this is not about freedom

Yesterday, at the vigil for the dead children of Newtown, President Obama asked this question: “Are we prepared that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

It’s a good question. But it’s the wrong question. This is not about the price of freedom.

It’s important NOT to allow the gun lobby to frame the discussion in terms of freedom. They like to argue that even the smallest attempt to restrict or limit any aspect of firearm technology is an assault on freedom. They like to claim that privately owned guns are the only reliable barrier between freedom and tyranny. They like to portray themselves as the heroic Defenders of Liberty, as the Guardians of Democracy, the Champions of Freedom.

They’re not. Again, this is not about freedom. They’re the Defenders of Convenience. They’re the Guardians of Fantasy.

Their insistence on having access to 30 round magazines or 100 round magazines isn’t about freedom. It’s about the terrible burden of hobbyist shooters at the rifle range not to have to pause for a few moments to reload.

Their insistence on the ‘right’ to carry firearms everywhere — to church, to the bar, to places of business — isn’t about democracy. It’s about action figure fantasies. It’s about men wanting to believe that in the unlikely event that a dangerous situation develops, they’d be able to resolve it. With a gun. It’s about a movie poster world view.

die hardLet me say it again. This is not about freedom. It’s about male fantasies.

The gun lobby claims new gun laws won’t stop the killing. They claim there are already more than 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. already. That’s not true — but even if it was, it would be irrelevant. A lot of existing gun laws either permit easier access to firearms or extend gun rights. They’re not laws that restrict or limit firearms. For example, earlier this year the State of Indiana enacted a law that essentially gives homeowners the right to shoot police officers under certain conditions. Seriously. The law states:

a person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry into the person’s dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession.

This law was written with the assistance of the National Rifle Association. It’s grounded in the paranoid belief that the government wants to stifle freedom by sending government agents to seize the weapons of common citizens. It’s a law that says you can shoot and kill police officers if you ‘reasonably believe’ the officer is coming to break into your home and take your legal firearms.

red dawnI’ll say it again. This is not about freedom. It’s about paranoia. It’s about the irrational belief that some day some military or paramilitary force will seize control of the United States, and it’s about the male fantasy that plucky Americans with guns will resist and prevail.

We live in a society in which children have to be trained how to behave in the event of a school shooting. We live in a society where school entrances are routinely locked to reduce the likelihood of mass murders. That’s not freedom.

The gun lobby likes to claim that an armed citizenry is a free citizenry. That’s a lie. An armed citizenry is a frightened citizenry, and people who live in fear are never really free.

We can place common sense limitations on firearm ownership in the US without infringing on the rights of citizens. But it’ll be much more difficult to do that as long as we keep discussing firearms in terms of freedom. This is not about freedom. It’s about lives.

we need to stop being stupid

For the last decade or two any discussion of gun policy has been relegated to people who are either paranoid or ignorant. The gun rights advocates are paranoid; the gun control advocates are ignorant. Both are passionate.

I’m not trying to be insulting here. When I say gun rights folks are paranoid, I mean their passionate defense of firearms isn’t grounded in reality. They have a completely irrational belief that they need powerful weaponry to defend themselves against their own government and an equally irrational fear that the government intends to seize all their weapons. And when I say gun control advocates are ignorant, I mean that despite their passionate concern for the welfare and safety of their fellow citizens, the vast majority of them have little or no experience with firearms and often don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

Passion is good for debate. Paranoia and ignorance — not so much.

Here’s an example of what I mean about ignorance among gun control advocates. In an editorial in the LA Times today Steve Lopez writes the following:

In this country, you can legally buy assault weapons.

No, you can’t (see note). You cannot walk into a gun shop and buy an assault weapon. An assault weapon is a military weapon; it’s a gun capable of fully automatic fire. If you hold the trigger down, a fully automatic weapon will continue to fire rounds until the ammunition is exhausted. But it’s NOT a machine gun. A machine gun is only capable of automatic fire; it’s either on ‘safe’ or ‘automatic’. That’s it. An assault rifle has the capacity for selective fire: single rounds, bursts of three rounds, or full auto.

