I live in California. There was a time when saying that would have made me the envy of practically everyone in America who didn’t live in California. After all, what’s not to like: lovely, temperate climate; beautiful and varied terrain, with something for everything; almost a thousand miles of breathtaking coastline; vineyards galore; world-class restaurants in practically every city; some of the greatest universities and colleges in the world; some of the most spectacular natural wonders the world has to offer, from Yosemite to giant sequoias to the redwood forests to… The list goes on.
Unfortunately, all of those positive delights are outweighed by the negatives, which can be summed up in one word: politicians.
Pretty much of all of them stink, but one of our state senators, Dianne Feinstein, has raised the bar for egregious hypocrisy and stupidity. Let’s take a quick look at the hypocrisy first.
Senator Feinstein has gone on record as stating that, if she could, she would confiscate every firearm in private hands in America: “If I could have gotten one more vote in the senate, it would been, ‘Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in.’” And yet, while she was still a supervisor in San Francisco, she herself had a coveted concealed carry permit and carried a handgun.
No hypocrisy in that. I’m responsible and trustworthy, but you, little insignificant you, are not.
“As a supervisor, I had no protection, so I got a gun permit and learned to shoot at the Police Academy. When I became mayor, I succeeded in passing a measure banning handguns in San Francisco…”
And certainly no hypocrisy in that statement, by golly.
Of course, one could argue that whatever training she received at the Police Academy was just enough to make her almost as much of a menace to society as getting elected, because she clearly didn’t learn the fundamental rules of gun safety, such as never, ever putting your finger on the trigger of a firearm until you are ready to shoot. Look at the photograph above. It does make you tremble to think about those law enforcement officers in the city by the bay.
Now let’s take a look at the stupidity.
Senator Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban,” (and I won’t waste your time enumerating the fallacies and inaccuracies of her bill) was delayed when Senator John Coryn (R-Texas) tried to include a provision that would allow military veterans to purchase “assault weapons” the same way that retired law enforcement officers are allowed to. Here is Senator Feinstein’s verbatim response to the proposal:
“The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”
Try parsing that sentence. English we speak here very much. But let’s examine the content of her garblings. If you’ve read my memoir, An Accidental Cowboy, you know that I spent ten years dealing with the effects, both direct and corollary, of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so this is something I feel qualified to comment on. PTSD is not merely the product of war. It can be caused by rape (which might have been prevented, had the victim been allowed to carry a firearm), by a non-fatal assault, a natural disaster, a car accident, virtually any traumatic experience which causes the victim to feel helpless. It can even be caused indirectly by, for example, the sudden death of a loved one, or witnessing a traumatic event. So while PTSD is certainly most commonly associated with war, it is not the exclusive provenance of man’s inhumanity to man.
But what really caught my eye and made my blood pressure go up into quadruple digits was the phrase, “…with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War…” I mean, how ignorant do you have to be to get elected as a public servant? It just so happens I am currently reading Son of the Morning Star, Evan S. Connell’s coruscating portrait of George Armstrong Custer and the battle of The Little Bighorn, and the evening before I stumbled across Senator Feinstein’s eloquent and graceful and oh so insightful thumbnail of PTSD, I read about Captain Thomas Weir, one of the very few survivors of that horrific day. This is Connell: “Less than six months after the battle he died. He was thirty-eight. His physician told Elizabeth” (Custer) “that when Weir arrived in New York he was depressed and nervous. He spent most of his time in one room, avoiding everybody. Toward the end he became so nervous that he was unable to swallow.”
“The advent of PTSD?” “A new phenomenon?” “A product of the Iraq War?” I think we can safely say that PTSD has been with us as long as war has.
Senator Feinstein continued: “I think we have to—if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally, don’t have access to this kind of weapon.” Incapacitated?
Well, well, well. Ms. Feinstein, my dear Ms. Feinstein, wouldn’t it be nice to have at least some rudimentary grasp of issues before you pontificate on them? First of all, your implication is that PTSD is the exclusive provenance of veterans. Do you really think that police work is such a stress-free walk in the park that retired law enforcement officers, who are allowed to own what you inaccurately refer to as “assault weapons,” are invariably free from any of the residual effects of shooting and killing people, or being shot at, or just by seeing some of the unimaginable horrors that make up their daily work? And what makes you think PTSD is universally and invariably “incapacitating?” Was William Manchester, who suffered from PTSD and its corollary depression (a result of his service in World War Two, before PTSD existed, according to you) “incapacitated?” (You might want to read his brilliant account of his “incapacitation,” Goodbye Darkness.) Is your colleague, John McCain, “incapacitated?” How about British comedian-actor-writer Spike Milligan? He managed to accomplish quite a lot in spite of being “incapacitated.” My wife claims I am incapacitated every time I try to balance the checkbook, but leaving that overrated activity aside, I’ve managed to hang on without perpetrating any grotesque crimes. How about the countless thousands upon thousand of veterans who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD who live quiet and productive lives and are at least as responsible as any idiot who poses in the senate with her finger on the trigger of a gun.
JP I’m not very much into politics however I for one do have PTSD. Its not from war or guns but watching two adults aka parents act like children when they are trying to raise one. PTSD is a cruel and horrible event that crops up at some point in a person’s life. I have full blown seizures from my PTSD every time I hear an angry man’s voice. As for politicians we have a stupid one too named Mr. Harper unfortunately he is our Prime Minister who managed to annoy and display his ignorance towards many different groups of people. Ignorance is bliss and I guess politicians every are in extreme bliss!!
Tena French Halifax, NS Canada watching out for RCMP tapping into this.
