carnage?"
DeleteNot sure this makes any sense to me, especially since that Anita Bryant "love the sinner but hate the sin" schtick has been around since the 1970s.
The Church has every right not to marry homosexuals, to deny them communion, and to expel their kids from Catholic schools. They also want to deny gay people civil unions.
None of that spells l-o-v-e to me, but Catholics get all offended if I suggest it.
Let's give gay marriage its own discussion thread, some other time. Otherwise we are going rather far off on a tangent.
DeleteAgreed, Katherine. Once abortion gets into a thread, that thread immediately heads for the asteroid belt in Musk's Tesla's passenger seat.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJean - I understand.
DeleteI'd say it's a great topic to test out Brene Brown's exceedingly-well made point that these emotionally fraught issues need to be discussed, dissected and debated in a civil manner, and that may require rejecting the framing that is "given" to us, typically by some person or entity who is not objective and who believes there is only one right answer.
On the one hand, these electronic forums like blogs can be great forums for that sort of an exercise.
On the other hand, by experience over a couple of decades now is that they quickly degenerate into hostile one-upmanship unless all parties continually recommit to civility, objectivity and so on. And really, how often does that happen?
Discussions on abortion and homosexuality are never productive, and I'm sorry I bit. But Jim usually has interesting perspectives, and I would like to see him enlarge on the analogy as it relates to solutions that might curb gun violence.
DeleteJim, yes, I agree that the net result of social forums is generally negative.
DeleteI have a FB page and blog for other patients with my type of cancer. In doing so, I monitor other "support" groups online, and the squabbling and put-downs are sad--people telling each other their doctors are quacks or that they're fools for taking certain treatments or that they need various alternative treatments.
Everyone wants to prop up their own health care choices, even if it means denigrating other frightened people in the same boat.
I occasionally have to ban people.
Jean, thanks.
DeleteI don't have a lot of in-depth thoughts on gun control. I do have a particular point of departure, which is somewhat similar to yours: I grew up in smaller-town and rural Michigan, where guns are very common both for recreational and what I guess we could call cultural reasons.
My father was a business manager during a few ugly strikes, and for a time he carried a gun for protection. I never even knew it until he told me once while he was driving me somewhere that the locked glove box a few inches from my knees had a loaded pistol in it. He wasn't exaggerating in his view that people might wish to shoot him; a colleague of his was gunned down, dropped in the middle of the street as be crossed from one plant building to another, during that particular strike.
So my background and formative experiences make me pretty open and sympathetic to Brene Brown's history of responsible gun ownership.
My basic point of view on gun control is that the root cause of the issue, the thing that makes this so difficult to solve, is that we don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. If we could start with a situation in which nobody had any guns, and then devise rules for the distribution and regulation of new firearms, that might be a relatively straightforward problem to solve. But that's not the situation today: the country already is awash in guns. There are hundreds of millions(!) of guns already in circulation. That means that the core problem is how to get existing guns out of the hands of existing owners who are likely to use them.
So to my way of thinking, some, but not all, of the people that *already possess guns*, need to be disarmed. They have to be induced to give up their guns, and/or the government needs to be willing to disarm them. In saying that, I've already crossed the bright line that the NRA and its followers consider unthinkable.
Some other miscellaneous thoughts:
* We'll never have a risk-free environment. The lead article in our local newspaper today fears that schools may never be completely safe. So true. We have to think in terms of mitigating risk, rather than trying to construct Utopia.
* A cynical part of me says that the definition of "gun crisis" is, "Uh oh, now white folks are getting shot at." The body count in Chicago is pretty predictably high from year to year, albeit it doesn't happen via spectacular single events like school shootings, and a disproportionate number of the victims are people of color. I hear that high schoolers in Florida now are marching against gun violence. Fine, but do we need to concatenate the word "white" before "high schoolers", too in order to make it newsworthy? On the South and West Sides of Chicago, kids and their parents and grandparents already march for an end to gun violence. None of it makes a damn bit of difference, as far as I can tell. I don't know what can make a difference.