Gun rights advocates know what an assault rifle is. If a gun control advocate gets into a discussion with a gun rights advocate and starts barking about assault weapons or machine guns, the gun rights advocate can legitimately disregard what the gun control advocate is saying because he clearly doesn’t have a clue about firearms. If chef Mario Batali hears a person talking about Kraft Mac & Cheez as Italian cuisine, he can rightly ignore him.

So no, you can’t legally buy an assault weapon in the US. You can, though, walk into a gun shop and buy a semi-automatic firearm based on the design of an assault weapon. A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a single round every time you pull the trigger. If you want to shoot, say, 30 rounds you have to pull the trigger 30 times.

Gun control advocates need to understand the technology they want to regulate. In the past, their ignorance.has led to stupid gun policies. For example, Lopez also writes:

There used to be a federal ban on assault weapons, but it died in 2004

No, there wasn’t a federal ban on assault weapons. There was a federal law that banned a group of weapons that looked like assault weapons. It was, in many ways, stupid policy. The law restricted the sale of weapons that had at least two characteristics from a laundry list of military-style attributes — characteristics like a pistol grip on a rifle or a bayonet mount. Those attributes were essentially cosmetic; they had absolutely nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon.

AR-16

AR-16

For example, you couldn’t buy an AR-15, but you could buy a Mini-Ruger. The difference between the weapons are largely differences in cosmetic design. Both fire .223 caliber rounds, both are capable of semi-automatic fire, both can utilize high capacity magazines, both are equally lethal. But the AR-15 looks more brutal and militaristic.

Mini-Ruger

Mini-Ruger

The so-called ‘assault weapons ban’ was instituted by people with good intentions but inadequate information. It was flawed, and because it was flawed, it was difficult to support its renewal. And the failure to renew the ban made it politically more difficult to pass any further gun control legislation.

The next time we introduce gun control legislation, it’s critically important we know what we’re talking about.

That said, there were two facets of the law that potentially could have had an impact on mass murders like the one that took place in Sandy Hook. First, the law also banned magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. Second, cosmetic differences sometimes matter.

Limiting the capacity of magazines forces mass murderers to reload more often. I’m in favor of that. If it takes seven or eight seconds for the shooter to eject one magazine and inset another, that’s seven or eight seconds more a target has to run or hide. It won’t stop mass shootings, but it’ll help reduce the body count. And that’s a good start.

50 round drum magazine

50 round drum magazine

But why should cosmetic differences in firearms matter? Here’s a true thing about the majority of mass murderers: they may have severe personality disorders, but they’re not crazy. They almost always plan their attacks, and those plans are usually consistent in two ways. First, they require effective weapons. Second — and this doesn’t get nearly as much attention as it deserves — mass murderer plans often include an aesthetic component.

Why do so many mass murderers wear camouflage or an all black outfit? It’s not so they can blend into the environment of the mall or schoolhouse. Why do they often wear masks or balaclavas? It’s not to hide their identity; most either kill themselves, force the police to kill them, or surrender without a fuss. Why do so many wear tactical gear like helmets and vests, which can be easily purchased by civilians?

They dress that way because popular entertainment culture says that’s how mass killers are supposed to dress. They don’t want to just kill and wound a lot of people; they want to look cool while they do it.

Tactical gear

Tactical gear

That mass murderer aesthetic also influences their choice of weaponry. The two most popular weapons for mass murderers are the AR-15 and the Glock pistol. Why the AR-15? Because, as the legislators who voted to ban the gun noted, the damned thing just looks lethal. It looks like it means business. As a killing tool, it IS more effective than many other weapons (partly because of AR accessories and the wound ballistics of the .223 round), but mass murderers also choose it for aesthetic reasons. It looks badass.

9mm Glock

9mm Glock

There’s an aesthetic facet to the Glock as well. It has a clean, no-nonsense look. The physical design of the Glock has actually influenced almost every other handgun manufacturer; they all now produce pistols that look similar to the Glock. Mass murderers also pick the Glock for the same reason two-thirds of police departments have selected it; the Glock is an incredibly effective and efficient handgun.

The AR-15 and the Glock have one other thing in common: they both accept high capacity magazines. You can legally buy 100 round magazines for the AR-15. James Holmes, the gunman who killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in an Aurora, CO movie theater, was armed with a Glock and a variant of the AR-15 that had a 100 round magazine. He’d have killed more if the AR-15 hadn’t jammed.