California State Senator Feinstein may sound illiterate, lack a certain keenness of mind and be completely ignorant about PTSD, but I cannot disagree in principle with her “assault weapons ban” proposal.
Here in Canada I feel much safer living with our gun control legislation than I would feel if I lived in America. Our country has far fewer deaths by gunshot per capita than the U.S. Does this have anything to do with our strict gun laws? You betcha.
In the last few months I’ve been sporadically following America’s gun debate, especially after the Newtown massacre. I don’t believe there is any meaningful solution to your gun issues in the foreseeable future, your country is too steeped in the personal protection mentality and the right to bear arms is part of your constitution, it won’t ever be easy to pry that away. Probably the way to co-exist with such an abundance of weapons is to intensively educate and treat mental illnesses to help prevent senseless murders, perhaps starting with educating the likes of Feinstein herself on mental illness in general and PTSD in particular.
But please, with all due respect as you seem well versed in the weapons department, do you really think that carrying a gun will prevent any significant number of rapes. (“hold on a second, let me get my gun out of my purse…) I’m not being facetious, just realistic.
Alas, I’ll be in Las Vegas next week on vacation. Thanks for reminding me of dangers other than losing my money gambling.
Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful response.
Let me start by addressing your last issue first: “…do you really think that carrying a gun will prevent any significant number of rapes?” Yes, absolutely and positively, just as carrying a handgun once saved my life and the life of my (then) infant son. It is very difficult to quantify events that do not occur, and most people (like me with my son, all those years ago) do not report criminal attempts that have been prevented, but in America the estimate of annual defensive firearms use (by which I mean use of a firearm to prevent any kind of crime or act of violence by human or animal) is estimated to be between 1.5 million at the low end and over three million at the high end. One of the arguments that anti-gun people frequently make is, “If banning this or that firearm just saves one life, it’s worth it.” I would counter by saying that if two lives are saved by not banning a firearm, it’s worth it.
As for your tongue-in-cheek comment, “hold on a second, let me get my gun out of my purse,” consider what is involved in self defense. When I first studied karate, our sensei told us that if he ever heard of one of his students using karate on the street, that student would be thrown out of the class. His logic was: 1) you should be smart enough not to go to places where you were likely to be attacked; 2) if you had to go to such a place, you should be aware enough of your surroundings at all times to avoid any attack; 3) if you had violated the first two rules, you should run, plead for your life, do whatever you had to do to avoid using your martial arts skills; 4) if that was not possible, you should then, and only then, try to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. This attitude of careful and wise avoidance was also taught by the late Jeff Cooper, founder of the foremost defensive handgun school in the nation and probably the world; he was so adamant about a firearm’s requiring one to be aware at all times, that if one of his students even got a speeding ticket, that student would be ridiculed for not having been aware enough to know he might get a ticket. In short, a firearm is not a talisman; it demands an enormous weight of responsibility and awareness.
According to the FBI, largely considered to be the most accurate and impartial tracker of crime data in America, murders by all categories of firearms (handgun, shotgun, rifle, other, and type unknown) amounted to 8583 in 2011 (the last year with complete data). That is a statistically tiny amount when compared to the number of defensive uses. And just to be clear, “rifle” here includes “assault weapons” as well as all other types of rifles; this is because statistically there are not enough homicides committed with so-called “assault weapons” to justify tracking them separately. In fact, the number of crimes committed with “assault weapons” (I am putting that in quotes because it is a technically inaccurate term used by the press and politicians) is so small, that more people are killed annually by hammers or by baseball bats than by “assault weapons.”
Finally, it is always a specious, though popular, argument to compare different cultures. Behavior that is acceptable in remote corners of Burkina Faso is unacceptable in America. Obviously, Canada and America are about as similar as two countries can be, but there are important historic differences. Our independence was bought with blood and bullets; your independence was bought by negotiation. Our Western expansion was bought with blood and violence; your Western expansion was bought with diplomacy brokered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. And finally, since law enforcement agrees that approximately 95% of all violent crime is drug related, I would point out that Canada’s drug problem is nowhere near as severe as America’s (with the possible exception of marijuana, where usage in both countries is roughly equal).
You are absolutely right to point out that Americans are steeped in a personal protection mentality, but I would argue that is as much a reflection of the acknowledged (by law enforcement, and by the Supreme Court) inability of law enforcement to protect the individual as it is a reflection of the average American’s sense of independence.
I agree with completely about education and mental health issues.
Good luck in Las Vegas. I once found a quarter on the floor while walking through the quarter-slot machine area of some casino and I took it as a sign. I put it in the nearest machine, pulled the handle, and lost my quarter. It ruined my whole day. That’s the extent of my gambling experience.
JP
You can all keep Nancy Pelosii too.
I just hope that gun she is holding is not loaded. After World War II I think it was called shell shock.
Went I signed in AOL the first article I saw was about a man named Wayne Bengston who killed sportsman channel host Gregory Rodriguez and then he killed himself. The article said that he did in a fit of jealous rage. It is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com the crime section.
I normally do not counter respond after I have offered my two cents, but since you did take the time to very comprehensively answer my post…
You don’t mention your source for the statistic “…in America the estimate of annual defensive firearms use is estimated to be between 1.5 million at the low end and over three million at the high end”. Is it an NR A statistic, a government statistic, an independent research stat? Statistics can be a tricky tool from what I remember from my one and only university stats course. Even trickier, or maybe more misleading, are estimates of something not happening, so yes, I do agree that it is difficult to quantify events that do not occur. That is why I wonder about the source for that incredibly high number. And also why I stand by my statement that I do not believe carrying guns prevents a significant number of rapes. How can it be proven? ( Canadian rape statistics can’t be easily compared to U.S. stats, as we lump all sexual assault reports into one number, so to the uninformed it appears that we have a high number of incidences.)
