Toward a Real Conversation about Guns

We are long overdue for a serious conversation about guns in this country – not just a debate over their regulation, but a meaningful discussion of their place in our culture. There is much research to analyze, many policy considerations to weigh, and many stakeholders with different interests in the outcome of this conversation. But it is a conversation we need to have, and we should begin by clearing away some of the obstacles to doing so.

In the past 48 hours, I have seen the same old NRA talking points making the rounds on the internet, dressed up with catchy phrases and mocking graphics. These talking points do not contribute to the conversation, but are designed to distract us from it. They are poor substitutes for reasoned argument, and the people who parrot them only make it harder for us to solve one of the most complex and important problems in our society.

One popular talking point paints gun control advocates as stupid or naïve for believing criminals will obey gun control laws. While this may give opponents of gun control the childish satisfaction of feeling superior to those with whom they disagree, it is so unmoored from reality as to be entirely meaningless. First, the underlying premise is wrong – no one believes that even the strictest gun control regime will entirely prevent criminals from obtaining and using guns. Beyond that, the implied conclusion – that regulating guns will not reduce gun-related crime – is wrong.

This talking point is meant to conjure up the specter of innocent American families cowering helplessly before roving gangs of armed thugs, after having been stripped by their government of the only means they had to protect themselves. Strange, then, that this scenario is not playing out in countries with stricter gun control regimes than ours. In fact, what we see in those countries is – surprise! – lower rates of gun-related crime.

There are 270 million guns in the U.S., or roughly 88 guns for every 100 people. That makes us the country with the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world. War-torn Yemen comes in a distant second, with roughly 55 guns for every 100 people. Among “developed” countries, second place is more or less tied between Finland and Switzerland, with roughly 45 guns for every 100 people.

The U.S. also has the second-highest gun-related murder rate in the developed world (second only to Mexico with its drug war). It is close to 20 times higher than that of most other developed nations. We cannot pretend this has nothing to do with the fact that we are swimming in a sea of guns. And we cannot pretend that taking some of these guns out of circulation will not reduce our gun-related murder rate.

A second popular talking point builds on the absurdity of the first, and claims that gun-related violence has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the absence of God from our society. In other words, pay no attention to the obvious connection between high numbers of guns and high levels of gun-related violence – we can prevent mass shootings by encouraging more regular church attendance!

The U.S. is the most religious industrialized nation in the world, with about 85 percent of Americans believing in God and 75 percent attending religious services at least once a week. If high rates of gun-related violence are attributable to godlessness, one would expect the U.S. to have lower rates of such violence compared to countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, where 54-85% of the population identifies as atheist or agnostic. This is not the case. In Sweden in 2010 – likely the most secular country on earth – there were only 18 gun-related homicides. This, despite its relatively high gun ownership rate of 31 guns per 100 people. Clearly, people can restrain themselves from shooting each other to death without religion, and religion does not keep people from shooting each other to death (see, e.g., all religiously motivated violence ever).

A third popular talking point asserts that reducing the number of guns will not result in fewer murders because would-be murderers will simply use other weapons. One right-wing graphic notes that the 9-11 terrorists used box cutters, Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer, and the Nazis used gas. But so what? Those grossly oversimplified facts offer no support for the underlying claim that reducing the number of guns will not reduce the overall murder rate. They are meant to distract people from recognizing the obvious logic that reducing access to guns will result in a lower overall murder rate. The vast majority of homicides in the U.S. are committed using firearms. Imagine if, overnight, half of our guns disappeared. We'd be down to maybe 44 guns per 100 people – still toward the high end of the spectrum for other developed nations. Can anyone honestly believe that our murder rate would stay exactly the same? Can anyone seriously think that every future gun-related murder would be perpetrated using some other kind of weapon and not a single death would be prevented?

What these talking points boil down to is the fact that some opponents of gun control are more concerned with maintaining unfettered access to the weapons of their choice than with the people who die from gun-related violence. They will cry crocodile tears over the deaths of 20 beautiful children this week, and then fight like mad to keep us from thinking about the guns behind those deaths. We cannot afford to be fooled into thinking guns have nothing to do with gun-related violence. We need to come to grips with the fact that they do, and we must consider the possibility of accepting some restraints on our ability to have them so that fewer people die in the future.