Mass murderers may consider aesthetics in their preparation, but what they’re ultimately after is a high body count. We can’t do much about the aesthetic choices of mass murderers. We can try to reduce the body count through intelligent legislation based on a sound understanding of firearm technology.

We can re-institute the most effective part of the 1994 law: we can ban magazines holding more than ten rounds. Will that stop mass murders? No. Nor will it reduce the body count immediately, because there are thousands and thousands of high capacity magazines out there now. But if we banned them, we can be assured of one thing: gun nuts will begin to buy them and hoard them, which effectively removes them from circulation. Over time, it will reduce the body count.

A typical gun show

A typical gun show (Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency)

There are other common sense things we can do. We can also close the loophole that allows firearms to be sold at gun shows without a background check. We can tighten restrictions on who can legally sell firearms at gun shows. Around 40% of all gun sales are ‘private’ sales, many of which take place at gun shows by unlicensed dealers.

We can follow the Canadian model and require that every gun buyer must have two people willing to vouch for him before he can buy the weapon. Will that stop mass murders? No, the weapons used in Sandy Hook were purchased by the shooter’s mother. It won’t stop mass murders, but it will very likely reduce the number of them.

We can eliminate the absurd restrictions placed by Republican lawmakers on background checks. For example, right now the law limits the amount of time a background check can take. If the check isn’t finished in the allotted time, the sale is allowed to proceed by default.

We can require retailers to report the sale of tactical gear to civilians. Will that stop mass murders? No, but it will alert the police to a possible problem. And it will deny mass murderers the additional pleasure of dressing like a badass when they go off to murder innocent people.

We can take a number of small steps to reduce the incidence and severity of mass murders. We can do that without treading on any legitimate Second Amendment rights. We can do that if we go about it intelligently. And that means gun control advocates need to educate themselves about firearms.

We need to stop being stupid about this stuff.

NOTE: You can, in fact, buy a true assault weapon in most states, but it’s a much more involved and rigorous process that can take several weeks or months to complete.

it’s the guns

Sandy Hook Elementary School — children from kindergarten through fourth grade. We’re talking kids who are roughly 5 to 10 years old. Right now they’re saying 26 dead, maybe 18 of them children. We don’t really know. We don’t know how many were injured but survived. We’re hearing reports that when the shooting was over the children were told to keep their eyes closed as they were led from the school.

[These shootings] happen in clusters, and given the persistence of them happening in Democrat/Liberal enclaves, I’m beginning to wonder if it’s deliberate.

What we do know right now is the shooter is dead. We’re told he had two handguns — a Glock and a Sig Sauer — and possibly a .223 caliber rifle. The .223 is a common caliber for rifles, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the shooter used an AR-15, the civilian equivalent of an M-16. Nobody has said yet, but will anybody be surprised if/when we discover those guns were bought legally?

9mm Glock

9mm Glock

These are all very common firearms, very easy to obtain at gun store or sporting goods shop after a simple background check — or at gun show without a background check. But we can’t blame the firearms, can we. Because guns don’t kill people.

This sounds like a potential jihad attack.

Already the right wing gun nuts are pushing back. Of course, they are. Kids have been murdered and their first thought is to blame anybody or anything but the tools that make these mass murders so easy and so commonplace. It can’t be the guns.

If this is Islamic terror related, I wonder if Ubama will claim the video made them do it?

People want to blame somebody. Somebody else. Not one of us. Not somebody who is white, not somebody who is Christian. People want to believe this was an act of twisted religion or politics. People want to believe this is an act of madness.

Alleged shooter, Adam Lanza

Alleged shooter, Adam Lanza

But this is the alleged shooter when he was younger. An ordinary-looking white kid. Since he’s not a Muslim, he must be crazy — because only a Muslim or a crazy person would do something this horrific. And maybe the shooter did have a psychiatric problem. But he also had guns. Crazy and heavily armed — not a healthy combination.

 Just waiting for sightings of Sarah Brady or her kind dancing on the bodies and calling for more gun control now.

The news folks are saying this is ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘beyond belief’ and ‘completely unthinkable.’ They said the same thing after every other mass shooting this year, and every mass shooting last year and the year before and the sad and ugly truth is that is is absolutely NOT beyond belief. It’s not only not beyond belief, it’s completely fucking predictable. Because of the proliferation of guns in the United States.

