Load Up On Guns, Bring Your Friends
This post has taken a bit of time to sift through my writing process, making some of the events referenced yesterday’s news by twenty-four hour cycle standards, but I thought Mark was onto something at the tail end of his past post on the Belleville school bus incident when he said,
So if it really was appropriate to politicize this incident, movement conservatives would have been quite well-served to follow the Heritage Foundation’s lead, and use it as a springboard to discussing the value of school choice as a means of escaping school violence.
To which, I think, commenter Michael Drew backed up to the correct scope by retorting,
…Because this kind of thing couldn’t — doesn’t — happen on buses to and from private schools? Especially if we as we promote an increasingly diverse socio-economic mix into those schools’ population? (Which, needless to say, I think would be a positive thing, as long as it is not done by means that tend toward a defunding of public education. But I think there’s no reason to expect incidents such as these to decrease as a result of such efforts, however racially motivated or not this one was…)
Everyone who has tended to comment on the incident in question has chosen to focus on whether or not the attack was racially motivated. Freddie’s link helpfully disabuses us of that notion. But when I watched the video that is available via the link, race wasn’t the primary thing that struck, it was the sheer violence of the scene that jumped for me and the general degree of comfort that it seems like many Americans have with that presence of violence in their lives.
Indeed, the media frenzy around this event has been so focused on the potential racial over tones that next to no attention has been paid, as Mark notes, to the violence present. That one child chose to beat another child in a relatively violent fashion over the moving of a book bag in his search to find a place to sit on a bus seems to largely be an after thought, if it registers as much of a thought at all. I mention Michael’s comment in this regard because I think the general undercurrent of and predilection towards violence encapsulated in the now infamous scene is far more ubiquitous than we might be able to write off by talking about poor neighbourhoods vs. well-off neighbourhoods or public schools vs. private schools.
Let me be blunt, as an outsider who spends a lot of time paying attention to and attempting to analyze US politics and culture, America comes across as an especially violent nation on the whole. And I have a hard time understanding why that isn’t more of a concern to people.
Where my mind tends to go in regards to that observation is back to the brouhaha that erupted over some citizens’ decision to carry fire arms to a political protest and the attendant Second Amendment debate that brought so many libertarians rushing to the gates. It’s all fine and well to extol the virtues of the second amendment in the context of one’s private life, insofar as I have any libertarian leanings I tend generally to agree about people being allowed to live their lives as they see fit. But when those lives start to intersect with others in even a banal fashion, one has to start a different sort of calculus around not just rights, but also responsibilities.
And it is here that I think the Second Amendment ranting to libertarians fails to achieve the level of critical analysis to which it pretends and gives way to a general acceptance of systematized violence whose undercurrent runs strong in the country.
Some time ago, Freddie asked “a simple little question” to folks who kept prattling on about their Constitutional rights regarding the bearing of arms at political protests,
For all the people defending bringing a gun to a political protest: if we go beyond merely saying, “you have the right to,”– and just saying that, you aren’t saying much– what is the practical purpose of bringing a gun to a town hall meeting?
To my mind, that question was never really answered. It wasn’t answered, I would offer, because many people would rather not explore many of the logical conclusions that fall out of such an exercise, though Jason Kuznicki offered something of a rebuttal,
There may be several wholly legitimate reasons to bring a gun to a political protest. Here are three just off the top of my head.
–Carrying a gun can be a form of expression. A gun emphasizes that one is deadly serious about one’s views, even without the remotest intention of using it.
–A political protest attracts large crowds of people, and not all of them are there for legitimate political protest. Some may well be pickpockets. Some will be drunk or high. Some of these people might not be the peaceful sort, and an armed society is a polite society, as they say.
–Cops have been known to taser nonviolent political protesters. Judging by YouTube, it seems almost a sport these days. I bet they’d think twice before pulling a taser on an armed nonviolent protester.
Jason missed one key word from Freddie’s question: practical.
Practically speaking there is no good reason to bring a fire arm to a protest. In regards to Jason’s first claim, the presence of a gun actually detracts from the message one might be trying to send by reorienting the focus of one’s acts from their content to the side issue of the props used in carrying out those actions. How much of the media focus on the townhall debates had to do with the substance of opposition to Obama’s plans and how much of it had to do with guns, crowds and shouting?
As pertains to Jason’s second claim, I don’t know what kind of protests he’s been going to, but the image one gets is a small group of determined protesters overrun by the teaming mobs of the vagrant class. Not particularly representative of the many protests I’ve attended, some of which, yes, have been in the US. Look, sure there will be some attendees who are of a less than desirable socio-economic background and in a less than desirable state of mind/affairs, but, honestly, most of those folks are harmless and those who are not are better dealt with by remaining with a group of people you know and keeping your wits about you.
Finally, I can’t imagine how Jason thinks that pitting a group of well armed citizens against a swath of well armed police officers wouldn’t result in the potential of more violence than less. Honestly, I think this element of couching reveals more about the general proclivity towards violence in the US than any other and while there isn’t a direct connection between the libertarian rally around of the Second Amendment and this bullying incident, neither can you tell me that the two have nothing in common.
