Guns as Sacred Objects

A gun buyback in Tucson, held on the 2nd anniversary of the Tucson mass shooting, has drawn objections from an NRA lobbyist. Why? Because the 206 guns bought by the Tucson police department are going to be destroyed.

Apparently there’s a law in Arizona that says if a firearm is abandoned and recovered by police, the police are required to re-sell the firearm to a licensed gun dealer. In Arizona, apparently, destroying a firearm is some kind of sacrilege.

I say someone should publish photographs of an assault rifle submerged in urine, and watch the Right freak out.

They’re freaking out already because Veep Joe Biden said something about executive orders and guns, and now visions of Hitler and Stalin are dancing in their paranoid little heads. There’s not a whole lot the executive can do without Congress — the Constitution worshipers don’t seem to read the thing much — but what little he could do could be a help. He could for example, beef up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and modernize the agency’s ability to track firearm sales.

He could not, however, unilaterally close the gun show loophole or reverse the law that prevents the Centers for Disease Control the National Institutes of Health from merely researching gun violence. Apparently, such research is sacrilege.

There’s a lot of talk about somehow tracking gun sales to people with mental health issues. Yep, nothing like a Crazy People Registry to further stigmatize psychiatric illness and stop people from seeking help. Also, how far would such tracking go? Would it be limited to people diagnosed with psychosis or extend to things like mood disorders or hyperactivity? You could be talking about more than half of all Americans, depending on criteria.

Truly, often the only difference between someone diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and someone considered “sane” is that only the former sought help and is getting treatment. For example, if we extend the tracking to people with personality disorders or paranoid delusions, the entire staff of the National Rifle Association would be included. The glitch would be that such people rarely are officially diagnosed until they face some kind of criminal charge and the court can order a psychiatric evaluation.

Seriously, I suspect that if you checked, most of the mass shooters going back many years had no prior diagnosis of mental illness.

I’d be the first one to say that someone diagnosed with psychosis shouldn’t be able to purchase firearms. But I also think that someone who already has an arsenal of assault weapons in his basement ought to be cut off from buying more also. And the severely psychotic often aren’t mentally organized enough to make a ham sandwich or find matching shoes, so correctly filling out a background check form would be quite a hurdle for them. Another argument for closing the gun show loophole.

Anyhoo — I highly recommend this opinion column by Eric Gorovitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Rather than join widespread calls from across the political spectrum for tightly regulating access to military-style assault weapons, the NRA called for the further mobilization of arms. …

… We can see clearly where this new rhetoric leads. If we must arm the schools to keep our kids safe, how can we extend the “cordon” to protect them when they go to the movies, unless we post armed guards in every theater? How will we keep the “monsters and predators” from the neighborhood playground, without an armed guard atop every slide? Once we’ve secured the theaters and parks, can we leave our children unprotected as they walk, innocently exposed to lurking evil, from one newly-protected haven to another? If we want to keep our children safe, and the only way to do that is by saturating their environments with firearms, how can we leave any place without the benefit of such protection? The armed schools proposal provides a terrifying glimpse into the NRA’s vision for America. …

… The gun lobby’s reverence for the Second Amendment has constricted its commitment to other constitutional principles. LaPierre lamented, without elaboration, “our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill,” prompting cries of foul from dedicated mental health advocates concerned with both the constitutional and the rhetorical implications of such a position. Gun lobby supporters launched an online petition calling for the deportation of British CNN commentator Piers Morgan, on the ironic ground that his commentary constitutes an “effort to undermine Bill of Rights.” In the last week, the gun lobby has revealed spectacular intolerance of the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment, when guns are at issue.

These developments have shown that in the gun lobby’s America armed guards monitor our movements, the government maintains a database of perceived undesirables, and voices of dissent are eliminated. The gun lobby’s vision for the future has emerged from the shadows and declared itself the new home of American fascism.

Or, they can do what Stalin did and get everyone who disagrees with them added to the Crazy People Registry. The threat of being locked up for “treatment” ought to silence the resistance to the NRA once and for all.

Why We Need Gun Control

I agree with John Cole — this video demonstrates why we need gun control, especially when you realize the interviewee is the sort of person who insists on having unfettered access to all firearms.

I want to comment on one thing, which is that comparing the number of people murdered by firearms every year in Great Britain versus the U.S. is not necessarily useful, given the difference in population. So, FYI, according to Wikipedia, the rate of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people is .25 — note the decimal point — in the UK and 10.2 in the U.S. For homicides with guns, the rate is 3.7 in the U.S. and .04 in the U.K. I doubt blood is running in the streets of Newcastle upon Tyne. Maybe somebody should explain to Alex Jones that “28 Days Later” is fiction.

It’s true that violent crime rates have been dropping for the past several years, but rates of violent crime peaked in the mid-1960s and have been going down ever since. I doubt there is a correlation with guns, one way or another. Some are attributing this decrease in crime to the switch to unleaded gasoline.

Go to Balloon Juice to see the second half of the interview. Then this Alex Jones person issued a follow-up video in which he ranted about being threatened by mafia “cops” who work for Bloomberg. He thinks the mafia cops were going to murder him and then blame crackheads.