We don't have to go as far as the U.K. did after its own tragic school shooting, the 1996 Dunblane massacre, prompted it to ban most private handgun ownership. But we need to consider all of the possible solutions to the problem of gun-related violence in our country, including tighter gun control regulations. Ridiculing gun control advocates and falling for fallacies only makes the problem worse. I hope we are capable of a more intelligent dialogue about what is, in the end, a matter of life and death for all of us.

Kraftwerk at MoMA...

Last night I attended Kraftwerk's performance at the Museum of Modern Art. It was the sixth of eight consecutive shows in which the group is presenting a chronological survey of each of its albums. Last night's show was for 1986's Techno Pop, though we were treated to a two hour performance that included so much more. Kraftwerk played all of its most famous songs, remixed, re-imagined, and accompanied by 3D animation (awesome glasses included). 

I could say the performance was remarkable, transcendent, and once-in-a-lifetime. And it was indeed all of those. But it was, above all else, really, really fun. Kraftwerk was excellent. The venue was obviously great. The crowd wasn't too pretentious. Most of us were dancing. I drove twenty hours to see Kraftwerk with 450 other people and it was damn fun. 

Here are some pictures from the show. 

An Open Letter To Representative Allen West

Dear Representative West,

In light of your comments about possible Communist members in Congress, I urge you to look into another group of elected officials. I believe that roughly 65 members of Congress are openly advocating fascism. They call themselves the “Tea Party Caucus.”

This group believes that diversity of opinion, at least that which strays from its ideology, should be condemned as disloyal. It views increased diversity of culture, ethnicity, and gender as a threat to national strength. It will stop at nothing to purge opposing views and groups from the mainstream in its effort to establish an all-encompassing political hegemony.

Violence is at the heart of the Tea Party Caucus' ideology. It believes that militarism and imperialistic ventures are fundamental to forming national identity. It uses military power to promote both its ideology and its preferred economic system, unfettered capitalism. The Tea Party Caucus is fiercely anti-liberal and anti-democratic, and advocates violence against individuals who champion values contrary to its own. Its rhetoric has incited the fire bombings of women's health clinics, attacks on government agencies, and murderous plots against rival political figures. No tactic is off the table for this fascistic group. Rule of law is merely an obstacle to its obtaining power.

I'm sure that you will find the actions of the Tea Party Caucus reprehensible and contrary to the traditions of our Nation. I look forward to you shedding light on the imminent threat that this group poses to our Democracy.

Best,

Last Throes

On Health Care Reform, The Court, And Power

The Supreme Court appears poised to sound the death knell for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This landmark piece of legislation is now in the hands of five conservative Justices who seem reluctant to extend the full protections of our Constitution to causes other than corporate power and empire. In other words, the survival of this Act looks increasingly unlikely.

Many of the Court's conservative Justices, most notably Antonin Scalia, are continually praised by people all along the political spectrum for their brilliance. But brilliance doesn't produce the radical decisions of this Court. Rulings like Citizens United, and potentially the striking down of health care reform, are the products of deception, partisanship, and intellectual dishonesty. Whether or not they form the majority opinion, the views of Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas will undoubtedly influence future litigation and scholarship for decades to come. These Justices inject ideas that, with the right makeup of the Court, become the law of the land, and allow miscarriages of justice against the powerless to triumph. These Justices routinely pervert the rule of law under the pretense of impartial adjudication.

Such actions by the Court are by no means unprecedented. During the Lochner era (1897-1936), the Court continually struck down regulations in its effort to promote unfettered capitalism. The case that defined the era, Lochner v. New York, was spurred by the 1895 Bakeshop Act, which was passed unanimously by the New York legislature. The act limited bakers' hours to 10 per day and 60 per week, and mandated improved working conditions in bakeries. The law was passed in response to the fact that most bakers worked more than 100 hours per week in unventilated bakeries, and suffered from severe respiratory and skin ailments as a result.

The Court, however, held that such regulations were violations of substantive due process. It held that employers had the fundamental right of contract under the 14^th Amendment, and regulations like the Bakeshop Act ran afoul of that right. Writing for the majority, Justice Rufus Peckham stated,

There is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of person or the right of free contract by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a baker. There is no contention that bakers as a class are not equal in intelligence and capacity to men in other trades or manual occupations, or that they are able to assert their rights and care for themselves without the protecting arm of the State, interfering with their independence of judgment and of action. They are in no sense wards of the State.

In his dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. lambasted the majority for basing its decision “upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain." He further stated,

Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire.”