In part, I think, one has to look carefully at what it is that one is defending and how it relates to people’s lives as lived. Let me run through some alternate calculus from Jason’s vis-a-vis Freddie’s question:
- If one is determined to carry a gun to make a point, I think it bears asking, first, what the purpose of that prop is in itself.
- As far as I can tell, the purpose of a firearm is to inflict harm. Even if the stated purpose of the firearm is use as a deterrent, the deterrence present is the possibility of harm should someone approach or otherwise engage the person carrying the firearm.
- So even if we take the idea of bringing a firearm to a protest as merely an opportunity to reiforce the seriousness of one’s point, we also have to acknowledge that there is also the presence of this other message: namely, making one’s point through the implication of the possibility of harm as represented by the possession and prominence of the firearm as a prop in making one’s point.
- Making one’s point through the possibility of inflicting harm is, at least to my mind, anathema to the rule of law.
- Under the rule of law, people make their point via the laws to which they agree to abide and the settling of disputes derives from the application of discussion and the placing forward of reasoning about one’s perspective via logic deriving from said laws.
- The rule of law is meant to be, explicitly, a means of ordering society and settling disputes that does not rely on appeals to violence.
- So in sending a message about the possibility of violence, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as a means of making one’s point, and, I would offer, the support of the use of such means, ultimately undermines the very constitutional girdings that provide one with the rights to which one is referring and on which one is depending as the justification for one’s actions.
- Which, to me, constitutes a reckless use of said rights and a general undermining of the underpinnings of social cohesion in general.
All too often we talk about rights without a corresponding discussion about the responsibilities that attend those rights. You may well have the right to do something, or alternatively, the right to be free of something, but the social contract that provides you with those rights also binds you into a relationship of responsibility in terms of the applications of those rights vis-a-vis your fellow citizens.
Certainly one such responsibility is to ensure that you do not apply the rights there accorded in a reckless fashion, thereby denigrating the value of those rights in the first place and contributing to the over all break down of social cohesion that results from such denigration. By my lights, it is just this kind of one-sided rights talk that is at play in the Second Amendment discussion around the bringing of firearms to public political events and, sadly, more often than not in other elements of American life that tend to feed into this undercurrent of violence that I find so alien and incomprehensible.
This would be the point where I’m generally told that, as a Canadian, I just don’t understand American culture and the historical importance of the right to bears arms as enshrined in the Constitution. And I suppose that’s correct, I don’t. But neither do I think that simple hearkenings to the past are adequate answers to the very real concerns that swirl around a country that is littered with violent events demarcating a perceptive breakdown of the very contract on which the discussion takes place.
Events like: the Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine and numerous school shootings beyond count (especially as compared to other countries/regions, the Belleville school bus incident, and now the hanging of a federal employee for what appears to be no other apparent reason than he was a federal employee.
Honestly, I’m less worried about the President and more worried about folks like Bill Sparkman.
Look, I get it, you’ve got the right to bear arms. Great. Good for you. And for those who utilize that right in a responsible manner within the parameters of their own private lives, I guess I don’t have much to say. But one has to wonder, is the defense of that right in all circumstances worth the larger dynamic into which it seems to feed that has an undeniable impact on the average American’s life? At what point do you stop and say: this thing might have gone off the rails and we need to do something about that.
I don’t know, now seems like a pretty good time to me.
—————————————————————————–
NB: Andrew Sullivan and James Joyner have more on the Bill Sparkman story.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- I enjoy St. Patrick's Day...
- I would like to add, as a...
- An interesting book: "How...
- I didn't believe his camp...
- something of this sort is...
- To be honest, I've been i...
- It is important to rememb...
- I think with history we m...
- It definitely does have t...
- Exactly. One could put wa...
-
79 comments
The stories of violence are just that – stories. They are told often, reported on incessantly, and become vastly exaggerated in the process. (They also cause us to fear one another, pushing us further and further apart, and making our communities less and less coherent. Such is the politics and profit of fear.)
And I suppose I have to wonder if the problem is that we have guns or that we have hosts and hosts of societal problems that leads to people using those guns on one another. I don’t know. There’s a ton of boilerplate pro-gun-ownership answers I could give you in response to your points, but I’m not sure I want to tread in those waters. I do believe in the right to bear arms, as laid down by our Constitution, and I think most of the efforts against gun ownership miss the forest for the trees – conflate a tool with the larger problem.
And of course, violent criminals do lose their right to bear arms – though often it is too late, and often it presents them with no real barrier to getting a gun in the future.
By the way I don’t even like guns. I don’t own any. I’ve shot them but I don’t find the experience terribly gratifying.
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
The stories of violence are just that – stories. They are told often, reported on incessantly, and become vastly exaggerated in the process. (They also cause us to fear one another, pushing us further and further apart, and making our communities less and less coherent. Such is the politics and profit of fear.)
