The Craziness Must Stop

Guns and US - part 5

Something is clearly wrong in this country. Too many people are dying from gunshot wounds.

In this series of brief essays, I am exploring some facets of the issue and pondering possible solutions. I don’t expect to make many friends with this venture.

This is the final part of the series.

I have circled long enough. Now it’s time for me to take a stand. If you’ve read previous installments in this series, you probably realize that I sympathize neither with gun nuts nor anti-gun nuts. A plague on both your houses!

Before I proceed, a query. Why am I, allegedly a faith-based commentator, even talking about this issue? Because it’s a faith issue. Every issue of human behavior at its heart is a faith issue. Maybe especially this one, because it deals with life and death. Maybe especially this one, given the claims by a few (nuts) that God gives them the right to carry a gun and to use it as they like.

Do you know what a brief burst of gunfire from a rapid-fire weapon such an AR-15 does to a human body? Do you know what it does to a child’s body? Some of the victims of school shootings had to be identified by their shoes because there was so little recognizable left of their bodies, beyond DNA.

This craziness has to stop. It cannot be defended on account of the “sacredness” of the Second Amendment.

America’s high rate of gun violence is not natural, and it can be better controlled. It won’t be controlled by one or two “magic bullet” solutions but by several partial solutions, pursued together.

It is often claimed that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. That is a clever non sequitur, an irrelevance. The best way to stop the mayhem is to take guns out of hands of shooters. Carefully. But firmly.

It has to be a national effort. Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, it has been obvious that states can’t be trusted to get much of anything right – and since 1861, it’s been obvious that some states don’t want to get much of anything right. (Look at Alabama today.)

National legislation should include:

Criminal background checks for purchases of guns and ammunition.

Mandatory training for purchasers (and maybe even gun safety training in schools).

Minimum age of purchase set at 21; gun use allowed for those younger only under adult supervision.

“Red flag” laws to keep guns from those likely to murder. (Gimme a break, gun nuts. It’s not that hard to safeguard against abuse of such laws.)

Limits on weapons that may be owned by individuals. I’m thinking mostly of tanks and bazookas and land mines and armed drones and “phantom” guns that can’t be traced. “Assault-style” weapons (let’s not play coy with definitions of what they are) might fall here, too. There have to be limits. Even in the “Wild West,” you had to check your guns with local law enforcement.

We also might consider registration of gun owners. Not guns, gun owners. A database of owners could simplify background checks. (I still have my ID card from Illinois when I owned a couple of black powder guns.)

Gun owner registration is no more a step toward a fascist state than auto and driver’s licensing. It’s a way to organize a sane society and guard against bad actors.

Do such proposals “infringe” upon “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”? Gun nuts say that any restrictions do. This is nonsense. Anti-gun nuts say that even more restrictive measures are necessary. Most likely more nonsense.

We can argue about specifics endlessly – and of course we will. Beyond them:

We need a national dedication to curbing the scourge of gun violence.

We must stop glorifying guns and selling them as a solution to our problems.

We must learn as a people that violence is a poor way to solve problems, and we must repudiate those who promote violence in word or deed.

Given the depth of our national division, as we work toward becoming a saner society, we must earnestly pray – because only God can lead us to real freedom. Amen.

Nuts on Both Sides

Guns and US - part 4

Something is clearly wrong in this country. Too many people are dying from gunshot wounds.

In this series of essays, I am exploring some facets of the issue.

* * * * *

Today we focus on the Second Amendment. It states: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Note that there are essentially two clauses, and the second is dependent upon the first. It might be reworded: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.”

That is not how it has been interpreted (stupidly) by the current Supreme Court. The court pretends that the reason for people bearing arms has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia. Rather, the court pretends that the right to bear arms is inherent in personhood – or, as some gun advocates claim, given by God. (Feel free to find that in your King James.)

Even so, the court admits that the Second Amendment is not absolute. It has limitations. The right to bear arms can be “infringed,” only carefully.

One reason the founders adopted this amendment was fear that a standing army could threaten national security. In most coup attempts, then as today, the army is the instigator or main supporter of the coup. A “well-regulated militia” was offered as an alternative to a standing army.

However, the War of 1812 and other threats to national security convinced national leaders of the need for a standing army that could be relied upon in emergencies. Our armed forces have been involved in almost constant warfare ever since. Still, we won’t be rethinking that choice, for some very good reasons.

Today’s militia is the National Guard. It functions as support and reserve for active duty armed forces. No other so-called “militia” is well regulated, no matter what they claim.

Some militias are, in fact, not regulated at all and are threats to national security. They stand ready to support a coup attempt by any leader they might endorse. Outside of bogus references to “antifa,” you do not hear of any left-wing militias. They are all right-wing outfits. Do you honestly think any of them exist to support your rights?