AR-16

AR-15

We don’t want to recognize the fact that mass murders happen in the U.S. on a regular basis. They happen so often they don’t make the national news. They’re considered local stories — until the bodies hit newsworthy numbers.

Bank on it, “O” will make a power play to shut down gun ownership.

It’s being reported that this is the deadliest mass grade school shooting in U.S. history. We have so many mass murders at schools that we have to distinguish them by grade. Virginia Tech University holds the record body count for school shootings, but Sandy Hook is a close second. The victims in the former case were college students; the victims at Sandy Hook were mostly children. The thing they have in common is the guns.

9mm Sig Sauer

9mm Sig Sauer

Each time a reporter talks about “the deadliest school shooting in history” there’s an implied “…to date.” It’s the deadliest school shooting of 4th Graders and below…to date.

It is sickening that the left will blame the gun, but not support the gun that would prevent this Satanic act.

It’s not the gun. Don’t blame the gun. The gun didn’t shoot itself. We’re going to hear that a lot. And you know what? It’s true. Individual firearms aren’t responsible for all these deaths. But the collective easy availability of firearms is most definitely a major part of the problem. The easy availability of high capacity magazines, that’s part of the problem. The lethality of firearms, that’s a serious part of the problem.

This is an act of provocation allowing for new legislation to outlaw handguns. I have no evidence yet, but this is a play straight out of Rules for Radicals. Watch out, Zero’s about to make his big move to disarm the law abiding public

When the local hospital was notified of the mass shooting, they brought in extra staff to assist with the casualties. Only three people were brought to the hospital. Three. More than two dozen dead, only three injured. Why? Because of the guns.

I am afraid the Gun Control Fascists will use this to push for Gun Control.

I’m also afraid. I’m afraid and angry. I’m fucking furious. I’m furious because we don’t have any meaningful gun control. I’m furious because despite all the dead children in Connecticut today, despite all the grieving families, nothing is going to change. Next month there’ll be another mass shooting, and there’ll be another the month after that, and nothing is going change.

It’s not the gun? Fuck you, it IS the gun. It’s all the goddamn guns.

Editorial note: The quotes above were taken verbatim from FreeRepublic.com.

statistically verifiable facts

A few days ago, Jovan Belcher, a linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs football team, shot his girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, multiple times, killing her. He later drove to his team’s home stadium where he used a second handgun to shoot himself in the head. According to news reports, Belcher owned about eight firearms — all purchased legally. Belcher was 25 years old; Perkins was 22. They had a three month old daughter, Zoey.

jovan belcher

Last Sunday sports commentator Bob Costas made a brief (about 90 seconds) statement in which he quoted from a newspaper column written by Jason Whitlock. He said,

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.

In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

Predictably, that 90 second statement sparked an oversized reaction from gun nuts (and yes, if you get angry and alarmed because a sports commentator expresses a 90 second opinion suggesting there’s something wrong with American gun culture, then you’re a gun nut). Costas said nothing about gun control, he said nothing about the Second Amendment. He simply reiterated the point made by Whitlock: the easy availability of handguns does NOT make us safer; it only increases the probability of gun violence. But by expressing an opinion, Costas has been accused of treason, of attacking the Second Amendment, of insulting the American Way of Life.

Much of the criticism of Costas has included a litany of various ways people have been murdered in the US — baseball bats, crossbows, knives, ball peen hammers, spoons, cars, cast iron skillets,  etc. This is always followed by the inevitable and profoundly stupid question “Why don’t we outlaw cast iron skillets?” That notion is repeated in this YouTube rejoinder to Costas. The speaker repeats one of the most common and ridiculous arguments against sensible gun control. He says: “To blame a gun for man’s decision is to foolishly attribute free will to an inanimate object.”

The obvious flaw in that argument is the assumption that people are blaming the weapon for the violence. That’s nonsense. The gun isn’t responsible for the violence; the gun does, however, amplify the lethality of the violence. That’s the entire purpose of a gun — to inflict considerable damage and to do it from a distance. If they ever invent a cast iron skillet intentionally designed to inflict lethal damage from a distance, I’ll argue that skillet ought to be regulated too.

