Schrödinger's Shooter

Dear firearm owner. Thank you for reading.

First off, we will assume that you have good intentions. You own a firearm or many firearms because:

1) you hunt animals to provide your family with animal protein,
2) you are skilled and proficient with the use of these weapons and you go to firing ranges in the same way that golfers go to driving ranges,
3) you inherited these firearms from family members and you treasure the memories associated with these objects,
4) you are steeped in an ethnic and historical tradition of owning firearms to protect yourself and your family,
5) you are a US citizen who believes in second amendment rights,
6) you have voluntarily registered your firearm with a regulatory organization. Should your weapon(s) be stolen, you would report the theft to the police, and
7) you consciously remove bullets from the weapon; you lock the weapon and its ammunition in separate, secure containers to ensure the safety of your loved ones.

So far, so good. You seem to be a responsible human being, acutely aware that your firearms have the potential to be used to kill people or to commit a crime.

Now here's the challenge.

While there are firearm owners who willingly observe any of the above, there are organizations - well funded by weapons manufacturers - who lobby the US government to prevent it from regulating the possession or use of firearms in any way.

This allows irresponsible, dangerous, murderous, mentally unstable people to acquire firearms without any provisions for tracking or monitoring the arsenals they may be gathering.

This means if somebody reports murderous threats that an ex-partner, ex-employee, ex-associate has uttered against them, police have few or no records to verify if this individual has the means to carry them out.

In an odd twist recently, it appears mothers against Open Carry and the powerful NRA are moving towards a showdown; will the Second amendment triumph over motherhood?

And when people start openly carrying firearms in some US states under the guise of wanting to defend themselves against imagined or possible threats, we have to ask themselves:

Will this individual shoot us? We have no way of knowing if an individual holding a firearm is a responsible owner or someone about to deliberately commit murder.

Schrödinger's shooter.

Are we overreacting?

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the US in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the US-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the US, however, every seven weeks.

Source.

You, the responsible firearm owner may think you don’t know anyone who would actually shoot and kill somebody or allow their firearms exploited this way but consider the sheer number of deaths from shootings that occur every year.

Fortunately, you’re a responsible firearm owner. We’ve established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, correct?

This does NOTHING to fix the problem, nor to indicate any goodwill and collaboration in preventing future mass shootings.  Who exactly, funds the Canadian National Firearms Association?  And how much did the weapons manufacturing industry pay Harper's Reform-Conservative-Evangelical party to destroy the long-gun registry?

The current state of firearms control in Canada, here.

Much gratitude to Shrödinger's Rapist, a brilliant blogpost that first developed this analogy with regard to a reasonable reticence that women may have when trusting men.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...

That means the more things change, the more it's the same old, same old.

In March last year, I wrote a response to George Zimmerman shooting and killing a black kid, claiming that it was self-defense and using the Stand-Your-Ground law in Florida as justification.

It was entitled Aileen Wuornos is My Homie. 

I wondered what would happen if women in the US started MASSIVELY using Zimmerman's pretext.  It's obvious that law is supported by the NRA lobby; they often exploit concerns about women's safety as a rationalization for demanding gun-owners rights be sacred, and blahblahblah Second Amendment.

Well, wouldn't you know it but some dickheads in the NRA and/or the RAPEublican Party decided to spin an awkwardly expressed opposition to gun-toting college students, then piled on the politician who uttered the words as if the first-term Democrat was worse than Todd Akin.

They created the #LiberalTips2AvoidRape meme for their twitter campaign; it unleashed thousands of RWNJ typically humour-challenged, tone-deaf tweets.

I looked at some of them, vaguely remembered my Stand-Your-Ground post and zipped this one off:

This of course, reminded me of a particular scene in the movie _Thelma and Louise_ which isn't available on YouTube, where Louise confronts the man who sexually assaulted Thelma.  She demands that he stop hurting her friend; he becomes quite aggressive and threatening.  She shoots him, and that's when Thelma and Louise become fugitives from justice.

So I sarcastically tweeted this:

If you remember men's reaction to that scene, most felt that Louise's action was over-the-top and unwarranted.

Anyhow, I'll check my twitter account in the morning to see if anyone has responded to my counter-spin.

Update: fernhill reminded me that the implicit Rules of Patriarchy demanded that Thelma and Louise die for their transgressions.  So, "Stand-Your-Ground" is okay if you're a gun-toting white man but not if you're a woman defending yourself against a violent spouse, a potential rapist or a stalker.

Arm and Train Teachers to Kill: Gun Idiots

Some US folks who have had it with the pro-gun lobby intimidating, coercing and threatening its way into an exalted, near religious franchise in their country have responded strongly.

With words of course, because this would be the moment to demonstrate how the pen is mightier than the sword, rational discourse trumps irrational shrieeeking and internet activism might triumph over guns.