It may be that reasonable gun control restrictions could stand judicial review, even under the current Supreme Court. (Illinois is now testing that.)

Some gun proponents think that all restrictions are unreasonable. They are nuts. Some gun opponents speak of repealing the Second Amendment or banning all guns or “buying back” all guns. They also are nuts.

National regulation is necessary – first, to avoid a bewildering patchwork quilt of state laws; second, because the current Supreme Court insists that the Second Amendment is sacred writ.

Given the current political climate, passage of any sort of “reasonable” national gun law seems most unlikely. Nuts on both sides will not budge, no matter how many children are slaughtered in our schools.

Slaughter of the innocents is the collateral damage we as a society accept for worshipping the Second Amendment.

As I said earlier, we live in a sick society.

Next and last: Some modest proposals.

Guns Sing America’s Song

Guns and US - part 3

Something is clearly wrong in this country. Too many people are dying from gunshot wounds.

In this series of essays, I am exploring some facets of the issue. I don’t expect to make many friends with this venture.

* * * * *

Some people do not see gun violence as a national crisis. Some people also maintain that global warming is a hoax, vaccinations are just a method of government control, pizza parlors are a cover for an international conspiracy of pederasts, and other howlers too looney to even mention.

Can we just get real about this? Is it possible for us to drop the political BS for a few moments and have a sane discussion about guns? (Or is it, like race, a subject America is just too afraid to talk about?)

It might be said that we cannot talk sanely about guns because we are so entrenched in our political positions that we don’t dare raise our heads above the trenches and even look at the other side, for fear of being, uh, shot.

More evidence, as if we needed it, that something is clearly wrong in this country.

From the left we hear, “It’s all about guns!”

From the right we hear, “It’s all about mental health!”

From the middle we hear whispers, “It’s about a lot of things all together.”

Indeed, several social factors are invoked.

Many people feel alienated right now – from society in general, from their government, from other people. They don’t know how to overcome their alienation. They don’t know what to do to fit in, if fitting in is really what they want to do.

Most shooters are men. A lot of men apparently don’t know what it means to be a man anymore. Changing demands for education and job training have left many men in the lurch. Changing social patterns bewilder them. Some think they can get lessons from the likes of MANLY MAN! Josh Hawley. Others wonder if even Tom Cruise has it together. How about Ken from Barbieland?

Does wearing a holster make you a man? Does deliberately not wearing a holster make you a man? (Remember the days of Shakespearean plays when men wore elaborate codpieces to shout their manhood? Of course, they often carried swords and daggers, too.)

Does driving a loud vehicle (loud exhaust, loud speakers, squealing tires, whatever) make you a man? Or is manhood more than something you drive?

Ours is a time of rising rates of loneliness and alienation, alcohol and drug dependency, mental illness and so on. From the way some people tell it, you’d think that nobody is happy. But why do some unhappy people turn to guns to solve their personal issues?

Some factors:

“Everybody” has a gun.

Guns are easy to get.

TV, movies, videogames and books often glamorize guns and sell the Idea that guns are a quick solution to almost any problem.

Some of us fear people who are “different.”

Some of us fear people who carry guns openly.

A “good guy” carrying a gun might stop a bad guy with a gun. He might just as easily get himself shot by police in the confusion surrounding a gun encounter.

Most gun owners likely would never use a gun to harm someone.

Many gun restrictions likely have little impact on gun abuse. But do they really impose an undue burden on law abiding gun owners, or are they little more than a nuisance that some people love to gripe about?

Polls show overwhelming public support for criminal background checks, raising the minimum age for owning a gun to 21, and adopting “red flag” laws that keep guns from those shown to be a risk at misusing them (most likely to kill an estranged lover).

Gun advocates loudly oppose all three of those measures.

Loose regulations on gun shows invite terrorists and criminals to buy guns. Gun sellers at these shows might as well be gun runners (though they might think twice before selling to someone who’s Black or looks like a Taliban supporter).

Texas now requires an armed guard at schools. This is how we “educate” our children about life in America. Guns rule.

That stupid TV show “American Idol” has it all wrong. It’s not about a singer. Guns are America’s idol. Guns sing America’s song.

Next: What about the Second Amendment?

Fear Sells Guns

Guns and US - part 2

Something is clearly wrong in this country. Too many people are dying from gunshot wounds.

In this series of brief essays, I am exploring some facets of the issue. I do not pretend to know many answers. Nor do I imagine that this exercise will win me many friends.

* * * * *

Some people do not see gun violence as a national crisis. Yet the United States has the highest rate of gun violence of any advanced nation in the world. It should not be this way. For various reasons, hardly anyone in America feels safe anymore. It should not be this way.

Some preliminary questions.

Why do people shoot other people?

Why are shooters so afraid, or so angry, that they think shooting another person is an appropriate response to their fear or anger?