It astonishes me that there’s even a debate about this. Handguns facilitate lethal violence. It’s just that simple. Handguns make it easier to kill people spontaneously, to kill more people, to kill them more quickly. To say that isn’t an act of treason. To say that isn’t an assault on the Second Amendment. To say that isn’t an insult to the American Way of Life.

To say that handguns facilitate lethal violence is merely to state a statistically verifiable fact.

kasandra perkins & zoey belcher

Of course, nobody can say with any degree of certainty whether Kasandra Perkins and Jovan Belcher would be alive today if they didn’t live in a house full of guns. What we can say and what we need to say — and we need to say it much more often — is this: having a house full of guns significantly increased the odds that Belcher and Perkins and baby Zoey would die by violence. And that’s a fact.

UPDATE: It’s worth noting that the majority of the discussion about this case — in the media and on the internet — is about guns or about football. Almost nobody is talking about the fact that Kasandra Perkins was murdered.

Here are some more facts: Every day, three women are killed by their husbands, boyfriends, and lovers. More than 90% of the domestic murders in the US are committed by men against women, and 88% of those murders involve a firearm.

Yes, it’s important to examine America’s gun culture, and yes it’s important to investigate the damage (social, emotional and physical) football players suffer. But this was also a crime against a woman, and it’s shameful for us to ignore that.

sad and stupid

“Right now, it’s just a mass shooting.”

Those are the words of ‘a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity,’ quoted in The Washington Post. Just a mass shooting. Jeebus on a fucking cracker. Just another mass shooting.

Some jamoke strolls into a Sikh temple and opens fire. Six people dead. Seven, counting the shooter himself. And we’ve become so inured to this routine madness that federal officials can say “it’s just a mass shooting.” In other words, it’s nothing out of the ordinary; it’s not an extraordinary massacre — just your usual, normal, everyday sort of massacre.

And how is the right wing responding to this latest ‘just a mass shooting’? Some of them are assuming it’s a ploy by President Obama to create conditions that will help him get re-elected and take away their guns. Here are a few choice comments from freerepublic.com:

   [T]he timing seems suspicious as well, given the upcoming elections and Democrats’ attempst to scale back conceal carry?

After Aurora is this the next asset being ‘activated’ by his handlers. The more BHO fears November the more of these events are going to occur and they will escalate in level of violence and number of casualties.

Sounds like Liberal black ops operation to influence the election

Adolph Hitler: socialist. Obama: socialist. And the parallels don’t stop there by any means. The parallels are eerily similar, except instead of Jews, it’s Christians that are now ok to persecute. I know in this case it wasn’t but that’s where the trend is going. I’m still wondering when 0bama’s Reichstag Fire moment will happen.

Wow the lefties are really shooting up the country right before the election. No doubt to prop up their Obama God as only he can save us from those evil right wingers.

So it’s either just another ordinary mass killing or it’s a liberal plot to disarm conservatives. Both viewpoints are sad and stupid. Stupid, stupid, and so terribly sad.

how did we get here?

Two things fuel the current idiotic state of gun laws in the United States: the romantic tradition of the Old West and contemporary paranoia and fear. It began with the glorification of the gunfight, in which a pair of steely-eyed men — one good and one wicked, of course — faced each other on dusty streets at high noon and settled their differences. There’s a limited but semi-factual basis for that tradition. Those sorts of gunfights actually did, on rare occasion, take place. In fact today is the anniversary of the first recognized ‘high noon’ style gunfight. It didn’t take place at noon, though, and neither of the participants could be said to be entirely ‘good’ people, and there was nothing particularly romantic about it. But this is where the tradition was born.

On this day in 1865, in the market square of Springfield, Missouri, a cowboy named Davis Tutt, who a few months earlier had been serving in the Confederate Army, faced off against James Butler Hickock, a professional gambler who’d served in the Union Army, first as a Jayhawker and later as a scout (if you’ve seen the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales, you’ve seen Jayhawkers — they were the ‘Red Legs’ who killed Clint Eastwood’s wife and child, and later massacred his companions as they were surrendering). Because of his prominent nose, Hickock’s fellow Jayhawkers called him Duckbill. By the end of the war, they’d begun calling him Wild Bill.