I invite you to go check out the wiki page link on school shootings I provide towards the end of the piece and compare how many incidents there are on record for the US as compared to anywhere else and tell me that differential is simply a matter of media sensationalism.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Indeed – far more school shootings in the States. I wonder if this also has something to do with the nature of our society – the cultural and racial components, the lack of homogeneity (of class as well as culture/race) combined with the size of our population and the relative youth of our nation. Certainly it would be wonderful to reduce school shootings – but would stronger gun laws really reduce those shootings? Often kids steal their law-abiding parents’ guns to carry out the shootings. How strict should our gun laws be? How strict will be strict enough?
School shootings are hard because they’re random. They’re out of the blue. The real gun violence that needs to be (and can be) addressed is gang violence in impoverished neighborhoods, inner cities, etc. that gets far less press but takes many more lives.
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Fundamentally I’m not attempting to address gun laws in this post. In fact, I don’t think I mention gun laws once.
What I am trying to address is an undercurrent of violence in American society that, it seems to me, gets swept under the rug via precisely the kind of “media sensation” arguments that you initially presented. Addressing those undercurrents undoubtedly has to do with cultural and racial component, as well as class issues, as you mention. It also has to do with the view we bring to the rights we exercise, as gone over in the middle-ish of the piece. And a conversation in that regard, one that really starts to look at some of the seemingly ingrained perspectives that reinforce this dynamic, would be useful and seems largely absent from cultural and political discourse.
Unless you want to include the “law and order” discussion in that category, which is probably a fair move. But even then, the focus seems to be external (these bad people who inflict harm on our society), rather than internal (in what ways do we structure things so that our society itself operates in a fashion that helps to produce these people and the dynamics in which they engage). I should note that I don’t think the discussion I’m talking about here should be a focus of one over the other (internal vs. external), but need to be a balanced and integrated discussion, which it doesn’t seem to be, at least to this Canuck.
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Which is also to say, I think, that we’re not really in disagreement here.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I guess I might have read more into your post than you meant, but you do take some swipes at the right to bear arms – which is, basically, “gun laws” writ large. I’ll read it again and reassess.
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I take some swipes at people who seem to utilize that right in what seems to me an irresponsible manner and those who would defend the right in what I take to be an uncritical way, sure. But I also say specifically,
Look, I get it, you’ve got the right to bear arms. Great. Good for you. And for those who utilize that right in a responsible manner within the parameters of their own private lives, I guess I don’t have much to say.
So I’m not saying the right to bears arms ought to be scrapped, but that it needs to be used responsibly and that those who would use it irresponsibly ought to be called out for doing so.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Like felons? So basically what we already do? Or how do you mean “irresponsibly” exactly? I read the line you quote above as fairly glib, somewhat mocking. Like when I was having a drink on a patio in Vancouver, B.C. and this Canadian chick was mocking Americans who “all carry guns in their purses” etc. etc. There’s this notion that Americans are just toting our guns around everywhere. And many of us do, but something like 49% of households have a gun. Far from 49% of households are involved in gun crimes.
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
No, like bringing a gun to a public event where the use of firearms isn’t the purpose and acting like their is a practical purpose in doing so or that there isn’t an increased threat of creating violence by doing so, even if unintentionally.
That strikes me as irresponsible. If I were at a a health care rally and I saw some person carrying heat, I would be nervous and wonder to myself, “Just what is the point of that person bringing that firearm to this event?” and probably head in the other direction in a hurry.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
No, like bringing a gun to a public event where the use of firearms isn’t the purpose and acting like their is a practical purpose in doing so or that there isn’t an increased threat of creating violence by doing so, even if unintentionally.
I agree that this was irresponsible but I guess I’m not sure what the consequence ought to be….was it outside his rights to carry a weapon in plain view? What line needs to be drawn exactly? I mean, the organizers of these events can, if they want to, ban guns. They can search you at the door (or gate).
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I don’t know what the appropriate means of addressing that is either, but if we don’t talk about it as irresponsible and then start having the discussions about how to address it, we’re not likely to ever find those means. And to their credit, there were folks like Freddie who called what he saw as a spade, a spade. I guess to some degree I’m trying to strengthen that chorus of critical examination. It seemed sort of… muted or under represented, though, you too had a good post in that regard.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Oh and I’m coming across too strong here. I’m not a gun-ownership absolutist. I don’t even have a dog in the fight, so to speak. I just think that this debate has been largely framed by misconceptions born out of horrific, but largely isolated, incidents.
John Howard Griffin
September 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Violence has everything to do with American culture, but not the things you point to.
American culture celebrates violence in a way that most other developed nations do not (just look at American television). However, there are some cultures (see Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, et al) that celebrate violence in a similar way.
America views itself as John Wayne (or Jack Bauer, for a more recent example). Male, Christian, white, heroic, never wrong, and solve problems with violence.
America is infantile in its beliefs. Violence is always the first choice of conservatives and glibertarians, and guns are sacred. Nothing is more important to many Americans than God and Guns.
As for violence of all kinds (not just gun violence) in poor areas of America, I agree that it is a much bigger problem. But, addressing this has never been an important issue for conservative or glibertarian Americans. Only those “wimpy” liberals or people without white skin think it’s important, so it never gets addressed.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
So television makes us violent? All those John Wayne movies I watched makes me think violence will answer all my conflicts?
I only ask because, I watch lots of violent television, watched tons of John Wayne movies, and got in maybe two fights in my life – both while I was living in Canada.
