He Pokes the Kitty

There is nothing simple about gun violence.

I've read a lot of posts from my Facebook friends about guns in the last few days, mostly calling for stricter controls on guns, and I know there are a lot of people who feel that any controls are bad controls, so I thought I'd try to organize my thoughts on where I stand, which is in the middle.

First, as most people know, I do own and enjoy guns.  I use them safely and respect them greatly, as the vast majority of gun owners do.  I also believe that gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right, but I do not believe that regulation is merely by its existence an infringement of that right. 

So clearly I am not at either end of the ideological spectrum on this issue, but it seems that people who are most vocal about it are.  Many people think of the atrocities that have been committed with firearms and cannot think of any valid reason to own a gun.  If only we could get rid of all the guns, we would all be safe.  Then there is the other side, who think that any restriction is a violation of rights, and if only we all had pistols in our belts no one would have the guts to start shooting innocent people.

The problem with both of these views is that they try to boil the issue down until there is no nuance, no shade of gray, both edges of the sword are blunted.  But there will always be guns, even if we decided to alter our constitution to make their ownership illegal.  And the concept of everyone having the training and wherewithal to face down a gunman on a rampage is hopelessly idealistic at best.  (Besides, the idea that a mentally-ill attacker who has planned out his spree for weeks being intimidated by other people's pistols is clearly just not viable.  Lately the murderers have taken to wearing body armor and they want to die anyway.)

The point that both sides seem unable or unwilling to discuss is the fact that someone who meticulously plans out methods for killing large numbers of strangers is not sane.  Would legislation placing more restrictions on firearms acquisition stop these people from killing?  Unless we were able to magically cause all guns to disappear, most likely not.  Would it keep them from killing as many people?  Possibly. although it is worth noting that these rampages only account for one-tenth of one percent of all murders in the US.  (Thanks for that excellent article, Bertrand!)

So what can we do?  There has to be some way to curb gun violence; other countries with similar firearms laws do not see the same level of violence we have here.  I have some ideas, but you may not like them.  Not one is simple or clear-cut, easy to grasp onto when you're feeling frightened and outraged.  But I think if we could all sit down and think about them, perhaps we might be able to make progress toward a solution.

First:  Single-payer healthcare.  What?  Yes.  If every person in this country has guaranteed access to health care, more mentally-ill people with violent potential will be diagnosed and treated before they ever reach the conclusion that going out in a blaze of glory(?) is the only thing left to do.  Also, if more people suffering from mental illness are diagnosed and documented, it makes part two much easier.

Second:  More thorough screenings of prospective gun buyers.  Right now the form does ask if the applicant has any history of mental illness, but given how quickly background checks take (less than five minutes, by phone), I feel almost certain that only someone who has been examined by the state would have a record in that database.

Third:  Although it may not have much effect on rampages, I think there are some regulations on firearms that need to be tightened and improved.  (Yes, I did say that.)  First-time gun purchasers should be required to participate in a safety course, and gun owners should also have to renew those safety classes every few years.  Gun-owning parents should be required to have safety locks or safes, because while your child may be taught to respect and fear firearms, his or her friends may not be.  Additionally, the exemption to waive background checks on gun show or private purchases needs to be eliminated. 

Fourth (and last, I swear):  We need to change the way we view violence.  I mean that in both the figurative and the literal sense.  Parents need to talk to their children about violence, not just try to shield them from it.  And we need to change the way violence is depicted in movies and video games.  (Yes, I really did say that.)  How are "action" movies toned-down for younger audiences?  By removing all the blood and suffering that being shot with a bullet entails, because we don't want to traumatize the children.  People get shot, they fall down and disappear.  Is that really what we want children to think about guns? 

 

I don't claim to have the answers.  But I like to think I've tried to see the issue from both sides, as reasonably and objectively as I can.  We all want to feel safe where we live, where we learn, where we work, and while there is never a guarantee of safety, I do believe that if we could begin to look at this problem from a broader perspective, things could change.  We can decrease gun violence, in general, if we can let go of our fears and preconceptions and have that conversation.  The one that ends in the complicated but pragmatic middle.

 

Tea Party Transslation Guide, Pt. 2

Just a quick one:

-- Dumbocrat:  Not a Republican

-- Libtard (or libturd): Not a Republican

-- Liberazi: Not a Republican

-- Socialist, Fascist, Comminist, Nazi: Not a Republican

-- Idiot, moron, retard: Not a Republican

-- Pseudo-intellectual, Elitist: Anyone who values knowledge not gained from FoxNews.  Also -- not a Republican

New! The Tea Party Translation Guide!