Wild Bill Hickock

The gunfight was primarily over a gambling debt; secondarily, it involved disputes over women (Tutt had been paying ‘undue attention’ to Hickock’s girlfriend; Hickock, on the other hand, was believed to have impregnated Tutt’s sister). They met in the town’s square, stood somewhere between 50 and 75 yards apart, took up a sideways duelist’s stance, and drew and fired at about the same time. Tutt, who was generally accounted the better shot, missed. Hickock didn’t. A year and a half later, an account of the gunfight was published in Harper’s Magazine. It propelled Hickock from his status as “a desperado, a drunken, swaggering fellow” to that of a dime-novel hero.

There is, let’s face it, something perversely attractive about the Old West mythos of the straight-talking and straight-shooting lawman. In reality, straight-talking was significantly less important than straight-shooting. It was the notion of straight-shooting that sparked the creation of the National Rifle Association.

At the end of every war there’s always a group of people who say “Well, that’s done — now, how do we fight the next one?” At the end of the American Civil War, one of those people was former Union Army General George Wingate. He was appalled by the inability of city-raised Union soldiers to hit a target; it was estimated that for every 1000 rounds fired by Union soldiers, only one Confederate soldier was hit. Confederate troops, having a more rural background, were far more accurate. In 1871 Wingate and a few others created the National Rifle Association to rectify that situation.

For a century or so, that’s what the NRA did — they taught firearm safety, they taught marksmanship, and they lobbied for sensible gun laws. That’s right, sensible gun laws in response to contemporary social circumstances. In the 1920s and 30s, for example, the NRA acted in response to the rise of gangsterism. This was the era of Bonnie and Clyde, of Machine Gun Kelly, of John Dillinger. The NRA helped craft legislation to restrict the buying and carrying of guns; laws requiring a person to obtain a permit from local law enforcement in order to carry a concealed weapon, laws limiting those permits to people who had a valid cause to be armed, laws requiring gun dealers to report every gun sale to law enforcement, and laws imposing a waiting period on the purchase of weapons. They supported laws restricting the sale and ownership of automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns, which were considered ‘gangster’ guns. Even as late as 1963, after the assassination of President Kennedy, the NRA supported a ban on mail-order gun sales.

John Dillinger

By the middle of the 1960s, the NRA had essentially become an organization devoted to supporting the interests of hunters and sportsmen. Then in May of 1967, something unexpected happened. The wrong people started buying, owning and carrying guns. A year earlier, in response to incidents of police violence, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale formed the Black Panther Party to protect their neighborhoods. They began to openly carry firearms — mostly shotguns and handguns — while patrolling the streets. They also began to stockpile weapons.

In response, a conservative Republican state assemblyman, Don Mulford, proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city. The governor of California, Ronald Reagan, supported the restriction, saying there was “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and telling reporters the legislation “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.” The new legislation was presented to the public as sensible gun control, but everybody knew it was directed at one segment of the population. As one Black Panther said at the time, the law wasn’t about controlling guns; it was about controlling black people.

The law passed. Of course it did. And on the day the legislation was debated, the Black Panthers marched, fully armed, to the state capitol.

The Black Panther Party on the steps of the California legislature – May, 1967

The following month began what has come to be called ‘the Long Hot Summer.” In June of 1967 there were race riots in Tampa,  Atlanta, Buffalo, Boston, and Cincinnati. In July the riots spread to Detroit, Newark, Birmingham, Chicago, New York City, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis. The rioting continued through August. In the three months of summer, there were 159 race riots in the United States. Police and National Guardsmen who attempted to maintain order during the riots often became the targets of sniper fire.

A couple of noteworthy things happened as a result of the riots. The Kerner Commission, established by President Johnson to determine why the riots took place and how future riots could be avoided, noted one reason for the level of violence was the easy access to firearms. That led to more very specific gun control legislation. People who’d been convicted of a felony or of drug possession weren’t allowed to buy a gun. In addition, small inexpensive handguns — known as ‘Saturday Night specials’ — were banned. Those laws received bipartisan support. Those laws, it should also be noted, primarily affected poor, urban, African-American communities.

While this was taking place, the NRA began to splinter. One branch continued to remain primarily a sportsman’s support group; the other branch began to believe it was important for good people to arm themselves against the possible collapse of civilization. That branch actively worked to rescind some of the legislation the NRA originally supported, in order to make it easier to acquire firearms.

