Gun Control and the Connecticut Shooting

With the latest tragic massacre, this one involving more children than adults (it did take place in an elementary school) and having occurred in the sleepy little hamlet of Newtown, Connecticut a few days ago, once again the news is filled with demands for stronger gun control laws…and little else. Yes, the simplistic response is always, “Guns are too easily available” or “Guns shouldn’t be available to the public at all” or “Too many people in modern society misinterpret the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment,” etc., et al., yadda yadda yadda. And whenever a crime occurs where children are the victims, people are quick to manipulate the extreme emotional tensions that inevitably arise as a result to get whatever political result they want, without taking into consideration that when emotions are running high, reason and rational thought tend to take a back seat, with misguided and even outright draconian “solutions” that end up sacrificing civil rights for perceived security being the end result.

I ask all readers of this post to be mindful of that when discussing these issues and possible solutions, and to always seek out democratic solutions to any problem we may face, and never resort to draconian measures, no matter how sensitive or emotionally charged the issue may be.

With that said, so I won’t have to reiterate the incident in question and make this post any longer than it has to be, read the initial news report here if you are not already familiar with it, then return to this post.

Let me start off by saying that this will be a controversial post, as will many of those I pen, but I am not going to back off of any issue that I feel strongly about, or that which I believe to be right, no matter how sensitive it may be. And I will start by saying that I have a huge degree of condolences for the tragic losses of this latest shooting spree, and a full appreciation for the enormity of what this event, and previous ones like it, signify. It’s for these reasons that I hold so firmly to democratic principles particularly at times like this rather than abandoning them in the proposed “solutions” that always seem to spring up immediately afterwards. Again, this is because when emotions are running high, the temptation to forget what our ideals are supposed to stand for is running even higher.

Though I consider myself a progressive and a genuine socialist, I do not have the rabid opposition to civilian gun ownership that too many of my fellow progressives have (many socialists of the true Marxian stripe do not, it should be noted). This is because I do not agree that the easy availability of guns is the main issue here, and I am not sure that outright banning of guns for civilian ownership would be a viable solution to the problem any more than the across the board banning of recreational drugs ultimately decreased the number of drug addicts and the degree of crime and misery surrounding such addictions. Moreover, I am not sure that the common citizenry benefits from such banning measures.

I should point out here that I am not a member of the NRA, and I am far from a right-winger, trust me on that. So I hardly count as one of those “gun nuts” that the Left often admonishes. This is why I think that what I have to say is important for people on both the Right and the Left to listen to, even though only those with a genuine willingness to listen will actually get anything out of it (but it’s these particular people whom I am seeking to reach here; those who have their mind completely made up one way or the other are not going to listen, and are only going to throw all sorts of loaded accusations at me, as usual).

Along these lines, I am going to heavily quote from Michael Moore’s response. Let me say upfront that while I do not agree with everything Michael says, I have profound respect for the man, as I am not only a firm follower of his articles and documentaries, but I consider him one of the most courageous progressives in the U.S. today, and one of the relatively few truly brave people of note on the Left in the present era. In that capacity, I believe he is right up there with the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Debbie Nathan, Bill Maher (sometimes), Joan Walsh, and other personal heroes of mine whose writings and TV appearances I regularly follow. It is by no means my intention to insult or drub Michael here, even though if I did, he could easily take it, as he has endured far worse from much “bigger” people than me; I am simply making these points because I believe them to be the truth.

Also, as I will point out later in this post, Michael is one of the few people in this debate who is not dealing with the issue in the entirely simplistic way I described above, but is instead targeting other aspects of our society that the average commentator never bothers to question (likely out of fear of being called a “socialist,” heaven forbid!). For this, he gets immense props from me, even though I will not hesitate to “chew him out” if I feel a particular comment of his warrants it.

Much of Michael’s quotes I will be responding to here appeared in an open letter he sent out this morning to many who subscribe to his website, and others from his Twitter feed on the issue over the past few days. Let’s get on with it, shall we?