Maybe this analysis holds up for some of the more crazy school shootings – kids with problems look to the movies and find the wrong answers (start dropping anvils on people and such) – maybe not. Maybe it’s deeper – a deeper sense of disenfranchisement with the system; the problems if unending poverty, of communities stripped of their dignity – but we conservatives just don’t give a damn so nevermind.
John Howard Griffin
September 24th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
There have been numerous studies that show that there is a non-trivial relationship between violence in the media and social problems (a good summary is in Visual Intelligence-Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication by Ann Marie Seward Barry).
For example, a study released in March, 2002 that tracked 700 youths over a seventeen-year period showed a definite relationship between TV viewing habits and acts of aggression and crime in their later life. All other possible contributing environmental elements, such as poverty, living in a violent neighborhood, and neglect, were factored out of this study.
Another study released in 2003 followed subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, “Media violence can affect any child from any family,” regardless of social class or parenting. Girls who watched more than an average amount of violence tended to throw things at their husbands. Boys who grew up watching violent TV shows were more likely to be violent with their wives. Researchers concluded that, “Every violent TV show increases a little-bit the likelihood of a child growing up to behave more aggressively.”
Other studies have shown that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place. An extensive study in five Massachusetts communities found a relationship between viewing media violence and the acceptance of sexual assault, social violence, and even alcohol use.
Your dismissal of this relationship between violence on TV and violence in America shows that you have been desensitized to violence – as the study above has shown.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
So has television become more violent over the years? Over those same years that violent crime has fallen and continues to fall?
Actually I’m kind of a traditionalist. I won’t let my kid(s) watch violent shows until they’re much older. No violent video games either. But that’s because kids shouldn’t be exposed to that, not because I think my daughter will become a violent criminal.
Again, I think the links between poverty, between unwanted children, neglect, abuse, etc. and violence are much, much more poignant than the links between television and violence.
North
September 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Doesn’t work for me. Canadians are utterly steeped in American culture but they don’t have the same level of violence. Lord knows I don’t think there’s any point to gun control but I don’t have any explanation for the difference.
Perhaps it is the ineffeble civilizing influence of the Queen? They way that most Canadians have a couple pictures of a stern Grandmother riding around in their pocket so they subconsciously behave better.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Too cold to hold onto metal with bare hands, use of gloves worth wearing messes up the ability to aim properly. Easier to just break the guy’s ankle when he’s sweeping for you on Friday night.
North
September 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I have it! Tim Hortons! The ubiquitous presence of Tim’s causes mass peace for Canadians. They’re either ascending on a sugar rush from the sugary doughnuts or they’re so flattened with insulin shock that they couldn’t be violent even if they wanted to.
Kyle
September 25th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I’d see your point easier if it wasn’t obscured by trading in cheap stereotypes and racial/political baiting.
According to this study [pdf] by the FBI, school violence is actually falling:
And according to this chart violent crime overall has fallen drastically since the 70’s.
I guess to me this means that crime is down but sensationalism is up.
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
That’s good info and I appreciate you finding and posting it. Does it make the conversation any less valuable, though? And does a falling rate of violent crime in the US mean that there still isn’t a much greater degree of that crime vis-a-vis other countries regions? Which is an open question and worth considering. Maybe I’m off in my analysis, but I still think the conversation is worth having and I think it’s fair to walk my arguments back a couple of paces and say that it is an important discussion to have in any number of different countries.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Don’t get me wrong – the conversation is always worth having. I’m not trying to shut down the conversation. I’m just saying that shit like Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” has distorted the debate, has framed it poorly. His analysis that the media covers violent crime was spot-on – but his answer was so far from that analysis it just bowls me over. No pun intended.
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Fair enough. I’m not a big Moore fan, either. Used to be, not so much anymore. And I’m not trying to be like Michael Moore in this post, but I think there is a worthwhile conversation to be had and I was trying to tie some threads together that have come up in national discourse lately as a means of making the case for that conversation.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
You sir, are no Michael Moore – nor was your post reminiscent of his propaganda pieces. I’m with you on this – it’s a conversation worth having. Like I said, I’m coming across too strong. My apologies.
Scott H. Payne
September 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
No apologies necessary for pushing me on the views I write about on here.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Cool.
Dave
September 25th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Michael Moore distorting facts? Surely you jest. ;)
John Howard Griffin
September 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The chart link is useful. It shows a very sharp drop in violent crime around the end of 1993.
Now what happened around the end of 1993 that might have caused this?
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
If you’ve read Freakenomics the author of that odd piece of economic wisdom says none of the handgun laws or tough-on-crime pieces of legislation did a damn thing to lower crime rates. He attributes it entirely to Roe v Wade a generation earlier. And I think he’s right, despite my own views on abortion.
Oh and to just flesh out the title of this post a bit, and I swear that I don’t have a gun…no I don’t have a gun…”
I think that there is an important conversation to be had about violence in America, but I think it should largely bypass any talk of gun ownership. That’s simply going to serve as a distraction. So we should stick to the sociological , historic and economic roots of violence in this country – not the tools we use to inflict said violence.