The existence of the Black Panther party helped fuel the paranoid wing of the NRA, which eventually seized control of the group, turning it into the extremist political organization it is now. It didn’t matter that the Black Panthers self-destructed in a welter of drug abuse and criminality. Another terrifying enemy has always presented itself to the NRA. Communists, Muslims, the US government itself — there’s always somebody out to get them.

Any attempt to place even the smallest restriction on firearms is now condemned by the NRA as part of some shadowy plot to seize all the firearms in the U.S. As a result, restrictions on gun sales, gun ownership and the ability to carry a firearm have been relaxed or eliminated altogether.

Because we’ve perpetuated this romantic myth of gun play, and because a relatively small, paranoid, powerful gun lobby devotes a tremendous amount of money and effort to keep folks frightened, those of us who live in the US find ourselves in a nation in which a 24 year old kid can buy a full suit of tactical ballistic body armor, load up on weapons with high capacity magazines, and stroll into a movie theater and shoot 90 people.

It’s worth noting, though, that even Wild Bill Hickock believed in gun control. When he was the marshal of Abilene, Kansas he required cowboys to surrender their weapons when they came into town. A man named Phil Coe, drunk and belligerent, encouraged by his buddies, refused to surrender his gun. When Hickock insisted, Coe drew his gun and fired. Hickock drew his own weapon and shot Coe twice in the abdomen, killing him.

There’s a lesson to be learned there. Two lessons, in fact. Immediately after he shot Coe, Hickcock, out of the corner of his eye, saw somebody approaching him in a hurry. He turned and fired again, thinking it was one of Coe’s friends. It was, in fact, his own friend and deputy, coming to his aid. The man died on the spot.

We need to remember that. There’s nothing romantic about a gunfight, and the gun doesn’t care who gets killed.

the stupidest fucking people on the planet

Let me begin by saying this: I’m a liberal who likes guns. Guns are incredibly efficient technology, and I like efficiency. They make a terrific noise, and there are times when I enjoy a loud noise. I like the fact that you can point them at an object and a hole will appear in that object, and I like that it takes some skill to make that hole appear where you want it to appear. If you shoot a handgun at night, flame comes out of the barrel — and that’s pretty. Even prettier is tracer fire at night. So yes, I like guns.

I just don’t trust anybody to own one.

The fetishization of firearms reveals the very worst of American culture. It makes already paranoid people even more paranoid and already stupid people even more stupid. Witness Representative Louis Gohmert, a Republican from Texas (and I don’t want to cast aspersions on Texas, but lawdy folks, what the fuck is wrong with you people?). Gohmert has proven himself capable of superhuman feats of stupidity in the past (he once argued that the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline was good for the environment because it gave caribou a place to have sex), but in an interview this morning he took stupid to a new level. Gohmert claimed last night’s mass murder at the premier of the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado was a result of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.” That’s not just stupid, it’s delusional. He also wondered why nobody in the audience didn’t pull a firearm and return fire — I guess because one person shooting in a dark movie theater just isn’t enough. But hey, returning fire — that’s the Christian thing to do. (Gohmert, by the way, teaches Sunday School at the Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas; it’s unknown how many of the children who attend his lectures are packing heat.)

Louis Gohmert

Some people on far right websites like FreeRepublic are even asserting the mass murder is part of a plan by the Obama administration — either to seize all the weapons in the US before the election in November or as part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot to seize control of the US. Or both. Others are claiming the shooting was part of an Occupy Wall Street plan to…well, nobody seems to know why OWS would shoot innocent strangers in a movie theater, but fucking hippie faggot communists dammit they’re capable of anything — I mean, what sort of people play drums in a circle? And then, of course, there were the people who assumed that since the shooting took place on the first night of Ramadan, it had to be a jihadist attack. Stupid, stupid fucking people.

There are three things we can be certain of. First, there will be calls from a few liberals for reasonable gun control legislation. Second, there will be claims from conservatives that existing gun control laws are already too strict. And finally, nothing will change.