Like many sane people, you may have difficulty communicating with, or even understanding, the members of the Church of Tea.  Sometimes it seems like they're simply insane and have lost all contact with reality, but it's not so!  They've simply come up with their own meanings for words and phrases you already know, and once you read my handy guide you'll be able to chat with Tea Partiers like you are one yourself!  Check it out:

-- Freedom:  To most people, the word "freedom" means something like, "I may do as I please as long I do not infringe on the freedom of another."  To the TPers, however, it means something more like, "I may do as I please, and so can you, as long as what pleases you also pleases me."

-- No taxation without representation (and Don't Tread on Me):  To you and me, these phrases indicate that we refuse to pay taxes to a government unless we as a country have elected it.  To the average Partier, it means, "I didn't vote for him, therefore he doesn't represent me."

-- Fiscal responsibility:  Most people thinking of reducing wanton spending on unnecessary initiatives or projects, but in this case it means spending on programs for U.S. citizens, like schools, Medicare -- wait, maybe not that one -- and environmental impact studies.  Reducing funding for poorly planned, poorly executed wars is not part of "fiscal responsibility."

-- The Constitution:  To the average American, the Constitution is a living document that uses specific language where necessary and broad language when appropriate.  The Supreme Court exists to make sure the broader parts are interpreted in a way that fits our times while adhering to the spirit of the document.  (All nuance-y, and stuff.)  For Sarah & Friends, the Constitution is carved in stone, and every word has one, and only one, literal meaning -- much like Christian Fundamentalists view the Bible.  (Also like Fundamentalists, the Tea Partiers seem to forget the parts of the document they don't like.)

-- Patriotism:  The common idea of patriotism is that it means loving one's country and being willing to die to protect it.  In this case, it means never, ever saying anything negative about the country (unless the president is a Democrat), and if you do you're a damn dirty traitor.

-- The Founding Fathers:  Most of us who paid attention in history class know that guys like Jefferson and Franklin were extremely bright, worldly, educated men who had human flaws.  But that's wrong.  The Founding Fathers (always capitalized) were good, God-fearing Christians who were the kind of guy you'd want to have an ale with, not some kind of elitists.

-- Big Government (also always capitalized):  Commonly, Big Government refers to one edging towards totalitarianism, where personal liberties are taken away "for the common good," but in this case pretty much anything the Federal government does is Big Government.  EPA?  Big Government.  FDA?  Yep.  USDA?  You betcha.  Public schools?  You know it.  Basically, "If the government is using tax money for something I disagree with, regardless of my lack of knowledge regarding said thing, it's Big Government."

So, there you go!  Now you understand the basics of Tea Partese, go out and communicatize!

Holy shit, it's another entry!

Am I the only who's sick to death of these oh-so-wordly and cynical "libertarians?"  I'm not talking about politicians, I'm talking about someone you actually know.  In my experience it's always a guy, he always has nothing but negative things to say about Obama and the "socialeftists" (just learned that one today), and claims to know what the real world is all about.  In his real world, the government stops taking communist (or fascist, or socialist, depending on the day) liberties with our sacred Constitution, like trying to provide health care for everyone.  He won't cop to social Darwinism, because he'll always talk about how generous he is to charities.  He'll never answer a direct question, but will cherry-pick any comment for a way to snidely prove you just don't know. You don't know how it is.  But he does.

He knows GWB and Palin are twits, but he'll rarely admit it.  He has no suggestions for better leadership.  He'd rather hint at fomenting revolution, because -- by God -- that's the only thing that will save this great country.  They like to pretend that anything that the government does which is not srictly and perfectly outlined in the Constitution is an abuse of power and is a move toward FCS (Fascisto-Communo-Socialism) -- the Illuminati in all its glory, in other words.  (As if the Freemasons would ever allow a Democrat in their ranks!)

I kind of hate this guy.  He's worse than the know-nothings on the street because he believes himself to be extremely well-informed and so much more of a critical thinker than anyone who would actually vote in this sham system we have (even though he voted for Bush twice).  Actually I want to punch this guy.  All of the "this guys."  I know it's not civil, it's not a way to win an argument, but let's face it -- you can't win an argument with these arrogant pricks, because they don't even know how to argue.  All they know is how to heap scorn.  So I'd like to heap knuckles on them.  Is that so wrong?

Quick Thought

I have a suggestion for a new FoxNews motto:  "We make it up, you eat it up."

Doze ah innozent peopole down day-uh!