I don’t know what the appropriate means of addressing that is either, but if we don’t talk about it as irresponsible and then start having the discussions about how to address it, we’re not likely to ever find those means. And to their credit, there were folks like Freddie who called what he saw as a spade, a spade. I guess to some degree I’m trying to strengthen that chorus of critical examination. It seemed sort of… muted or under represented, though, you too had a good post in that regard.
Indeed, indeed. The man was an idiot, to be sure. And I focused here too quickly on the right to bear arms which was not what you were focusing on. My personal belief is that political events should be organized to limit the presence of firearms simply because they can become so heated. Event organizers should set up checks to prevent people from bringing guns. It’s too risky. (My post was focused more on the notion that the President might be in danger, if I recall, since that seems like far too great a risk to take.) But the larger discussion seems to be one that focuses on violence, not so much responsible gun ownership.
The 2nd Amendment, when read by itself, seems a bit much. “They can’t *POSSIBLY* mean *THAT*”, is one thought that rushes to mind.
I’d ask, instead, that it be read as part of an organic whole. Read the First. Read the Second. Read the Third. All the way through the Tenth. What is the underlying philosophy?
You, yes you, have the Right to Free Speech. You, yes you, have the Right to a Free Press. You, yes you, have the Right to security in your belongings. You, yes you, have Rights.
Get to the Ninth, the underlying philosophy starts to show up explicitly. “Hey, the fact that we named stuff here should not, in any way, be interpreted that this is an exhaustive list of the Rights that you, yes you, have.”
Amazing. Holy cow, you, yes you, have Rights. Moreover, these rights are not given by this government and document but this document limits the government from infringing on your Rights.
What an amazing philosophy. You, the government, do not have the right to keep me, the citizen, without a warrant. You don’t have a right to take my stuff. You don’t have the right to silence me. You have the Right to respond to my arguments… but you, the government, can’t censor my documents.
Now, of course, one hears eyes rolling. “Surely it doesn’t mean *THAT*. There have to be limits. Indeed, the Founding Fathers owned slaves. We need to make sure that people are protected from the worst elements of society. Now that we’ve established that it doesn’t mean *THAT*, we are now haggling over what Rights you really need…”
And I can’t help but notice that the people most likely to be making those arguments identify with those taking (er, limiting! Clarifying!) the Rights of others… rather than those whose Rights are being taken (er, limited! Clarified!).
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
But I do think there are times and places where maybe people should be asked to stow their guns in the truck.
John Howard Griffin
September 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
But a conservo-glibertarian will tell you that they “have Rights and fuck everyone else!”
To most Americans (and definitely to the conservo-glibertarians), their rights take precedence over anyone else’s rights. Their rights to bear arms take precedence over anyone else’s right to life.
You can “ask” all you want. It won’t make any difference.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I’m pretty sure if a “conservo-glibertarian” infringes upon your right to life they will be locked up.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
OR GET A RADIO SHOW!!!!!!
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
With a cooler head I realize that this could be construed as approval or endorsement of violence. Allow me to say that I deplore violence and do not, in any way, wish to see it exercised.
That said, they do need to give more radio shows to conservo-glibertarians. Too many establishment types out there.
John Howard Griffin
September 24th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
But, by then it’s too late to do anything about your rights. So, their right to a gun has taken precedence over your right to life.
E.D. Kain
September 24th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
And if they kill me with their fists the same is true. Let us all be relieved of our fists!
John Howard Griffin
September 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
The “gun” is just a method of control. Physical violence involving the hands is even more of a method of control.
Someone feeling that their rights take precedence over your rights is exercising a method of control over you. This is about control, whether a gun is used or not. There are many methods of control.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
This same argument can be used for why people want guns taken away from others. They want them-and-theirs to be armed but they don’t want you-and-yours to be armed.
For the record, I want you and yours to be armed.
I question the motives of those who look at you and say that you shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.
It’s confusing to me that you agree with them.
greginak
September 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Aren’t you falling into the trap of ascribing the worst motives to people who disagree with you? You have said you are against this. This is a constant accusation in the gun control debate, that is, if you are some sort of law/regulation that you a “gun grabber” who wants to control others or doesn’t trust THE PEOPLE. It is part of difficulty of talking sensibly about guns that any mention of gun control quickly brings out accusations of dictatorship or general evilness.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I suppose that the “best” motive might be something to the effect of “if we make sure that nobody can own guns, no one will have them to shoot each other with! I am willing to not have a gun if it means that you can’t have one either!”
But even that seems like it’s not great.
Perhaps you could put into words an argument for why you think that you shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. Break it down for me.
Make me understand.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
If you don’t feel you can trust the authorities, perhaps you could buy a gun? For defense, I mean. You can get a Mossberg from Wal-Mart for around $200.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
On other people’s property, absolutely.
On “public” is where it gets sticky, to my mind. Is there a tragedy of the commons going on? Historically, has there been a problem with, say, law enforcement disarming portions of the population?
It’s not that I think that “it’s great if people can take a gun to Acacia Park!”
It’s that I think that if the cops start frisking people for guns in Acacia Park, the people they tend to frisk will all fit a particular profile. A recognizable one.