On the second point in your response regarding self defence, you mention you’ve had some self-defence training, unfortunately I don’t think that most Americans who own guns have had similar in depth training with their guns, and therefore could as responsible and aware as one would hope. Therein lies one of the biggest problems with guns in civilian hands, the lack of top notch weapon training by all gun owners. But since the problem, more likely, is guns in the wrong hands, like those involved in drug related violent crimes, America has a two fold safety issue; lots of guns , lots of illegal drugs- not a happy combination.
You wrote an interesting response, and I appreciate and respect your point of view. We are from somewhat similarly cultured countries and yet, on this subject of gun control, our countries vastly differ. In my mind that’s what makes the world interesting, we’re so much alike and yet so different. Now if you’ll excuse me, I must finish packing for my trip across the border.
Very briefly: lies, damned lies, and statistics. I no longer remember where the high-end defensive firearms use stats came from (not the NRA; they do not do research), but I do remember that the low estimate was arrived at by a government agency and if memory serves, it was the CDC, but don’t hold me to that. And just to clarify, “defensive firearms use” does not mean that a bad guy was shot. Most defensive uses invlove “brandishing” (and I would be happy to explain why that’s not a good idea), followed by firing a warning shot (a very bad idea, Mr. Biden), firing but missing the target, firing and wounding, or simply holding a suspect at bay. It also includes killing an agressive animal, in most cases, domestic dogs. Actual justifiable homicides with a firearm only amount to 393 cases in 2011, slightly more or slightly less in the years prior to that.
As for self-defense training: You betcha! I do not believe in any form of government intervention or restriction or requirement for ownership of a firearm in one’s home, but if you plan to take that firearm out of the home, either concealed on your person, or in your car, or in any manner, you should be required to take an extensive amount of training, because the weight of responsibility is enormous. Having said that, I would add there are many examples of citizens who are far better trained in firearm use than law enforcement. I have the greatest respect for New York’s finest, but I fire more practice rounds in a month than a NYC police officer is required to fire in a year to qualify.
If you win big time in Las Vegas, feel free to send a generous contribution to the Parker Poverty Fund.
JP
What do you mean by the term “justifiable homicides”? If you mean the shooting death occurred as the result of self defence, then I would assume and hope that the number would be as low as 393 in 2011. But that statistic isn’t the one that needs to be examined if we are discussing some sort of gun control as a plausible way to increase public safety in America. A more relevant number to look at would be the number of unjustifiable deaths by firearms, or how about looking at the number for all deaths by firearm, justifiable, unjustifiable, accidental, suicide, the whole shebang; we might as well if our discussion is public safety. According to the CDC, the total number of homicides by firearms in 2010 was over 11,078 . When you add the 19,392 people that year who committed suicide with a firearm, the statistic skyrockets. That’s just for one year! If those yearly death statistics where for some disease or new virus, we would have scientists, (and the funding) working diligently to eradicate it.
According to David Hemenway, professor at Harvard and author of “Private Guns, Public Health” , “In terms of violence, other than gun violence, we’re an average country…but we have lots more guns and by far the weakest gun laws.” This bears repeating, the United States has by far the most guns in citizens hands per capita and the weakest gun laws of any industrialized nation. This is where America’s lackluster gun policies fall short and as one of the most powerful and highly developed nations in the world, could do a whole lot better keeping its public safe.
Frankly, I’m baffled why gun advocates have put up such a wall regarding this issue, since the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as citizens have the right to own a gun in your home, but there can still be sensible gun laws. And sensible, reasonable gun laws, in my opinion would look something like this, mandatory background checks for all gun owners in every state, safety and training classes and gun registries.
I’ll leave you with a quote by Hemenway that I believe states how I feel to perfection:
“Here’s what we can’t let happen. We can’t let guns become an increasingly partisan issue. We all want to stop the violence. We all want to keep our kids safe. We all want to prevent suicides, and especially homicide-suicides. But for that to happen, everyone needs to step up.”