* At the risk of invoking another undiscussable parallel, the situation is somewhat like abortion in that there is a gauntlet of Supreme Court decisions that places limits on what can be accomplished politically.
Jim, about inducing some people to give up their guns, I wonder if buy-backs do any good. Australia seemed to have success with them. Some say the only people who will participate are those who aren't using them anyway. However, even if that is true, it reduces the total amount of guns in circulation. If someone wants to sell their guns, or some of them, it seems better for them to get the buy-out rather than have them end up on the street.
DeleteWe have become somewhat inured to protests. However, I wonder if these are different. Maybe we have reached a watershed moment when the status quo is no longer acceptable. Most people recognize the right of students to feel safe and be safe in school.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, there are plenty of studies linking poor academic performance to poverty. However this study also links it to something else: toxic stress. From the article: "Something else is impacting the educational achievement of children living in poverty more than it impacts other children.Here we must look to research that shows the cause of such performance might be “toxic stress.” It is hard to think of any toxic stress greater that that which these student survivors have been subjected to.
Some moron was on All Things Considered saying we need to arm teachers, and that a teacher with a gun can diffuse a situation or protect students.
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as a "shoot Ol' Yaller" situation. Nearly all the shooters at these schools are underage youngsters whom the teachers probably knew and perhaps tried to help. Arming teachers expects them to shoot them at point blank range and watch them bleed to death or splatter their brains all over the Smart Board.
As a teacher, I couldn't do it.
And if I could, would you want me teaching your kids?
Arming teachers means you are potentially putting guns into the hands of unknown quantities. I can imagine a couple of old high school coaches getting jacked up and pulling out his school-issued firearm to threaten the kids, or a teacher undergoing stress at home using it to blow his own head off.
As Jim notes, a risk-free environment is not possible. I would be happy if we didn't make the situation worse with hare-brained ideas.
I agree it is a bad idea, Jean. It's too much to expect teachers to be cops. Most teachers wouldn't want that. But I can think of an ex-marine history teacher I had in high school. Wouldn't have wanted him to have a gun. Couple of kids got slammed up against a wall when they pushed him "too far".
DeletePresumably (wild presumption) the armed teachers would be "trained" to "take charge" and do all the other things armed teachers should be trained to do. Presumably, some teachers who had been denied training for good reason might take it upon themselves to come armed anyway. The result would be what the NRA seeks -- more guns sold.
DeleteThe result also would be to turn a crime scene into a war zone. A lot of our solutions tend in that direction. Suppose the shooter at Parkland had been named Muhammed el Hakim? What would we be talking about now?
I would guess that all of us have family members and loved ones who are teachers. Do we really want any of them engaged in a gun battle? With 25 children in the line of fire? The notion just beggars belief.
DeleteLet's see: we could arm teachers. Or, alternatively, we could work to find ways to disarm people who shouldn't be armed. Golly, which should I choose?
DeleteAs a teacher, I can tell you that shooting crazed kids with guns is not in my skill set.
DeleteYou cannot put down a kid you know, even if he's a big problem. As a teacher, your instinct tells you to try to help him.
We have active shooter training at the beginning of every school year. It always emphasizes scoping out your classroom to figure out the best place to put the students if you have to shelter in place, and to know how to secure the room. Most of us keep our doors locked as a matter of course when class is in session.
Our cops emphasize that we need to be hunkered down and not out hunting for the shooter because a SWAT team will take out anyone it sees with a gun who is not clearly law enforcement. Teachers also need to stay with students to take the lead on first aid and to be able to immediately account for missing students. We need to get the all-clear signal and take students to the designated meet-up place to report any who are missing. You also need them to turn off their damn phones.
You cannot do this if you are focused on trying to hunt down the shooter or preoccupied with positioning yourself so you can squeeze off a shot if you see him coming.
If you do not stay with the kids, they get panicky. I've seen them freak out when one gets a nosebleed or has an epileptic seizure or throws up. I can only imagine the insanity that ensues when the gums start blazing.
An armed teacher will add to the chaos.