America is violent. It’s composed of the offspring of the flotsam of the world. The law abiding ones, early on, went to Canada as loyalists. It’s this nature of the population, vs. the Swiss who are required to have guns, that adds to the threat and the safety of the institution. I see the second amendment as a check against the Federal powers as outlined by Madison. Arguing for the right to carry a handgun hardly addresses the ability to counter the federal army. If you want to argue the second amendment on the founders/constitutional level, you’re going to have to allow much, much more than assault rifles.
As a side notes, gun ownership in Canada isn’t meager; there have been a rash of gun crimes across the lower mainland in B.C.; in the U.S. there is also a right to free association which would include being unarmed.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
in the U.S. there is also a right to free association which would include being unarmed.
Could you unpack this for me?
I can choose to associate with non-violent gun haters. We can even have our own gaited communities.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Ah, of course. Indeed.
@Jay, (from above, because the intertoob overlords won’t let me respond in line with your last post) I suppose the clearest answer is I am not against gun ownership. In fact I don’t think the majority of people who would identify themselves as for gun control want all guns removed. I am sure some want that but I’ve actually never met them. I think the NRA and pro-gun groups like to push the line that gun control=no guns, which is a ridiculous strawman. If somebody wants to take everybody’s guns away I am with you. This is about what laws there should be, not should guns be illegal.
Guns should be legal but I think there should be waiting periods. I don’t think .50 cal sniper rifles should be legal for the same reason RPG’s, Claymore’s and mortars aren’t. But if you want to own 79 various hunting rifles, fine with me. They used to make until the EVIL CLENIS ( I believe) made them illegal guns with a handle that was designed to not hold fingerprints, I don’t see why that should be legal. I think people should be responsible for their guns, so if a kid gets your gun and commits a crime or kills himself, you should pay a penalty if you hadn’t taken a reasonable precaution. I think that after 9/11 it should have been fine to search computer records regarding gun ownership, with a warrant, for suspects. But Ashcraft wouldn’t allow.
So the “their going to take away all our guns” is a falsehood , a way of wiping up people and keeping them enflamed, that is not even remotely a possibility.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Well, now we’re into “so then what?” questions.
Waiting periods. Vera gets a phone call from her ex. Snake left a phone message that said “Vera, I’m out, and I’m coming to kill you!”
Should Vera have to wait five days before being allowed to purchase a Mossberg?
Let’s say that Vera came to my house and asked me to sell her my Mossberg. What should I do in that situation?
Castle Rock v. Gonzales tells me that my obligation is to buy Vera the gun and that I cannot, in any way, shape, or form, rely on the Government to provide protection. Warren v. District of Columbia says the same.
It’s not that I think that it’s great that anybody who wants to buy a gun, wooo!!! guns!!!, should be able to buy one.
It’s that I wonder where you get the right to say “nope, you can’t buy one” to someone like Vera. Or, more precisely, “wait a week”.
greginak
September 24th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
it’s easy to come up with hypotheticals. so easy that we could all make up hypotheticals to prove any point. I got one. How about we have no background checks. Prospective buyers just have to answer a few questions. Are you a criminal? Are you mentally ill? if they answer no to all, they get to back up the truck and buy all the guns they want. oops sorry that wasn’t a hypothetical, that used to be the only requirment to buy a gun in Florida i believe.
but anyway your argument isn’t against gun control, it’s that no law is perfect and can never deal with every situation. Yes i agree. There is no reason the government needs to prohibit me from buying hand grenades since even if i had them i wouldn’t( well probably wouldn’t) use them. Nothing is perfect, that doesn’t mean we should never do anything.
oh and directly to your hypothetical, i don’t see why we can’t have a system of instant or withen an hour background checks. So Vera can go to Walmart , get her gun and the kids a happy meal while she waits.
Jaybird
September 24th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Should Snake be allowed to call up his buddy Skull and buy a hot handgun?
I think that we both agree that “no” is the answer, right?
So what powers are you prepared to give the government to ensure that Skull not sell a handgun to Snake?
At the end of the day: will you have prevented Skull from selling Snake a gun?
greginak
September 24th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
right no law is perfect. i humbly concede.
So if snake is a twice convicted felon who just had a restraining order put on him by his ex after he threatened to go “buy the biggest gun i can find and blow 39 holes” in you, should he be allowed to go Jay’s House of Waffles and Guns and drop down his Visa?
Cascadian
September 24th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Vera should live in a town where the martial runs everyone through a metal detector and confiscates all weapons until the owners leave town. Maybe get a Wyatt Earp stand in.
Jaybird
September 25th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Cascadian, look up Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
Seriously.
Cascadian
September 25th, 2009 at 8:28 am
A truly horrific case. Unfortunately, I agree with Scalia (doesn’t happen all that often) that police enforcement doesn’t qualify as a property interest under due process. The police were grossly incompetent, but as long as we insist on giving immunity to public officials this is what’s going to happen.
Jaybird
September 25th, 2009 at 8:50 am
This is why I don’t see the whole “Maybe get a Wyatt Earp stand in” as a real option.