Thank you for your comments. Let me try to put it into the perspective of a law-abiding gun owner:
1) “In terms of violence, other than gun violence, we’re an average country..” Actually, we’re better than average. Great Britain, to take an example of a putatively civilized nation, has a greater per capita rate of violence than America, and it is interesting to note that this rate reflects a steady increase following their implementation of draconian gun laws and, of equal importance, laws restricting what citizens may do to protect themselves. Of course we have more gun violence than other countries; other countries do not have anything like the number of firearms in private hands that we do. However, please take a moment to consider two aspects of this staistic of gun violence. First, if lawful gun ownership contributed to violence, the members of the NRA (approximately five million people) would have by far the greatest levels of gun violence of any segment of American society. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Second, do not trust me, but ask any law enforcement officer anywhere in the nation what the correlation is between homicide and drugs. Most officers will tell you that if you could remove drugs from the equation, homicide rates would drop by approximately 95%; some officers will quote a higher percentage. The Mexican government itself has shifted the responsibility for its inability to control the drug cartels to American demand for narcotics, and while I might argue that is a self-serving statement, I have to admit the truth of it. Since drug use or possession or sale is a felony (I’m simplifying here by not citing levels and amounts), anyone who uses or sells drugs is, by definition, prohibited from owning a firearm. Yet drugs are directly or indirectly involved in 95% (or more) of all homicides. See anything wrong with that picture? And that brings me to…
2) “…the Unites States has by far the most guns in citizens hands per capita and the weakest gun laws of any industrialized nation.” Most guns, yes, but see my comment above about NRA members. Weakest gun laws? No, unless by gun laws Mr. Hemenway means outright banning or restriction; our gun laws are only weak compared to, say, countries like Japan where gun ownership is completely impossible. Our laws aren’t weak; they are just not enforced. This might require a book to discuss properly, since there are approximately 22,000 gun laws at the combined federal, state, county, and local levels, but let’s just take the mandatory background check. As it stands now, in 2010 the NICS system resulted in almost 73,000 people being denied a firearm because of lying on their ATF form 4473 (the NICS background check form). Yet of those almost 73,000 felonies (lying on a 4473 is a felony) only twenty-two cases were even considered for prosecution, and Vice President Joe Biden’s excuse for that was, “We don’t have the time or the manpower to prosecute everybody…” If we aren’t going to enforce the laws we have, what makes you think passing more laws will somehow make a difference? Can we make murder more illegal? If a criminal knows his odds of being prosecuted for breaking the law are minimal, where is the deterrent? The man who shot me had a criminal history which precluded his owning a gun. That didn’t stop him. Let’s go back to drugs for a moment. On the border, at the Douglas, Arizona/Agua Prieta crossing ten years ago, I watched an American drug smuggler get turned loose because he was one pound under the ninety-nine pound limit for hashish set by the federal government for prosecution. In other words, get caught with less than ninety-nine pounds and there are no repercussions. That limit has now been revised upward to 299 pounds (I believe that’s the correct figure; it’s been a longish while since I was on the border). Again, where is the deterrent? (I mention drugs in this context only because drugs and illegal gun use are inextricably linked.)
3) Actually, the Supreme Court ruled the second amendment reaffirmed the God-given right to protect onesself with a firearm without restriction to “in the home.”
4) Many countries have higher per capita suicide rates than America, and all of those countries have more draconian gun laws, including Japan, where gun ownership is simply not possible.
5) As to your comment about “safety and training classes:” there I agree with you. Too many people regard a firearm as a sort of magic talisman. (If I own it, no one can hurt me.) Even many police departments do not require the level of training and practice that most competetive civilian shooters adhere to. The problem there become one of finances: who will pay for the training? Training classes of the kind most private security firms require are both highly effective, and financially out of the reach of most people. Do we deny the right to self-defense to the poor? It might be possible to mandate some kind of inexpensive or free instruction for people who only wish to keep a firearm in the home, but to demand more extensive training for concealed carry permit holders, but those things really should be state issues, not federal.
Finally, I sincerely believe that focusing on the gun is attributing “moral stature” (to quote the late Col. Jeff Cooper) to an inanimate object. The focus should be on enforcing the already existing laws to keep guns out the hands of those who have proven they are mentally or legally incapable of safely owning one. I also sincerely believe that wholesale efforts to ban or restrict gunownership are elitist (the poor are more subject to crime, particularly violent crime, than the wealthy), racist (the poor are overwhelmingly minorities), and sexist (women are far more vulnerable than men).
JP
It’s not the five million strong members of the NRA and their use of firearms that worries me; I agree that most of them are more likely than not to be responsible and law-abiding gun owners. My concern is their strength and power in numbers, their collective narrow-mindedness, if you will, in what they unflinchingly believe; that the lack of gun control in America is working, status quo, and their rights to gun ownership without reasonable, sensible gun legislation, supersedes the rights of all to a safer society. I’m not saying that law-abiding citizens cannot own guns. What I am saying is that to sell guns in America without a due diligence and social responsibility is corroding the safety of American society. Social responsibility could mean things like tighter laws, better tracking methods, background checks, training, gun amnesty programs, as well as better mental health care etc. The idea of banning guns is unrealistic utopian thinking, let’s get real, they’re here to stay, it’s what America does now that matters.
Regarding the point that gun violence is really a drug issue, I agree that America’s drug problem is a huge part of the equation. But how were the guns in these drug related homicides obtained? They weren’t loaned out by law abiding gun owners, or purchased in a state that does background checks. The guns were either stolen or bought in a state where it is way too easy to buy one legitimately, and then trafficked. That’s what’s wrong with the picture. (Illegal drug use is a very serious public safety issue, and the Mexican government has a valid point)
I have to disagree with you about America’s gun laws, in fact they truly are weak and ineffective. I’m talking here mostly about handgun and assault weapons. But I do agree with you that the existing laws aren’t enforced effectively. Yes, it is a twofold problem, weak gun control laws and the inability to enforce them. You state, “If a criminal knows his odds of being prosecuted for breaking the law are minimal, where is the deterrent?” I say, the deterrent should be that it’s not so easy to break the law; it’s not easy to obtain a gun, purchased or stolen.
The most heartbreaking fact about guns and suicide is that the U.S. has an obscenely high number of child and teen related suicides by gunshot, the highest in the world. This is the direct result of the availability of guns to children, guns in the home as well as the ease of obtaining guns on the street. That knowledge alone should make the staunchest gun advocate think twice.
And finally, regarding your concern about any type of gun ban or restriction being elitist, racist or sexist, let me say, I doubt that any new laws would ever have the hope of becoming so strict as to infringe upon the poor, minorities or women. Just trying to get the weak existing laws enforced will be an accomplishment, let alone a standard tighter legislation for every state. Using that argument, the current health care system is elitist, owning a car is definitely elitist and possibly racist as minorities are often the poorest, and so must be owning a home… The problem is the thinking that gun ownership is a necessity. I could make an argument that it isn’t nor should be for most of the U.S.