Lochner was not passed in a vacuum. The Court struck down over 300 labor and employment laws in the late 19^th Century as unconstitutional under the guise of freedom of contract. Much like the current Court, the Supreme Court during the Lochner era invoked a method of constitutional interpretation that sought to expand the power of business interests, disempower workers, and restrict the government's ability to regulate business activities.

The current Supreme Court's decisions follow a similar theme to that of the Court during the Lochner era. It seeks to expand the power differential between the classes. The current Court interprets the Constitution narrowly when it reviews legislation or litigation that attempts to curtail the interests of the powerful or promote the interests of the powerless. Yet, as we saw in Citizens United, it has no qualms about deciding cases in a manner that can simultaneously curtail the rights of the lower classes while expanding those of the most powerful. 

How did the Lochner Court justify such naked transfers of power to the dominant class? Liberty, it claimed, prevented regulations that protected vulnerable workers from the exploitation of employers. And the Justices who will decide that the PPACA is unconstitutional will most certainly invoke a similar interpretation of liberty to justify the denial of health care to millions. We are, in many ways, witnessing a return to the Lochner era. 

History has shown us by now that the Constitution simply isn't tailored to promote justice. But what it can do, quite well in fact, is prevent injustice. By striking down the health care law, the Court will continue to deny us even this small consolation. It will solidify the power differential in America between the haves and have-nots, and, in the process, send a clear message: your rights are dependent upon power. Justice is reserved for the few, and certainly not for the lower classes.

In Memory Of ...

"In speaking of lies, we come inevitably to the subject of the truth. There is nothing simple or easy about this idea. There is no 'the truth,' 'a truth' -- truth is not one thing, or even a system. It is an increasing complexity. The pattern of the carpet is a surface. When we look closely, or when we become weavers, we learn of the tiny multiple threads unseen in the overall pattern, the knots on the underside of the carpet.

That is why the effort to speak honestly is so important. Lies are usually attempts to make everything simpler -- for the liar -- than it really is, or ought to be.

In lying to others we end up lying to ourselves. We deny the importance of an event, or a person, and thus deprive ourselves of a part of our lives. Or we use one piece of the past or present to screen out another. Thus we lose faith even with our own lives."

Women and Honor: Some Notes on Lying

- Adrienne Rich

A Song ...

Air's "People in the City."

R.I.P. Bert Sugar ...

Legendary boxing writer and historian Bert Sugar has passed away at the age of 74. He was one of the most unique figures in sports history and will be sorely missed.

In Solidarity ...

#TrayvonMartin

A Song ...

Björk's "Hollow."

American Gun Culture And The Murder Of Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin's death was the byproduct of the US gun culture. George Zimmerman lived out the fantasy that so many other gun fanatics in America share: chasing down a young black male when, as he perceived it, law enforcement had failed. And because of Florida's revolting, NRA-inspired "stand your ground" law, prosecutors will have a hard time proving the obvious: that Zimmerman gunned down Martin in a cold-blooded act of murder.

Americans are obsessed with the right to bear arms. Their obsession, however, comes at a time when gun ownership is nothing more than a recreational activity. It is a hobby. We don't live in the wild west. We pay for police officers, at least until the same people who are the most fervent "gun rights" advocates undermine the public sector to the point that state law enforcement becomes a thing of the past.

Our nation's obsession with guns is a symptom of America's collective arrested development. We're a country of overgrown children thinking we're playing cops and robbers. We can disguise it as a "constitutional right" or "self-defense," all we want. But let's not fool ourselves. We think guns are fucking cool, consequences be damned.

Blame the NRA. Blame the Tea Party. Blame the Republicans. They've made advocating for gun control an untenable position in politics. And blame the people who support these gun policies that lead to tragedies like the killing of Trayvon Martin. We should be ashamed. 

This story, however, won't prompt any changes in policies or a substantive discussion about our gun laws. Trite slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" will rule the day. Compassion and common sense, once again, will be cast aside. The powerful interests and petty individuals obsessed with their constitutional right to a hobby will prevail. Trayvon's story will be gone in a couple more news cycles. Yet the threat from individuals like George Zimmerman will remain.

Sign Of The Times ...

Bob Englehart, Cagle

Don't Request A Cover From Bradford Cox ...

I saw Atlas Sound in Cleveland last week. There was certainly some playful interaction between Cox and the crowd, but nothing like this. At a show in Minnesota, an audience member requested 'My Sharona.' Cox obliged by performing a twisted one-hour rendition of the song. It was a memorable performance, to say the least.

Via Pitchfork