The Supreme Court itself said that the cops have no particular duty to enforce a restraining order. This isn’t some podunk judge saying this in the backwoods of (state) defending his golf buddy. This is The Supreme Court.
I read that case and see “well, you are responsible for your own self”.
Cascadian
September 25th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Mentioning Earp was a reference to his beating cowboys who refused to disarm in town, a further tip toward having gun free zones. The Supremes were arguing law. I believe they argued correctly. I don’t think that the conclusion means we can’t have places where the police are held criminally responsible if they are negligent. It’s just that Colorado ain’t one of those places. No doubt why Gonzales was forced to do back flips to try and find a property interest under due process… a very bizarre way to argue her point.
Jaybird
September 25th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Here is my (call me crazy!) reading of the case:
The police *WEREN’T* negligent. It’s not their job. It’s not their responsibility.
If the police explicitly do not have the responsibility to X, how can not doing X be called negligence?
Cascadian
September 25th, 2009 at 9:14 am
“The creation of a personal entitlement to something as vague and novel as enforcement of restraining orders cannot “simply g[o] without saying.” Post, at 17, n. 16 (Stevens, J., dissenting). We conclude that Colorado has not created such an entitlement.”
Jaybird
September 25th, 2009 at 9:15 am
7-2.
Jaybird
September 25th, 2009 at 5:48 am
When it comes to felons owning guns, I take a perspective that you will probably find crazy:
“If you don’t think he’s ready to be a citizen just like any other, don’t let him out a prison.”
greginak
September 25th, 2009 at 9:15 am
no not crazy. prisoners are citizens already. when a prisoners sentence is done, whether we like it or not, he/she gets out.
Jaybird
September 25th, 2009 at 9:56 am
just like any other
Dave
September 25th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Uh…
The DC gun ban that went before the Supreme Court was a “take your guns away” ban since it was a handgun ban so I doubt it’s the ridiculous strawman you suggest.
Good for the Supreme Court to get that one right. I will say I found it deliciously ironic for the dissent by the liberal wing of the Court to invoke the orignal intent of the Framers. Rumor has it Robert Bork cracked a smile on that one.
greginak
September 25th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Bork was to busy with his personal injury lawsuit.
Cascadian
September 25th, 2009 at 8:32 am
I’ll go out on the far edge and argue for claymore’s, tanks, whatever you have. I’d also argue that people have the right to create places where no guns are allowed.
I think it’s a HUGE leap to say that firearms at protests are symptomatic of an American culture of violence. It’s simply just a few people who are extraordinarily misguided.
As for the practicality of it, I think it’s just as practical of burning a effigy of a President, which happens at protests regularly and seems to be an equally implied threat of violence.
For the record.
Mark objected to that particular comment because he thought I was focusing on an afterthought (which afterthought, to be clear, was not a general lamentation of violence in society or in schools, but a suggestion that the fact of this particular violence should be seized on as an argument for school choice — public as well as private, as Mark later pointed out) as general to the main point of the post — which was a rejection of the racial interpretation of the incident offered by Libaugh et al. I stuck to my guns on reacting to the voucher pivot, because, after all, there it was in the post. But I want to acknowledge Mark’s original main point now, since this has been re-raised and taken in yet a different direction, which is great as far s I am concerned.
It’s great, but in fact I actually have a different view. Watching the video again, it is certainly a horrifying incident. The assailant plainly should be expelled and perhaps face juvenile criminal penalties. But having some experience with urban school districts, it’s just simply the case that this is not completely outside the scope of the type of incident that occurs. This is what school violence looks like. I don’t accept it, but I do expect it. Maybe this attitude simply illustrates Scott’s point about our culture. Certainly it makes it hard to counter Mark’s point that families who believe they can avoid this type of problem by choosing a school other than the one they might by standard procedure be assigned in their public system should have that right. But kids get in fights; bullies exist, and they use their fists. That’s what we see in that video. There needs to be an all-out effort in every single school, public and private, to combat violence and bullying. But if this problem is the result of a cultural phenomenon in some way specific to America, then it is transmitted in some very fundamental way that is beyond the capacity of policy to reach, in my view. These behaviors start early and remain a challenge for educators and school officials to deal with in many case throughout a child’s school career, and beyond into adulthood. I don’t know what is at its root, though I suspect it is similar to what is at the root of violence in troubled communities the world over — a sense of helplessness. I am quite skeptical of the idea that the gun culture and the undercurrent of suggested violence in our politics are closely related to what is seen on that tape.
The mythology of the frontiersman, the yeoman farmer/rancher, the self-sufficient land owner capable and willing to protect himself, his family, and his property — these are the background ideas that inform modern American armed political rhetoric of “Freedom” — the fear that such Freedom and the right to all that is associated with it are in danger of being taken away. (In fairness, some of those things might very well be.) This is an indigenous and completely legitimate (so long as it acts legitimately) part of our political culture, regardless of how other parts view it. Some of these myths are fundamental to our country — and some of the myths are in fact far more than myths — some of them are enshrined rights in our law.