Not to mention the distraction in carrying a gun on a day-to-day basis while surrounded by kids. You have to be aware of the gun. Where is it? Is it secure (from kids)? And, where do they keep it after hours from THEIR kids? It's a very important thing of whicb to keep track. I think teachers have enough worries and work.
DeleteThere was an armed guard at this high school. Didn't help anyway. Armed teachers wouldn't have helped either. The shooter's strategy was to pull a fire alarm and kill evacuating students. If you have a rifle, you have the advantage of a standoff distance in addition to the advantage of surprise. Teachers with guns is Hollywood B.S.
ReplyDeleteA recent article in the Federalist pointed to this Bret Stephens article in the NY Times from last October in which he calls for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Why not?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
I'd be fine with a repeal. But 'fraid it's a non-starter. And political suicide for any candidate who was serious about it.
DeleteKatherine - that's probably more true in the rural reaches of Nebraska or Illinois than it would be for a representative from Chicago or New York.
DeleteIt would be a long time horizon to get 3/4 of the states plus the federal government to approve. We'd need to think in terms of generations. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
In religiously-affiliates schools we could arm teachers and urge them to recite the mantra "Kill a Bum for Keerist!"
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Jesus, didn't he have something to say to Peter after he cut off the high priest's servant's ear on Holy Thursday night: "Put away your sword, they who live by the sword will perish by the sword." Or something like that. Apparently they had "open carry" in 1st century Jerusalem.
DeleteA point of view that is often expressed is that we have a society problem. The ambient culture is marinated in violence;and we are alienated from each other. This idea isn't wrong. We have both a culture problem and a gun problem. We need to work on both, they aren't mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteGreat insight, Katherine.
DeleteI've been reflecting a bit, and having some discussions with some of our parish leaders, about the possibility of the Eucharist serving as a counter-cultural sign of unity in the face of, and remedy for, the cultural alienation of which you speak.
Jim, it would be wonderful if people could think of the Eucharist in that way. Come to think of it, to be part of "...a counter-cultural sign of unity in the face of, and remedy for,...cultural alienation.." is one more reason for the "nones" to engage with the church.
DeleteI also agree we have a cultural problem. Really a whole lot of cultural problems. I would like to hear more priests talk about this than the usual homilies that revolve around personal piety.
DeleteBut I'm puzzled about how you see Catholic communion, exclusive as it is, as a sign of unity or point of engagement for "nones."
There is, really, nothing more alienating than attending Mass and knowing you are not invited to dinner, as it were.
I'm not here to push for a change in the RC arrangements. I've made my peace with being a "none" again. But what Catholics have to offer outsiders--and I think Catholics would be great at addressing cultural problems--is not in the communion line.
Eucharist isn't just the Communion line, it's the Mass. It's worship,the liturgy, which means "the work of the people". When Christ said, "This do in remembrance of Me" I'm pretty sure he meant the whole thing. And someone who doesn't feel able to join in at Communion but nevertheless takes part in the liturgy isn't a "none", they are still part of the act of worship, IMO.
DeleteIt's not a matter of "not feeling able," but a clear message that you are barred from what the whole liturgy is leading up to.
DeleteThe Mass is to gird up Catholics to go out and do Christ's work. And they do wonderful work. But I don't see the Mass as a counter-cultural experience for outsiders.
Few people walk in off the street and want to be Catholic--they have some kind of family connection or are marrying in, and I have never known a Catholic church that encourages any outsiders to worship there.
The Universal Church can be very insular and parochial.
I hear you, Jean, and I agree about the insularity and parochialism. I feel badly about it and I wish it was different. Jim's post about Communion brought some of those thoughts to the forefront for me. We are too worried about protecting God and not worried enough about not trying to get in His way.
DeleteI will never understand why Catholics feel the need to protect God from anyone. The whole notion puzzles me. If God willingly enters to host to feed his people, pretty sure he can exit the host given to the unworthy. Feed all, let God sort it out is my preference. But that's not how the Church rolls, and in deference to the rules, I stay in my pew.
Delete