Right now in the United States it’s almost as easy to buy a firearm as it is to buy a toaster. Sure, if you go to a licensed gun dealer, you’ll have to fill out a form and show some identification–but you’d have to be stupider than Louis Gohmert if you can’t figure out an easy way to get around that. Even if you are that stupid, you can still go to a gun show this weekend and buy any number of weapons without filling out any forms or showing any identification at all. Or you can go to an estate sale, or an auction, or a garage sale and buy weapons. Or if it’s too hot to go outside, you buy weapons through mail-order sportsman catalogs or on the internet and have them delivered right to your door.

This didn’t change after the Columbine School shootings, it didn’t change after the Virginia Tech school shootings, it didn’t change after the shooting at the Gabrielle Giffords event, it hasn’t changed despite all the mass murders that take place in the US every year — and sad to say, it’s not going to change now.

Here is a true thing: it’s too goddamn easy to buy firearms in the U.S. Don’t give me that shit about ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ If you actually think that’s true, then you’re just as fucking stupid as Louis Gohmert. Guns make it easier to kill people, and to kill people in larger numbers. You tell me that this guy in Colorado could have have killed as many people if he’d used a bomb? Fine, I’m all for making it more difficult to make bombs too. But it takes some skill and patience to build a bomb, whereas any nitwit can walk into a gun show and buy as many guns as his credit card will allow. You tell me that Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms? I’m with you there, but brother that was written in the last half of the 18th century when a good marksman might have been able to fire four rounds per minute in a fucking musket. I’d be willing to allow you to own all the muskets you want. I guarantee you if the Aurora gunman had been armed with a musket, Colorado families wouldn’t be burying a dozen kids this week.

Here’s one of the problems we face. Right now liberals are saying “This isn’t a time for politics; we should be thinking about the families” and conservatives are saying “This is a tragedy, but you can’t punish honest law-abiding gun owners because of the actions of one crazy person.” And I’ll say “This IS a time for politics, because that’s the only way we can reduce the incidence of these sorts of mass murders.” And I’ll say “Placing reasonable limits on the types of firearms a person can own and the size of the magazines for those firearms isn’t punishing anybody but people who intend to shoot a whole lot of people in a short amount of time.”

What happened in Aurora is a community tragedy. The national tragedy is that the firearm debate in the US is controlled by the stupidest fucking people on the planet.

NOTE: I have to confess to an error. I suggested nothing had changed as a result of the shooting at the Gabrielle Giffords political event. I was wrong. Four months after the shootings, the State of Arizona passed legislation making the Colt single-action army revolver the State’s official sidearm.

beyond all recognition

You know what bothers me? For six years Republicans in Congress have blocked the appointment of a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms–an agency which they’ve also woefully under-funded. Republicans in Congress have also opposed any legislation that would make firearms trafficking a federal crime. In fact, Republicans have opposed anything even remotely resembling reasonable restrictions on the sale or ownership of firearms. Those things bother me.

You know what else bothers me? In Arizona if you’re 18 and can pass an instant criminal background check, you can buy as many guns as you want. Five, ten, twenty guns–no problem. No permit required, no waiting period–lay down the cash and you can walk out of a gun shop with a couple dozen firearms for your own personal use. You can then, ten minutes later, change your mind. You can decide you don’t really need twenty firearms, and you can walk down the street and sell those guns to a stranger. Unless the government can prove that at the moment you made the purchase you intended to sell those guns to a person who couldn’t legally buy one for himself, it’s all perfectly legal.

You know what else bothers me? Any attempt to tighten those Arizona laws have been blocked by Republicans.

And this bothers me: Republicans in Congress are accusing the Obama administration of deliberately allowing firearms purchased in Arizona to be ‘walked’ over the Mexican border and sold to drug cartels in order to create a crisis that would allow them to enact stricter gun control laws. In other words, Republicans have created the conditions that make it almost impossible to prevent guns from being sold to Mexican drug cartels and are now claiming there’s something sinister in the inability of the Obama administration to prevent guns from being sold to Mexican drug cartels.

Here’s something else that bothers me. Darrell Issa–the Republican Senator who is leading the so-called Fast and Furious investigation–was himself arrested once for possessing a concealed, loaded, unregistered handgun.

And you know what bothers me most of all? The news media refuse to take the time to actually learn the facts of the situation. They simply repeat the accusations, the half-truths and the outright lies made by Issa and other opponents of the Obama administration, and call it reporting.

This is just fucked up. Completely, totally, beyond all recognition.