For one thing, a common concern for supporters of the 2nd Amendment that is too often outright dismissed by many pundits of the Left is the fact that strict bans on guns will only keep these firearms out of the hands of criminals, not sane, law-abiding people. If you lived in a neighborhood like mine, you would see why the thought of that terrifies me profoundly. Now let me say upfront that I am not the type of person who ever advocates going outside of the law to resolve any issue; or advocates violence as anything other than as a last resort for self-defense and protection of the weak only; or as someone who suggests that citizens engage in shoot-outs on the street with gang bangers or drug dealers. I am all for calling the police to deal with such issues, and demanding that they spend less time busting people for possession of marijuana or engaging in illicit mutually consensual sex and more time protecting people who live in dangerous areas from truly dangerous individuals.

However, I am simply speaking from experience, and the reality of living in such an environment, when I point out that we cannot always depend on police to be there 24/7, or to arrive promptly in the middle of a bad situation like a break-in to our home, or a threat unexpectedly materializing in front of our homes. If you live in a dangerous part of a big city, it’s all-too common to be approached by individuals who attempt to forcefully sell one item or another to you, and who refuse to leave or cease harassing you and your loved ones about the issue if you politely attempt to tell them no, you are not interested, and to please leave. I can’t count the amount of times I had to get nasty with such individuals before they stopped insisting that I–or a loved one I was with–at least look at and “consider” purchasing the obviously “hot” gold chain they were trying to push on us.

Yes, you can call the cops on them, or threaten to do so, but this doesn’t often deter such individuals when they know, more likely than not from extensive experience, that if the police bother to arrest them rather than just telling them to leave, within two days at most they will be released. Then, you have to deal with these individuals returning a day after being released or driven off by the cops, in a much less cordial mood than before, yelling at you with something like, “Yo, why did you call the cops on me for!”

And they make sure to initiate this confrontation when no cop is in sight, or likely to arrive before things can go too far, especially in a portion of the big city where cops are often busy–after all, it takes a lot of manpower and work to control all the illicit smoking of pot and illegal crap games going on in these neighborhoods, and we can’t expect our esteemed officers to be remiss in these particular responsibilities (and yes, I say this as someone who has a few friends and even family members or are cops or ex-cops; I like to think some of them would sympathize rather than grumble at me over this, because there are people who become cops with the sincere intention of protecting people, and do not smile upon spending so much time and effort busting people on essentially victimless crimes just to keep the law enforcement industry and offices moving).

However, if these individuals know you own a firearm, and are willing to use them to defend yourself and your loved ones if absolutely necessary, they are much more likely to think twice before bothering you. These types of people count on the government disarming law-abiding citizens, because while it’s often argued that guns in the hands of citizens make it easier for them to kill, the opposite makes it much easier for many types of criminals, particularly various petty but still potentially dangerous individuals, to operate.

Speaking as someone who has a high degree of sympathy for what the poor have to deal with in this economic system, and the pressures that cause too many of them to “break” and resort to criminal activity and succumb to mental illness (a major but often overlooked component of this issue), you can’t always be “soft” in dealing with such people if they are determined to menace and threaten members of their own economic class, or mentally ill who are unable to afford (or unwilling to seek) competent medical help (an issue I will return to in a bit). You have to be tough when warranted in such an environment, even though you must restrain this toughness to instances when it’s absolutely necessary, and never become a bully. We can count on good people to do this, and in a democratic society, we cannot engage in flagrant mistrust of the average citizen to do the right thing in the end, and my fellow progressives are well aware of this–and those who aren’t ought to be.

Compassion has to be given to all sides of an issue, not just one. On the other hand, if diplomacy fails, then you have to be willing and able to show people in such an environment that you are not going to be an easy victim, and this is in no way advocating violence as the first reaction or ultimate solution to every problem. It’s simply a fact of life, however unfortunate, of living in such an environment.

Also, and this is important–we need to ask ourselves a very serious question here: Will making firearms illegal actually keep them out of the hands of bad or mentally ill people, or will it simply soon result in the proliferation of a new thriving criminal enterprise that provides guns to people who want them but cannot obtain them legally? And will this not result in the arrest and prosecution of many basically good people who purchase illegal firearms with the intent to protect themselves, but who have never used one, or aren’t likely to? Does this not mean that many people will be jailed for using a firearm in a legitimate instance of self-defense, where they and/or their loved ones would have met a violent death had they not used it? And will this result in more expensive, tax-payer funded entrapment schemes by new law enforcement task forces trying to convince people they “need” to purchase a firearm, and then arrest them if they do? Wouldn’t our police forces have their time and resources better spend dealing with genuine bad guys who try to hurt innocent people?

