I'm tired of several arguments when it comes to mass shootings.
Argument: "Mass shootings" isn't a defined term, so we shouldn't count them.
Translation: If we don't have numbers, we can't admit there's a problem. A GOP-led Congress has passed laws banning the Centers for Disease Control from researching gun violence. By my count, there have been six U.S. shootings involving more than five deaths in the last year alone (Orlando, San Bernardino, Colorado Springs, Roseburg (Ore.), Chattanooga, Charleston). That's a problem.
Argument: Gun violence is a symptom of "radical Islamic terrorism."
Translation: We need a face for terror, and Islam fits that face. We want to give evil a name, and wrap our heads around it. But when Charleston or Colorado Springs or Roseburg, Ore., happened, we didn't define them as "white supremacy terrorism" or "abortion rights terrorist." While radical terrorism exists, and it should be fought on many levels, there's a danger in making "radical Islamic terrorism" shorthand for "All Muslims are evil," which I've seen argued already. Most Muslims denounce terrorism, especially when it masquerades as their religion. Can we all agree on "ISIS-inspired" and move on? That way, we avoid the religious link while simultaneously giving the enemy a name.
Argument: Now's not the time to make things political. AKA We need to remember that people died.
Translation: Don't do anything while you care about it; wait a while and maybe you won't care anymore. These arguments are dismissive of emotions. I'm mad as hell that this keeps happening, and I want to do something. Just because I'm emotional doesn't mean I'm not making a sound argument. Further, this is an attempt to delay, because maybe the person mad won't want to act as much in the future.
Argument: A bad guy will still get a weapon, so we shouldn't have laws about it.
Translation: Haters are gonna hate, criminals are gonna criminal (?). This is the dumbest argument I hear. By this logic, a bad guy will still murder, so we shouldn't make that illegal. Or counterfeiters will still counterfeit money, so we shouldn't try to stop them. Or bombers will still make bombs, so we shouldn't have laws against explosives. So dumb. DUMB.
Argument: A good machinist/metalsmith/etc. can make their own guns from videos online and books.
Translation: There are ways to avoid potential laws. Sure, I guess you could make your own gun. But now you're probably involving others to make it. There aren't a ton of people good at smithing, metalwork, and machining, so it'll probably involve another person. It'll also take more time. Time + involvement of others means that bad things are less likely to happen, or that someone will get tipped off to cruel intentions. Instead, we have a system in which a person can get a semi-automatic weapon in 7 minutes.
Argument: A gun is just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. AKA Don't blame the gun.
Translation: A gun is not meant for killing things./People kill, not guns. A gun is not the same thing as a screwdriver. If you think that it's a tool, you're downplaying the lethality of a gun on a massive scale. If you think it's a tool, we'll have a duel. You choose the screwdriver, and I'll take the gun. It's just a tool, right? Imagine if the Orlando shooter had a knife instead? I imagine that he wouldn't have killed/injured nearly as many people.
Argument: We can't ban guns. It's in our Constitution.
Translation: Guns are a right and that right shall not be infringed. Yeah, but they already have been. We already ban automatic weapons (machine-gun style). That's a gun control in place. Why can't we go further? Also, when it was written, the Constitution allowed people to be owned by other people. We changed that law. Why can't we change this one? Further, if other "rights" as defined by the courts can be restricted and regulated, then what makes this right so special?
Argument: Gun reform won't work.
Translation: Don't try gun reform. The only problem with this is that it has worked, to great degree, in other countries. The more I've studied and read up on this issue, the more I'm moving toward an Australian model. They have licenses for different categories of weapons, and have mostly banned automatic and semi-automatic (pull the trigger) weapons. You can get a permit for a semi-automatic weapon if you are a farmer (for the legitimate reason of hunting feral pigs) or go through an intense training/scrutiny/waiting period/etc. Serial numbers for guns produced after 1900 are registered with the government. They've offered gun buybacks and gun amnesty programs. It's worked like gangbusters there. In the last 20 years, they've practically eliminated mass shootings. The number of suicides by gun has dropped dramatically.
Argument: See? The U.K. had a shooting, so gun bans don't work.
Translation: We shouldn't do anything unless it eliminates all gun violence. I saw this one, and it's so dumb. SO DUMB. It's like saying "There's still lung cancer, so cigarette restrictions don't work." Or saying "A house got struck by lightning and burned down, so we shouldn't have lightning rods." Yes, it's difficult to completely eliminate all shooting deaths, even in places with strict gun laws. However, countries with strict gun laws have far fewer people dying from gun violence or suicide than the U.S. Surely broad policy initiatives shouldn't be thrown out just because they only work 80-90 percent of the time.
Mostly I want to see something happen. Anything. The most important thing is that we do something at all. If, after every one of these mass shootings, the Congressional/national response is "that's tragic... nothing we can do about it," that's not good enough.
Finally, I usually see a lot of people quoting Mr. Rogers to "look for the helpers" after such a tragedy. I like this idea, because I saw a lot of such helpers as a journalist. John Oliver spoke for me a lot on this topic, noting a blood drive in Orlando that wrapped around the block on Sunday. When tragedy strikes, the best thing you can do is to look for the overwhelming good that follows. As a kid who was 9 and going to school in an OKC suburb on April 19, 1995, I remember the school eventually turning away people who offered stuffed animals and other comforts because we had too many. That show of good is incredible and uplifting and heartfelt and hard to be cynical about. They are courageous and restore our hope in humanity.
But please, please, please, please: Don't forget about why the helpers have to be there in the first place. The helpers are wonderful, but let's do a few things so we don't need them as often.
Remember that Hulk Hogan v. Gawker story?
I wrote a lot about the Hulk Hogan v. Gawker case a while back, but there's a new wrinkle. While Gawker continues to plan an appeal (as well they should), they still have to pay $50 million of the $140 million judgment as a bond. Of course, Gawker doesn't have that much money sitting around. So, to protect their assets from Hogan et al, they've filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It means that Gawker is giving up their independence as an organization so they can continue to fight for their existence in appeals court.
Court Someones (Get it? It's like Summons... No? Let's move on.)
Let's play pretend real quick. Say you're Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader. The Senate is in danger of flipping to Democratic control in November. The sitting President has nominated someone that is eminently qualified, but is probably more of a moderate. If you don't like this pick, then there's an election between Hillary Clinton (who would have no incentive to pick a moderate) and Donald Trump (who you've said "doesn't know a lot about the issues"). Neither of those options sounds particularly good. What would you do? I don't know that there's a great option for him.
Summary Judgments
One quick note on LGBTQ rights: Those who died in Orlando did so in a state (and country) in which they can legally be fired or kicked out of their house or turned away from a library/restaurant/public place simply for being gay. • • • Speaking of LGBTQ rights, I thought this was a tough, but pointed interview by Anderson Cooper. Often, he can be over the top for major events or allows people to twist out of things, but he WAS. NOT. HAVING. IT. with the Florida AG, noting that after the shooting, she was all about protecting gay people, but it was a radical change given her history of fighting LGBT rights in court. • • • This was an interesting story about the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. I hear a lot of people fed up with our current candidates, saying they'd rather vote for Johnson or Jill Stein, but I wonder how much of that is just being uninformed or if they really like Johnson/Stein. • • • The 5K went great. I was sore afterward not on my legs, but on my pecs/shoulders. I had not prepared for the monkey bar obstacle, apparently. • • • We sat down for dinner at my parents' house this weekend, and we started to pray before the meal. Roland, unprompted, put his hands together and said, "God God God." He's got this prayer thing down!
No comments:
Post a Comment