Also, perhaps Jones needs to be checked for rabies.

Behold the Stupid

The teevee pundits are guessing what the House Republicans will do about the upcoming debt ceiling fight. But there is no point in speculating; we know, in general, what they will do. They will do the most damnfool stupid thing that could possibly be done, whatever that is.

Alex Pareene writes,

“Leverage” only works against rational people. A large number of House Republicans aren’t just “nihilists,” willing to blow up the economy to get what they want, they’re plain morons who have impossible and horrible goals and no clue whatsoever how to reach them.

Yeah, pretty much. At The Atlantic, Molly Ball interviews recently retired Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, and even he admits there’s way too much stupid among the House Republicans.

I don’t know what their objective is. If it was to deny the speakership to Boehner and hand it to Mrs. Pelosi, I don’t know how their cause would have been furthered. If it’s to force the vote to a second ballot to make some demands, well, who the hell do these people think they are? Twelve out of 233, and they’re making demands? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

I have to say that handing the speakership to Nancy Pelosi as a strategy among the baggers (assuming it was a strategy; they may be too stupid to comprehend the meaning of “consequence”) reminds me of the “progressives” who wanted Mitt Romney to win to punish President Obama and “send a message.” Stupid is not exclusive to the Right. But the Stupid Caucus among House Republicans is taking Stupid to new levels. For example …

You look at the very beginning of the last Congress, H.R. 1, the omnibus, there were hundreds of amendments from the stupid to the sublime. One was offered to defund the president’s teleprompter. Another was to defund the electrical upgrades needed to bring the White House up to code. But Boehner’s deal was, OK, go for it, let people participate. There was an expectation that, given the opportunity to improve the bill, they would then vote for the bill. But beginning with that bill there have been 20 to 50 members who will make adjustments to the bill that guarantee you’re not going to get one Democrat to vote for it, and then they still vote against the bill themselves and deny Boehner the 218 votes he needs to bargain with.

Some of what LaTourette says in the interview is bull, but one gets the impression that even he is disgusted with the degree of Stupid among House Republicans.

Back to Alex Pareene, who describes the failed “coup” against John Boehner:

If, say, Eric Cantor had actually wanted the job, he could’ve organized the coup and succeeded. But Eric Cantor didn’t want the job. The bigger problem, then, was a lack of intelligence. The crazy caucus failed spectacularly at all aspects of the attempted conspiracy, from planning to execution. They waited until the last minute to approach potential allies, failed to count their own votes correctly, and didn’t even all figure out who they were supposed to vote for instead. Their plan was apparently to embarrass Boehner into resigning, in favor of … someone to be decided later. Candidates voted for by plotters included departing Rep. Allen West and former Comptroller David Walker, who are basically the opposites of one another.

For more stupid, see “GOP Rep: ‘It’s About Time’ We Had Another Government Shut Down’.” For a ray of hope, see Josh Marshall, “A Losing Game.”

“Good” Guys With Guns

Big hat tip to Kay at Balloon Juice, for “Good guys and bad guys and real life.” She links to an NPR program that points out the fallacy behind “stand your ground” laws.

Hoekstra recently decided to analyze national crime statistics to see what happens in states that pass stand your ground laws. He found the laws are having a measurable effect on the homicide rate.

“Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn’t pass the laws over the same time period,” he says.

As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, “we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period.”

Hoekstra obtained this result by comparing the homicide rate in states before and after they passed the laws. He also compared states with the laws to states without the laws.

Still, based on the available data, it appears that crafters of these laws sought to give good guys more latitude to defend themselves against bad guys. But what Hoekstra’s data suggest is that in real-life conflicts, both sides think of the other guy as the bad guy. Both believe the law gives them the right to shoot.

In a separate analysis of death certificates before and after stand your ground laws were passed in different states, economists at Georgia State University also found that states that passed the laws ended up with a higher homicide rate.

That study also tracked the increased homicides by race. In contrast to the narrative established by the Trayvon Martin shooting — many people believe black men are more likely to be the victims of stand your ground laws — this analysis found the additional deaths caused by the laws were largely concentrated among white men.

“The imperfect but growing evidence seems to suggest that the consequences of adopting stand your ground laws are pernicious, in that they may lead to a greater number of homicides — thus going against the notion that they are serving some sort of protective function for society,” he says.

The part about the additional deaths being mostly of white men makes sense, since the redneck yahoos who think a trip to Home Depot requires carrying a concealed weapon mostly stay in the company of other redneck yahoos. Hmmm …

See also “More Guns = More Killing” by Elisabeth Rosenthal:

I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.

Despite the ubiquitous presence of “good guys” with guns, countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world.

“A society that is relying on guys with guns to stop violence is a sign of a society where institutions have broken down,” said Rebecca Peters, former director of the International Action Network on Small Arms. “It’s shocking to hear anyone in the United States considering a solution that would make it seem more like Colombia.”

As guns proliferate, legally and illegally, innocent people often seem more terrorized than protected.