Since homicides and crime involving guns are often gang related, drug related and involve minorities, it makes sense that taking guns out of those situations would increase the safety of this population. The debate among legislators, scholars and citizens is how best to do that. I can’t see this happening in our lifetime, probably not in our children’s lifetime either, but acting responsibly must start somewhere, at some point, if Americans have any vested interest in future generations. It seems to me rather selfish and nearsighted to deny this.
I would hope that you want what I want, what virtually everyone in the world wants, a reduction of violent deaths by gunshot, and the safest possible country.
Personally I don’t like it when someone sends me a link, I think it’s presumptuous. So if you choose not to read this insightful, short interview with David Hemenway, so be it, but he nails it and he knows his stuff.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/12/looking-for-lessons-in-newtown/
Cheers and thank you for your blog discussions.
Again, I would argue with your phrase, “lack of gun laws.” Over twenty-two thousand laws hardly qualifies as a lack. The problem is not a lack of laws, but rather a lack of enforcing the laws that exist, and it makes no difference what further laws are passed if they too are not enforced.
Beyond that (but staying on the same issue of laws) every time a law is passed, any law, no matter on what topic or how trivial, your rights as a citizen are circumscribed, and when it comes to gun laws, to penalize the law-abiding because of the crimes of a (relatively) small number of criminals, smacks too much of the attitude of Argentinean “dirty war” general Reynaldo Benito Bignone, who famously said, “The innocent must die to pay for the crimes of the guilty.” That may work for dictatorship, but not for a free republic.
To broaden the argument to a more encompassing philosophical scope, when politicians blame either firearms or firearm laws for societal failures, it amounts to nothing more than shallow and self-serving prestidigitation. Take Chicago as a flagrant example (hardly the only example, or even the most dramatic, since Washington, DC has far higher per capita rates of violence of all kinds): gun ownership in Chicago is essentially legally impossible, yet violence of all kinds, and especially gun violence, is rampant. Yet when was the last time you heard Rahm Emanuel or any other politician in the city of the big shoulders discuss teenaged unwed mothers, absent fathers, dearth of jobs, poor education, drugs, despair, gang presence, the culture of violence as a rite of passage into “manhood,” and the pervasive sense of hopelessness expressed by inner-city residents, as issues to address in order to solve the problems of violence?
Which brings me to your comment: “Since homicides and crime[s] involving guns are often gang related, drug related and involve minorities, it makes sense that taking guns out of those situations would increase the safety of this population.”
Wow. Clearly, from your writing, you are both intelligent and well-educated, but this comment is extremely elitist. The implication is that minorities and the poor, who are most in danger because of their environment, should not be allowed to own firearms to protect themselves. To use a city I am very familiar with, the residents of Compton and Watts (the vast majority of whom are honest and law-abiding) have a far greater need for firearms than the residents of Beverly Hills. Gun ownership is not a necessity for anyone who doesn’t wish to own a gun, but it is an extremely vital necessity if—as happened to my ex-wife—you are alone in a house with an intruder and the responding police get diverted to an “officer under fire” alert. Never forget, the superior court in Washington, DC ruled that police have no duty to protect the individual citizen, only society as a whole. Of course I want a reduction of violent deaths, by any cause, and the safest possible country, but I do not agree that restricting or impeding gun ownership among the overwhelmingly law-abiding majority is the way to achieve that.
JP
JP I do have to respond on this subject. Domestic violence including rape if lucky the person who is convicted will serve time in jail. Set free in a few months/ years then free to commit the same violent act. In Islamic countries if the person is convicted of rape they are stoned to death. I feel that our legal system puts criminals back on the streets way to easy. So yes please do have a gun in your purse!! If you have witnessed the domestic violence my mother has saw you would tote a gun in your handbag too. My question is why are some people in this society so willing to let a criminal back on the streets to re offend when he could be in his grave?
Tena French Halifax, NS
I love your response JP. You hit the nail right on the head. Now if only Senator Feinstein would read this and grasp it! BTW, California isn’t the only state with “intelligent” politicians like Feinstein, and I use that word loosely;)
~Bill
For more information on the self-defense argument, you can go to http://WWW.drmen.org and read an article entitled The Right to Self-defense.Castle Rock Vs Gonzales” by Wendy McElroy.
Personally I voted for Mitt Romney. I know people said that he was a clueless one percent-er, but at less he is a Conservative. The only worse is a clueless liberal one percent-er like Senator Feinstein. Perhaps she could come and live in Southwest Detroit for a week.
Detroit the city where when you call 911 the operator hangs up on you. The police arrive to late if ever and Detroit is the city that has highest murder rate in the United States. Just recently, an elderly gentlemen escorting young women to their car was confronted with armed teenagers who wanted to rob them. The older man had a gun and a permit and used to defend himself and the young women. He killed one young man and injured the other. No charges were pressed again the older man.
Detroit?! Please accept my condolences, but in the spirit of “It’s important to compare,” at least you’re not in Chicago or Washington, DC.
JP
I would like to believe that most, not all of course, that take on the responsibility of carrying a firearm take the weight of that decision very seriously. I recently got my concealed carry permit because of some situations that I have found myself in recently as crime is infiltrating my neighborhood and city. My husband and I spent a long time discussing and weighing the pros and cons and exploring other options. In the end, the safety of my children and myself won out. I’ve spent numerous hours in gun training because I absolutely refused to have a firearm in the house without being completely trained and comfortable with its operation. My children, 12 and 10 have also been trained in gun safety, I know that many people cringe at the thought of children and firearms but I believe it’s important that everyone in the home be trained properly or there shouldn’t be a firearm present. My children know that we don’t condone violence but they also know that it’s an ugly world we live in.