Why is the gun the first, or at least the primary, solution they think of?

To use the phrasing so popular with right-wingers, who “groomed” them to think this way?

Many factors are involved:

Guns are widely available and easily procured.

Most laws that are perceived or touted as restricting gun purchases or gun usage are ineffective, either because they are poorly drafted, or poorly enforced, or both.

“Stand your ground” laws give some people the idea that they can shoot anyone whom they perceive as threatening. They don’t have to prove that the person they shoot actually threatened them; only that they felt threatened. States with such laws report a higher gun homicide rate than other states. Victims are usually Blacks shot by Whites who feel threatened by anyone who is Black. And don’t you wonder if that wasn’t probably the intent all along?

Gun manufacturers and gun sellers routinely market firearms for self-defense.

Some politicians (and some “news” outlets) routinely exaggerate the threat of violence, especially in cities. They maintain that crime is on the rise, even when it isn’t. It’s the perception of crime that is on the rise, created by politicians who exaggerate the threat of violence.

Some politicians routinely say that the problem is not guns, it’s mental health. If that’s the case, you might think these politicians would be working to advance mental health in some way. But they’re not. “Mental health” is a dodge, not a serious attempt at a solution.

Individual “mental health” may be a factor, but the “mental health” of the nation is a larger part of our problem. We are a sick society. Gun violence is one of the factors that make our society sick.

More children and youth die by gun violence than in car accidents.

Kids are afraid to go to school. I grew up in the days of nuclear war drills at school. We crawled under our desks and put our heads between our knees with our hands clasped over our heads. It would not have done much good, but hiding under your desk in “active shooter drills” doesn’t do much good either. Still, I don’t think we were ever as afraid then as kids today are afraid of being shot while learning arithmetic.

Christian theologian Kevin Hargaden, who lives in Ireland, recently said that he would never consider moving to America, largely because of the gun violence.

In response, Christian theologian Michael F. Bird, who lives in Australia, says he has lived in America and loves it. “But here’s the thing. America has for me both a sense of seduction and revulsion, somewhere I want to be, and somewhere I fear to be.”

Guns don’t create less fear. They create more fear. And that, alas, may be an intentional result of how guns are marketed. The more people are afraid, the more guns are solid.

Next: Guns rule.

Guns and US – 1

Something is clearly wrong in this country. Too many people are dying from gunshot wounds.

In this and four brief essays to follow, I will explore some facets of the issue and ponder possible solutions. I do not pretend to know many answers. I also do not imagine that this exercise will win me many friends. It may, in fact, alienate more readers than it pleases. Such is the emotional power of this issue.

* * * * *

“Mass” shootings aside, here are some reports of shootings in recent months.

In Kansas City, Missouri, a 16-year-old black youth knocks on the wrong door and is shot through the door by the white homeowner. He is shot twice, the second time after he has fallen.

In Elgin, Texas, near Austin, two cheerleaders are shot after one of them mistakenly gets into the wrong car at their carpooling site.

In Tampa, Florida, a man shoots and wounds a 6-year-old girl and her parents after several children try to retrieve a basketball that rolled into his yard.

In Upstate New York, a 20-year-old woman is shot dead after she and her friends accidentally pull into the wrong driveway while looking for a friend’s house. They never even got out of their car.

A Florida couple delivering groceries for Instacart is shot at when they go to the wrong address.

In Annapolis, Maryland, a dispute over street parking turns deadly when a man shoots six people at a graduation party, killing three of them.

In Cleveland, Texas, a man kills five neighbors, including a child, when one of them asks him to stop shooting his AR-15-style rifle in his front yard.

In Detroit, a man shoots three other customers in a gas station after the clerk won’t let him leave unless he pays for an item that’s worth less than $4. One of the shooting victims dies.

In Ocala, Florida, a black woman is shot dead by a white neighbor, ending a long feud over playing children.

Several of these incidents appear to have happened after simple mistakes that anyone could make. But they turned deadly because of guns. For the shooters, guns provided an easy and instant solution to their perceived problem.

This is a national crisis. Why is this so?

According to some people, we can’t even talk about it. Although they chatter incessantly about mental health, Republicans in Congress routinely block any efforts to study gun violence as a mental health issue.

The Kansas State Rifle Association recently threatened several cities for even trying to talk about it. The group alleges that by talking about it, the cities are promoting gun confiscation.

People who tell such lies are one of the reasons gun violence has become a national crisis. Remember when Barack Obama was president? For eight years, gun advocates kept up the drumbeat: Obama is going to confiscate your guns! Did he ever do it? No – never even suggested it. It was a blatant lie from the start.

Why do people believe such lies? Why do people continue to believe such liars?

One of the reasons gun violence continues is that some people are committed to lies and to liars.

Next: Fear sells guns.