There have been many, many admirable and gut-wrenching pieces written in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook School massacre. Blithering glurge has also been produced, typically by those taken with a well-calculated Munchausen by proxy-like blog post.

This one may be my favourite, as it encapsulates the forces at play in the US.

The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily—sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometimes this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).

The gun is not a mere tool, a bit of technology, a political issue, a point of debate. It is an object of reverence. Devotion to it precludes interruption with the sacrifices it entails. Like most gods, it does what it will, and cannot be questioned. Its acolytes think it is capable only of good things. It guarantees life and safety and freedom. It even guarantees law. Law grows from it. Then how can law question it?

Its power to do good is matched by its incapacity to do anything wrong. It cannot kill. Thwarting the god is what kills. If it seems to kill, that is only because the god’s bottomless appetite for death has not been adequately fed. The answer to problems caused by guns is more guns, millions of guns, guns everywhere, carried openly, carried secretly, in bars, in churches, in offices, in government buildings. Only the lack of guns can be a curse, not their beneficent omnipresence.

Adoration of Moloch permeates the country, imposing a hushed silence as he works his will. One cannot question his rites, even as the blood is gushing through the idol’s teeth. The White House spokesman invokes the silence of traditional in religious ceremony. “It is not the time” to question Moloch. No time is right for showing disrespect for Moloch.

Armed with words, compassionate and strong words.

There are sadly though, gun-fetishizing idiots in the US who demand that teachers be armed with weapons, to stop any potential attacks, oh no, wait - to *defend*. That's their buzz-word, their holy mantra. 

This kind of exchange is unfortunately quite typical of that mentality.

The assumption that any armed person can stop someone equipped bent upon carnage with assault weapons is mind-boggling.  Military and police teams train daily, for months and years, in order to develop the finely calibrated responses required to deal with this type of volatile - and deadly - situation.  

Aaron is so convinced that "the lack of guns can be a curse, not their beneficent omnipresence" that he can't see the training and the mindset required for this role is antithetical to what teachers do.  He would prefer that teachers devote their extra time to developing those specific skills deployed by SWAT personnel, instead of coaching, mentoring, nurturing, guiding children?

And then Wayne provides a link to this.  Oh glorious USA, land of opportunities, profits and ever-increasing deaths by gunfire.

Reading the comments that follow Garry Wills' piece is educational - and disheartening.  Yes, there are idiots but some people do still cherish the hope that their murderous US gun culture can - and will - shift gears.

Coming soon to your local Canadian Walmart ...

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

Recent exchanges on Twitter with a number of gun nuts who support Bill C-19, which will abolish the gun registry and all the accumulated data - has been quite informative, and alarming.

Logical arguments and facts do not work with these folks.

Hence the prediction. The Guardian story that accompanies the photo above, here.

A sensible and responsible idea -

which will never fly with US gun nutz.

From here:

[...]sidestep the entire gun control controversy and instead pass state laws that require anyone who owns a gun to carry insurance.

If they have risk factors (like teenagers in the house), their rates go up. If one of their kids sneaks a gun out of the house and gets caught, or uses it to commit a crime, the insurance gets canceled for some meaningful period of time - say, 10 years. And if someone steals your gun and you don't report it in a 24-hour window of you finding out, your insurance is suspended.

If you have a rifle and it's only used for hunting, low rates. If you have a Glock and you carry it in an open-carry town or state, your rates will be very high - because odds are so much higher that innocent bystanders may get caught in a shootout.

The comments after this short item are very informative and they reflect the whole gamut of ambivalence, sense and crazy about firearms / the 2nd amendment that US citizens share. Here's a few that made me chortle.

[...] that would further enrich insurance companies. They are venal and clever enough to offer policies that have the veneer of protection and coverage while not doing so in a practical sense. They would profit handsomely while putting themselves at minimal risk. Think of how they've gamed health insurance.

Accidents and deaths. I think we need to explore this idea. If own a machine that can kill, you should insure it. Motor vehicles and guns. [...] But there is an impossible hurdle - any legislation that requires people to 'declare' the guns they own will never work. The nuts think it is the first step for the government to take guns away. Which brings us to the question - why haven't they come for our cars?

Teabaggers [...] the same demographic as the gun fanatics. Sorry, all rational, reasonable attempts to ameliorate the effects of gun violence are "off the table" by default. Now if your mandatory gun insurance included mandatory gun ownership for all citizens, and the NRA owned the gun insurance company, then you might get somewhere.

"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders .” Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert ... why is it comedians are so much smarter than the rest of us?

Remember how our mothers used to fret that rough-housing and various stunts would lead to someone losing an eye? It seems that in the US, the obligatory worship to God the Father will soon be supplanted by the Almighty Right to Bear Arms, if that hasn't happened already. Who cares if politicians, teachers, by-standers get maimed or killed so that some 'murrican men and women can compensate for their feelings of inadequacy, and keep the scary evil monsters at arms' length. Until they look in the mirror, that is.