I work in the criminal justice system and have recently seen several juries find clearly guilty defendants not guilty for very serious crimes. With so many television shows solving crimes in 60 minutes or less and all of those dramatic shows having DNA evidence to convict the person, beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom has become beyond all doubt in the minds of many. So yes, a lot of very guilty people are out on the streets whether due to judges or juries, and I for one don’t want to be caught without protection when one of these repeat offenders attack.
There is a horrible case out here in Northern Virginia on the outskirts of the DC Metro area. About four years ago, a husband and wife, both retired military, went for a morning walk. They were just out for a little exercise at 5:30 or so in the morning in what is supposed to be an elite and safe community, so they were not carrying anything for protection. Gang members turn up on this Sunday morning and beat the husband to death in probably the most violent beating I’ve ever had the displeasure of hearing, and they savagely beat and raped the wife to leave her for dead; however, she managed to survive though does not remember the attack. The details of the attack are horrible. One of the perpetrators has pled guilty, one is going to trial in a couple of months, and one has yet to be charged since he is sitting in prison for other crimes committed leading up to the time of the attacks.
That case is the reason I want to be armed and know how to safely and accurately use a gun. I pray that I don’t have to use a weapon to ever defend myself, but if the need arises, you bet I want the right preserved to keep myself safe.
Alicia
http://WWW.time.com “The Remains of Detroit” Sean Hemerle
There is also a by by Charlie LeDuff called Detroit” An American Autopsy” I do apologize I should have typed go to and instead. of come to. I don’t live in the city now, my son lived there for about a year and we would visit him. We did however live about a half a mile north of eight mile road for thirteen years. South of 8 mile is Detroit and north of 8 mile are many suburbs. The suburbs are the suburbs and Detroit is well, Detroit. Still were we were you could hear gun shots and you would hear about murders that were committed on 8 mile and one that was committed about a block from us. If any one wants to know what is like just go rent the movie 8 mile by Eminem.
Gun Control is one of a handful of issues that really gets me worked up. Pretty much everything Mr. Parker has written above has come out of my mouth at least a few times a week. I’m pro gun. The politicians in America have no right what-so-ever to even trying to pass gun control laws. I don’t understand what part of “shall not be infringed” that is written in the 2nd Amendment that they don’t comprehend. Gun laws they pass that limit American citizens are unconstitutional.
I highly recommend people read the book “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott. Or, go to the FBI website and look at their crime statistics. It might take a little messing around to figure out how to query stat reports on the FBI webpage, but their data you can pull there is unbiased.
The statistic on 1.5million+ instances that guns saves lives per year is a very tricky one. The FBI reports there typically being over one million every year as reported by police agencies across the country, however, the statistic is presumed to be much higher, as high as two million, because most of the instances where a gun is used to save somebody or stop an attack (very often without shots being fired), do not get reported. As Mr. Parker mentioned, that includes a large variety in situations from animal attacks, to simply brandishing a gun in the face of criminal trouble.
I have a concealed carry permit. Most states that issue such permits that allow concealed carry outside the home require gun training. I shoot at least once a week with my carry weapon, and practice concealed draw techniques. I also take one or two courses per year on concealed carry and advanced shooting skills. I take it very seriously, but I also enjoy the training and look forward to long weekends at a training facility as much as I do a hunting or camping trip. And like Mr. Parker said, most average citizens have more training in the use of their concealed carry guns than the police do with their daily duty guns.
TD Bauer
Wisconsin
Rohm Emanuel once said “You never let a serous crisis go to waste.”
The reason I feel so strongly about this is the reason you gave. I do suffer from depression and anxiety. I don’t like to talk about this and I am under a doctor’s care. My husband I do not own guns and I don’t think we ever will. However, I do believe this comes down to personal choice.
When the Sandy Hooks school shooting happened the liberal press did not even wait for one minute to pass when they started in with the gun control argument. I mean a tragedy had just taken place and they immediately used it for political purposes. Then I saw this a news reporter shove a microphone under a grieving father’s face and asked “How does this make you feel?” I then turned off the TV and I could not watch any more. How does this make you fee!? No, I avoided the TV and I avoided the internet. I could not watch and I could not read about it. I did watch sometime later and I saw how the liberal press and the democrats were exploiting these poor parents.
No, I do not blame the parents. If ever one my grown children were killed like this I probably would do the same thing and ask for tough gun control. I do think that maybe some of Senators might be sincere, but I do think the rest are using this to push forward their liberal agenda. Could or should be more talk about mental health care? Yes, I do think there should be talk and action about the problem of access to help. But, when they start to demonize the Good men and women who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan and now have PSTD then they all lose any credibility that they ever had.