Arnold, in his waning gubernatorial days, has placed a ban which disallows welfare recipients from using state-issued money for things like bingo, psychics, and tattoo parlors.  I like Ahnold, and as far as Republicans go I think he might be one of the most thoughtful and moderate, but I'm not sure I agree with this move.  It almost seems like a far-Left move, telling people what they are allowed to spend their money on.  I mean, yes, it's stupid to spend money you supposedly need on something like a tattoo, but is it right to put strings on charity?

What do you think, my handful of readers?

MyopiAmerica

I haven't posted in forever, but I only have a few quick rants about our country's short-sightedness:

-- The GOP is running the mid-term campaigns under the slogan, "It's the Demmicrats' fault!"  Sure, no one remembers 2000-2008.  It was, after all, so long ago.

-- I heard a Tea Party rap song this morning in which the chorus was, "No taxation without representation!"  Hey, there, brilliant guy -- the only way you're being taxed without representation is if you don't vote.  (The same moron says later how it's all a lie, just like evolutionary theory.)

-- Every day I hear about how there are fewer new houses being built, which is an economic indicator and that's bad.  I know builders need to work, but we already have tons of existing houses on the market, what kind of wisdom says we should be building more?  Our economy is so shallow and so fragile that there's no plan B for anything.  How about doing some of those repair contracts no one had time to do during the housing boom?

-- All these Tea Partiers who call themselves Constitutionalists and wave "Don't Tread on Me" flags while shouting about "taking back America" don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about.  Sure, let's return to a time when black people weren't people, women were property, corporations were even more evilly voracious than they are now, and all the infrastructure we rely on did not exist.  Great plan, folks.  (Also, the Constitution's rights and guarantees explicitly apply to everyone, not just you.)

-- And here's one for the Democrats:  Stop hoping people will notice your successes.  The GOP will lie and misdirect and claim credit, and people will believe every word they say, while you sit back and have faith in Americans' ability to reason.  Stop that.  Get out your trumpet and blow, or we're going right back to the bad old days.

Hmm.  I'm done.  For now.

 

Random thoughts

-- I've been trying to imagine the "ideal" neocon/Tea Party world, and it seems very bleak to me:  No taxes and no government regulation or oversight sounds so good on the surface -- like many "ideal" forms of government -- but a world where we don't know anything about the products we buy, corporations control all infrastructure, and Christianity is the official religion of the U.S....   I just don't understand how anyone can look at this scenario critically and actually find it appealing.

-- Jerrymandering -- err, redistricting -- is a crock of shit no matter which side is doing it.  Why the hell do we leave this incredibly important process up to the people who most want to pervert it?

-- I think Android needs to go back to the marketing drawing board.  This demographic seems very small, and do ruminants even use cellphones?

(Thanks to CRo for bringing this silliness to my attention.)

Brains are overrated

Listening to a bit on NPR this morning about a fellow who wrote a book about how a starfish is superior to a spider, and how the Tea Party is like a starfish.  His argument -- and I'm sure it's one the Tea Party loves -- is that since a starfish has no centralized brain or, really, central anything, it's much stronger and more adaptable.  It can have limbs cut off and regenerate, and some starfish can grow entirely new creatures from a severed limb.  In contrast, if you cut off a spider's limb, it's crippled, and if you cut off its head, it's dead.

Analogies are neat, aren't they?  I wonder if the racist movement -- err, small government movement -- has thought about the fact that they're proudly comparing themselves to an organism so simple it doesn't even have muscles.  And when asked for other examples of organizations similar to starfish, the author mentioned the mighty and noble Apache, who had no centralized leadership.  For some reason, I can't imagine why, he never mentioned terrorist cells.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the Tea Party's similarity to the Taliban and other terror organizations. 

-- Both groups have a loose and decentralized structure, which enables deniability for all the other "cells" if one commits an unpopular act (farewell, Tea Party Express). 

-- Both groups have huge distrust and disdain for the governments of their own countries, to the extent that "revolution" is a word thrown around. 

-- Both groups are largely homogeneous racially, and frequently spout hatred toward other ethnic or religious groups (although the TP'ers keep painting a veneer of inclusiveness over their group). 

-- Both groups are heavily armed, angry, and feel they have been cheated out of something they deserve.

Hmm.  I wonder if the Tea Party will put out a fatwa on me for writing this.

Just a quick trip to the land of batshit

Yep, it's not just our uneducated fringe that's frothing-at-the-mouth crazy with conspiracy theories, not just Michelle Bachmann, but plenty of other elected officials as well.  Climate of fear indeed.