The gun nuts say they have to have unfettered freedom to carry all kinds of firearms in order to be able to fight against tyranny. Liam Maddon, an Iraq War vet, wrote,

The Second Amendment stopped giving the insurrectionists among us a chance as soon as military technology advanced beyond the rifle. No modern Shays’ Rebellion is viable, militarily speaking, unless the Second Amendment is read to protect an individual’s right to bear surface-to-air missiles, personally owned Abrams tanks and state-sanctioned depleted uranium artillery. Who in their right mind would want to live in a place that gave access to these things to any person, no matter how law abiding or responsible?

Even if you would prefer that much more dangerous world, it doesn’t exist, thankfully. Because no group of armed citizens is on par with U.S. military power, the “guns guard our freedom” argument is hollow and insane. The “guns guard our freedom” perspective is the bedrock of the anti–gun control movement, and until we speak to it with respect and honesty, we will not sway the disenchanted and angry among us who feel the pain of the mothers in Newtown but fear, rightly or wrongly, the Orwellian implications of disarming. Frankly, arguments to anyone else is preaching to the choir.

The terrible irony is that the real power to be feared doesn’t come from guns; it comes from money. Steve M points out that

The gun lobby is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. The NRA has long been in bed with the pro-plutocrat lobbyists of ALEC. I’m not sure there’s a conscious strategy at work here, but is it really surprising that plutocracy advocates want to hollow out America’s middle class and create a class structure more like those in Latin America (where U.S. corporations have traditionally found cheap, willing workers), while their pro-gun allies want us seeing one another as (literally) mortal enemies, while we lose focus on what the plutocrats are doing to us economically?

Is it unreasonable to see these as two aspects of the Third World-ization of America?

It is not at all unreasonable, I say.

1/3/13

Al-Jazeera is buying Current TV, and Time-Warner announced it is dropping Current TV. Just one more reason I’m happy I don’t subscribe to Time-Warner.

I run into Al-Jazeera reporting a lot when I’m checking out news from Asia. I believe Al-Jazeera does a better job covering the problems with Tibetan Buddhism in China than any western news service I can think of. Certainly there’s no hint in their Asian reporting that they have any kind of jihadist agenda, although try telling that to Pam Geller.

It will be interesting to see what Al-Jazeera does with Current. More news, less opinion?

The Scrooge Party

So the House passed the Senate’s “fiscal cliff” bill, with the support of most House Democrats but less than half of House Republicans. But seemingly in a fit of pique, yesterday the House flushed an appropriations bill for Sandy victims down the toilet.

If we were living in a Dickens novel, the GOP would send Tiny Tim to the workhouses without his crutch.

As to the deal itself, Paul Krugman says it’s not terrible, but …

Well, the CBO estimates cumulative potential GDP over the next decade at $208 trillion.So the difference between what Obama got and what he arguably should have gotten is around 0.1 percent of potential GDP. That’s not crucial, to say the least.

And on the principle of the thing, you could say that Democrats held their ground on the essentials — no cuts in benefits — while Republicans have just voted for a tax increase for the first time in decades.

So why the bad taste in progressives’ mouths? It has less to do with where Obama ended up than with how he got there. He kept drawing lines in the sand, then erasing them and retreating to a new position. And his evident desire to have a deal before hitting the essentially innocuous fiscal cliff bodes very badly for the confrontation looming in a few weeks over the debt ceiling.

If Obama stands his ground in that confrontation, this deal won’t look bad in retrospect. If he doesn’t, yesterday will be seen as the day he began throwing away his presidency and the hopes of everyone who supported him.

See also Michael Lind, “Right-Wing Dreams of Demented Utopias.”

Happy New Year

Well, let’s start with a happy thought — reports are that since the election, Sean Hannity’s ratings have dropped like a rock. See also “The GOP’s Lost Year in the Fox News Bubble” by Eric Boehlert.

As for the deal — progressive/liberal pundits and bloggers are nearly all very angry and think the President could have gotten a better deal. I’m about on the same page as Josh Marshall — the worst part is that we probably will be vulnerable to another destructive fight over the debt ceiling. The rest of it is a big meh.

Ezra Klein has a breakdown of exactly what was agreed to. I’d like to point out that some of the “small stuff” hardly anyone talks about actually are big deals — the “doc fix” is fixed for another year, for example. Otherwise physician Medicare reimbursement rates would have plunged 27 percent today. Milk prices will not shoot up, at least not for nine months. Unemployment insurance is extended. If it took moving the tax hike needle from $250,000 to $450,000/$400,000 to resolve those issues, I’m not too concerned. But if we end up in another debt ceiling hostage situation in a few weeks, then this was a really bad deal.

Of course, there’s always a chance the House won’t approve the bill as is, and then we’d be back to square one.

Shining Asylum on the Hill

Well, it’s FC (Fiscal Cliff) day. Howard Fineman says the rest of the world thinks we’re crazy.

Yeah, pretty much.

My impression from reading some rightie blogs is that they see any concession whatsoever as a fail.Joshua Green writes at Business Week that Republicans are blowing a great deal and that Democrats ought to be furious at the President for what he has offered so far. I suspect the President realizes he’s not going to get anything sensible out of the Republicans, and his strategy isto at least seem responsible and rational, in contrast to the GOP whackjobs.