I personally do not like them firesticks(guns). I hate the noise, disruption, and violence they bring. I personally do not find anything aesthetic about them(though I know others do rever them as works of art). HOWEVER, I HAVE been shot at(several times), and by gosh, every time I was, I sure wished I had a gun handy! Personal likes/dislikes and lofty ideals go down the toilet FAST when your own life is being threatened! Statistics don’t mean squat to you when some violent, stupid idiot has a gun, is shooting at you, and you cannot defend yourself likewise. I do keep a coupla rifles around for home protection, for just that reason. I can vouch for the FACT that just letting potentially violent intruders know you are armed, does a LOT to discourage further aggression on their part! I wish the world was not like that, but Pandora’s Box got opened on that a long time ago……And politicians–don’t feel like California has the monopoly on worst politicians ever, JP. Remember North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms? Gawd, what an embarrasment to our state–how did that old fart keep getting elected? We had a joke here in N. C.–”Why did California get Herpes, and North Carolina get Jesse Helms? Answer–California had first choice!”(apparently the first outbreaks of herpes in the U. S. were in California…..). So, AT LONG LAST, decrepit, senile old Jesse retires–glorious day! And what do we get then? Senator John Frikkin’ Edwards—enough to make us wish(almost) old Jesse was back. What’s REALLY scary about that, is John Frikkin’ Edwards ran for PRESIDENT, and did purty darn well–imagine having THAT slimy, selfish jerk for PRESIDENT?
….oops, fergot to initial that last comment(with the N. C. senator joke, etc.)….L.B.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/19/gun-debate-is-culture-debate/?cmpid=NL_BestofOpinion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/ted-cruz-obama-sandy-hook_n_2974471.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058#slide=1991651
Pay close attention to Number 14 in the Obama Care plan that is shown in the scroll.
You mentioned more than once that there are approximately 22,000 gun laws in the United States. This statistic may not be accurate. That number was originally used in a testimony in congress in 1968, yet no source was ever given, and according to the Brookings Institution, has been quoted so often it has become part of the public consciousness. The Brookings Institution is a Washington DC based 100 year old non-profit organization devoted to independent research and has an excellent reputation. Since I have no intention of counting every federal, state and local law that relates to guns, I will remain skeptical of that number until some unbiased qualified entity determines otherwise.
But my point isn’t about the exact number of gun laws, it is that the existing laws are weak, meaning not tight enough and are ineffectual, and perhaps I should have been ‘tighter’ in my use of language and instead of writing “lack of gun control” should have stated “lack of effective gun control”, so as not to be misconstrued. A weak law is useless, whether there are a few or several thousand. Obviously it makes no difference how good a law is on paper, it has to be enforced to be effective, and hence my acknowledgement that law enforcement needs more funding and training to carry this out, it needs to be a priority. To further clarify this point, I believe that ideally gun laws should be the same in every state, county and municipality across the country. This would not only cut out the high number of varying laws all over the map, but would help law enforcement in their jobs as everyone is clear on the laws, and would curb cross-state purchases, the preferred method other than stealing to obtain firearms for illegal gun use, (those looking for the state with the fewest or weakest laws to obtain guns).
Regarding your point “…every time a law is passed, any law, no matter on what topic, or how trivial, your rights as a citizen are circumscribed…” There are many, many laws that uphold your freedoms and rights, the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act are two big ones. Perhaps what you mean is that you personally feel circumscribed when a new law is passed. I dare say that not everyone feels the same about every new law on any topic as you do. When the law was passed here that driving while using a handheld communication device became illegal, it was pretty much universally agreed that it is dangerous not only to oneself but to others to do so and public opposition to the new law was virtually zero. It is an accepted law because it makes sense and benefits everyone. Here’s one more example, in order to operate a car on public roads legally, one needs to pass a test, pay for and obtain a license, and obey the rules of the road. I doubt that you feel you are being penalized because we need laws for those few who break the rules of the road. Most likely you feel safer when you drive because of those laws.
But in regards to effective gun laws I really do not understand how such proposed ideas like universal background checks, registries, amnesty programs, or gun training programs actually penalizes or impedes anyone. No one would be taking away the right for law abiding citizens to own guns. Is it the possible paperwork of a background check that impedes and penalizes? The inconvenience of some safety training, the registration process? My God, your vehicle is registered! Is there anyone who feels penalized or impeded by that? My two daughters certainly didn’t feel penalized when they, by law, had to pass driver training, pass a written test and a road test before obtaining a driver’s license. I doubt anyone does. There are a vast number of people in America who think it’s a good idea to have tighter more effective, enforced gun laws, it would make them feel safer and according to a lot of people smarter than myself, it would go a long way to reduce violence and death by guns.
I have to also address your statement, “…to penalize the law-abiding because of the crimes of a (relatively) small number of criminals, smacks too much of the attitude of Argentinean “dirty war” general Reynaldo Benito Bignone,” let’s examine who exactly would be ‘penalized’. I’m of the opinion that the victims of criminals are the ones who are truly penalized, as society has not taken sufficient steps to ensure their safety. The law abiding gun owners would simply be inconvenienced.
And lastly, about your remark that my opinion of taking guns out of the areas where the most gun violence occurs would decrease gun crime is elitist thinking, I argue that you aren’t seeing this issue a broader long term sense. I did not imply that we should take legally owned guns away from law abiding minorities; however I did state that taking the guns out of the situations involving gangs and areas of heavy drug use would obviously increase safety. Unfortunately you can’t deny that these areas are often populated by the poor and minorities. That’s not being elitist, that’s the reality. Look at this more broadly and realistically. There are many examples of revitalized neighborhoods in America where crime has decreased, including illegal drug use, the presence of gangs and violence, gun violence included. This is usually a joint effort involving law enforcement, health departments, politicians (including the necessary legislation) and the citizens to want a better, safer, more prosperous community. One of the results of these success stories is fewer illegal guns in the community. That’s what I meant by my statement, “Since homicides and crime involving guns are often gang related, drug related and involve minorities, it makes sense that taking guns out of those situations would increase the safety of this population.