But to the extent that these last images are what creates Scott’s impression that “America comes across as an especially violent nation on the whole,” — which I think the majority of the post suggests, dealing with Second Amendment issues, guns in political discourse, etc. — I think it is important to understand that whole area of American politics and culture in a context that is largely remote from what is seen in the school bus incident. Perhaps I am entirely mistaken in thinking they should be seen in different contexts. But if there’s one essential truth about American culture that can’t be denied, it would have to be that its primary feature is that it is more essentially its parts than it is its whole — the parts never fit together comfortably and often seem on the verge of disjuncture. It’s rarely a mistake in America to understand an event more in terms of its local cultural context than in terms of a national cultural analysis. That of course doesn’t make the impression that America is “an especially violent nation on the whole” an inaccurate one. But it does mean that it’s likely that the many varied incidents that together add up to the meta-fact that we are a violent nation, or at least that people have that impression, have a cause that can’t be traced to a unifying feature of our national character save perhaps for our plurality and disjointedness itself — or even more likely that they have no single cause at all.
Michael Drew
September 25th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Let me try that first paragraph again. I just want to acknowledge Mark’s original point, because the comment quoted in this post is one he felt didn’t address the main point he wanted to make in the post where I wrote that. Namely, he wanted to reject the causal explanation offered by Rush Limbaugh (and others?) that what is seen on the tape is enabled by the broader culture that, by electing a supposedly “racist” black president, condones or promotes black-on-white violence.
My reaction in the comments was not at all to diminish that point. It was, rather, a reaction to the suggestion that this incident should be seen as salient in the school choice discussion. In that sense, it was not initially meant to address the broader question of violence in society.
Scott, there’s a lot to unpack here and, as usual, a lot of interesting thoughts to mull over.
First, on the Mark-Michael Drew school violence thread. Michael’s point seems to presume that private school is synonymous with wealthy day and boarding schools, which overlooks the large number of religious schools, many of which end up taking some kids precisely because they have behavioural issues. I think it’d be fascinating to see a more complete picture of violence/violent behaviour in private schools, which I suspect would be illuminating.
On to the practicality of bringing a firearm to a political protest, I have to say I don’t find Freddie’s question, nor Kuznicki’s partial rebuttal to be particularly deep.
Practicality just seems like a really arbitrary metric to use to evaluate acts in relation to political protests or exercising constitutional rights I mean there’s nothing particularly practical about my ability to peaceably assemble nor to freely exercise my religion. What does that accomplish for anyone besides myself, well relatively little, if anything at all.
However, it may accomplish a lot for myself and if there is practical value in the internal value it gives a person to individually and, in particular, to politically express themselves, then you could easily extend that framework to the exercising of 2nd amendment rights.
Tabling, of course, any discussion on why one needs to legitimate the exercising of their rights in the first place.
I think, if we were to turn this around and discuss flag burning, asking if it’s practical would seem superficial and besides the point. Continuing with the analogy, it makes the search for practicality (and critiquing the ways in which it may undermine practical accomplishments) seem contextually odd. After all, how many policy makers/war supporters see a flag burning in protest and think, “well I was sure I was right but now that you’ve burned this flag in front of me, I can clearly see the errors of my ways.” About as many people who see guns at a town hall meeting and think, “wow these people must have a point, they have guns.”
I’d say the idea that we can regularly not respond to the complaints of the people with guns as a testament to the strength of rule of law in America. If people were bringing guns to political rallies in Egypt or Russia, I think you’d end up with very different reactions.
However strong the rule of law is here, in America, by no means does that mean that – even as political expression – interjecting guns into political discussions isn’t anathema to the rule of law. I really want to give that point of yours more thought because it’s a really attractive idea, that there’s something about political expression with the underlying threat of harm that is counter to Western ideas of rule of law.
What I come back to is the idea that some political expression is a political act that involves expression. Some other political expression is primarily an expressive act that takes on the form of political issues (which I think this fits and dovetails neatly into Freddie’s earlier point about the social anxiety of mostly southern, probably racist, white conservatives).
Kyle
September 25th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Looking at the length of this, I really should have just posted this and linked.
North
September 25th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I feel your pain. Us verbose people need to stick together.
Michael Drew
September 25th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I simply question whether school choice will lead to fewer incidents of violence, or even provide the security that parents who wish to avoid school violence hope it might. That goes for whatever the schools being chosen are — including, as Mark pointed out in the thread where he initiated the discussion, the choice of other public schools. And, to be sure, it’s just generic skepticism — I don’t have any hard argument that it isn’t a plausible way to address the problem either. I’m not sure what gives you the impression that only the types of private institution you mention are what is at issue or what I have in mind.
This is a really excellent and thoughtful post Scott. I read the other day that its a Smart Thing to Own a Gun but as you say its not so smart when you have witness all the recklessness that easy access to guns engenders. It seems to me that an awful lot of Americans walk around with a paper bag over their heads with regard to this recklessness issue. Secondly, it never occurs to many Americans that the Constitution was not drawn up in a politically neutral way. When you read up on the history of how it was actually drawn up by predominantly wealthy white males (many slave owning and fearful of rebellion) who were essentially libertarian conservatives you realize there is an awful lot of discrimination in there against a great many people.
libertarian conservatives
Bit of an oxymoron, no?