In reviewing your blog writings on the issue of gun control, you seem to concentrate heavily on your rights as a law abiding gun owner, and tend to want the other problems of society to be addressed first, such as illegal drug use and gangs, whilst leaving the gun issues alone. You seem to block out the obvious, that these issues are intertwined, and these issues must be addressed simultaneously. America has the perfect opportunity right now, to effect positive change by improving its gun laws. Have you heard of the acronym NIMBY, it’s an urban planning term and stands for “not in my backyard”. It refers to people who theoretically want change for the better, but not enough to accept any change that affects them.
Change is scary. Humans by nature are resistant to change, even when that change could mean peace. I believe America has a cataclysmic opportunity right now to change its trajectory of violence. One important way to do that happens to involve guns.
At this point I feel like we are repeating ourselves, and I don’t think I can add anything new to this debate so this is will be my last communication on this subject. Thank you for all of your responses.
I agree we’re getting to the point of diminishing returns in terms of how we each stand on this issue, so if you choose not to reply, I quite understand. I shall interpret it as your having more important things to do, and not as capitulation to my superior intellect, my extraordinary debating skills, my brilliant… Oh, never mind.
So, very briefly:
Since we already have a background check system in place, any claim by President Obama or anyone else in Washington that, “…we’re proposing background checks for criminals,” (Obama’s words, in this instance) is both specious and disingenuous, partly because the system already exists, partly because it isn’t enforced, and primarily because criminals won’t bother to try and go through a background check. Second amendment types, like me, also believe the new proposed background check would result in an ipso facto registration scheme. I never believed that until I discovered that in California, where I live, all records of handgun purchases are kept permanently on file by the California Department of Justice. That is, as the NICS system currently stands, a violation of federal law, but I am unclear if that applies to the states or if the tenth amendment allows states to operate under different rules. (Since no lawsuit has been filed, I suspect the latter.) But even the ACLU has expressed concern about the new proposals violating right-to-privacy standards.
If gun laws were made identical in every state that would require a repealing or modification of tenth amendment rights, so I doubt that will ever happen. But if it did, would it apply to individual rights as well as to restrictions? In other words, would my concealed carry permit be recognized and honored in New York City or Connecticut as it is California?
There are tons of laws on the books that are indeed beneficial, and that I am grateful for, but I stand by my statement that all laws abridge personal rights. A law may very well be intended for the greater good of society as a whole, and it may serve that purpose, but it still comes at the cost of personal freedom, and that is an issue which must, must, always be weighed very carefully before any law is passed.
I’m afraid the analogy between second amendment rights and driving laws is a comparison between apples and oranges. Driving a car is a privilege, not a God-given and constitutionally affirmed right.
You say that gun laws would “make [a vast number of people in America] feel safer.” I don’t doubt it, but that is not a reason to pass a law. In fact, that is a very good argument against any kind of new gun laws: they are merely feel-good pieces of legislation that will do nothing to reduce violence in any way.
Am I afraid of change? You bet your bippy, baby, as Goldie Hawn used to say. I am one of those old-fashioned types who cling to old habits, old customs, and old ways of doing things. And to old truths; read the Federalist papers.
Finally, I think the essence of our difference of opinion on this issue is summed up by your statement, “Society has not taken sufficient steps to ensure their” (you’re referring back to ‘victims,’ but I assume you mean all individual members of society) “safety.” Society, i.e. the government, can never and should never be responsible for the individual. Law enforcement officers who aren’t pushing an agenda will admit they cannot protect individuals, and going back to my earlier reply, the Washington, DC superior court has ruled police only have a duty to society as a whole, not to the individual. Beyond protection, the government today has assumed, but it should not have, the responsibility to care for individuals from delivery room to grave. To rely on the government is to renounce personal responsibility, and above all else, I really lament and abhor the complete abnegation of personal responsibility in this country. Oops, I spilled coffee in my lap. Instead of accepting responsibility for being clumsy, I’m going to sue you for pain and suffering and ensure that the rest of the nation must from now on always drink their coffee lukewarm. Oops, my horse shied and I got thrown. Instead of accepting responsibility for engaging in an activity that is universally acknowledged to be one of the most inherently dangerous activities there is, I’m going to sue you and put you out of business. Oops, I murdered someone while robbing them to support my drug habit. Instead of accepting responsibility for my actions, I’m going to claim insanity due to a deprived childhood, and I’ll put the blame for the use of the gun on the poor SOB I stole it from. Or the manufacturer. And just in case you think I’m a radical-far-right-gun-toting-NRA-Life-Member-conspiracy-theorist in a tinfoil hat (well, I am, if you’ll just replace the tinfoil hat with a Stetson), my top of the list example is the gun owner who says, mystified, “Oops, the gun accidentally discharged and killed (fill in the blank).” No. A gun is an inanimate object. It does not have an opposable thumb, nor a soul, nor a will of its own. If it discharged, it’s because some ignorant numbskull violated the most basic rules of gun handling. But God forbid anyone should ever be held accountable for anything, including themselves. Let the government take care of it.
http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-communism-survivor-explains-why-our-2nd-amendment-rights-must-not-be-infringed/
This video and news story will definitely give you some food for taught.
http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-emotional-newtown-father-makes-compelling-case-that-gun-control-is-not-the-answer/
I saw in the news that President Obama will be traveling with some of the parents of the children who were killed at New town to promote his anti-gun agenda. I just think that he is using these parents to jam his legislation through Congress. The link above is of a father who is on the other side of issue. He states that he has be unable to get his views heard until now. I t is interesting to note that he was not invited to join the President on his trip.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2293945945001/new-york-tells-legal-gun-owner-to-hand-over-weapons/?cmpid=NL_FNTopHeadlines