These are questions we need to seriously ask ourselves when discussing the banning of firearms as an oft-proposed solution to gun violence or accidents involving guns. People who live in dangerous areas have enough problems with thriving criminal enterprises that are doing so well and gaining so much power precisely because things like recreational drugs–and in a previous era, alcohol–are illegal to purchase in an across-the-board manner. In fact, the illegality of marijuana is now just beginning to reverse course in certain states, but the “harder” drugs that most of the criminal industry is built around are still selling as well as ever, despite the futility of the police forces attempting to “prevent” its use and distribution in this manner. And let’s not forget the increased powers that the police and other government agencies have over us being the major end result of such measures, not “protection” from drug use.

Now, Michael Moore and other gun control advocates argue that certain types of firearms and their accouterments–specifically assault rifles and mega-clips–be made illegal for civilian purchase; that all firearms require a license to own; and that all who would seek to acquire one be subject to a mental exam. These suggestions are not entirely unreasonable, and in fact, I think they should be given serious consideration. However, I will say that the rules of acquiring a license for a non-assault firearm should be reasonable to the individual with a clean record, and not ridiculously difficult as it is in my home state; and we need to consider that mental exams can be biased against certain groups of people (like racial minorities) and may not be reliable in many instances. As such, I am saying lets discuss this particular solution, both its good points and possible pitfalls.

Now, in regards of the many stats that Michael and other progressives provide to prove that cities and countries with less guns, or with strict gun control laws, have less gun violence: You can easily find counter-stats to these allegations that put their conclusions into question, and bring up the serious issue of whether or not the culture of the U.S. in particular (something Michael, to his great credit, does get into) may not make America entirely comparable to the situation in other First World countries when it comes to this issue.

For instance, a CDC literature review reported the overall recording of such statistics to be “inconsistent.” Their full quote, which I found here, is thus:

“Some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases,” the CDC study concluded. “One study indicated a statistically significant reduction in the rate of suicide by firearms among persons aged 55 years; however, the reduction in suicide by all methods was not statistically significant.”

So these statistics, possibly on either side of the fence, may need a much better analysis in regards to causation and correlation. There are just too many counter-statistics available to offset any collection of studies or statistics in either direction. Either side can find examples to bolster whatever their opinion happens to be with a short time spent on an Internet search engine.

Then there is another issue that is not often brought up. If we are so quick to mistrust civilians owning guns, why do we trust cops to use them on the job? Yes, cops are trained to use them, and have procedure to follow, but do all cops follow proper procedure in all cases? Should the government have the right to decide who can and cannot carry guns and use them responsibly? If we argue they can, then what makes politicians specially qualified to do that? Moreover, civilians are capable of being properly trained, and learning all the hazards and safeguards of using and owning a gun too. That is why targeting at a gun range, as well as hunting, is a sport that some civilians either have a natural aptitude for, or can readily learn as well as any cop with sufficient training and experience.

That is why the frequent argument I hear about how incompetent civilians always turn out to be when it comes to accuracy with a gun while being placed in a simulated circumstance with a mock gun-wielding lunatic who opens fire on a crowd of people in (for example) a university setting, just falls flat to me. Yes, you will see advocates of strong gun control run simulations where a mock massacre situation is played out, and a bunch of civilians are handed phony guns to see how well they can defend themselves against a mock assailant who is also wielding a bogus gun. The end result will always be, “Every single civilian volunteer in the experiment missed the killer, or froze up under the pressure,” while, of course, the killer managed to do none of the above and hit 8 out of 10 people he aimed at.

Okay, this begs the following question: Does this mean that civilians are inherently incapable of using guns properly, while lunatics somehow gain uncanny skills of accuracy when they go off the deep end? Or does this simply suggest that the people who conducted the experiments kinda, sorta forgot to recruit any civies who had any degree of training or experience with firearms, or had them wield firearms of a model they were not familiar with, while the guy recruited to play the lunatic in the scenario was a trained and experienced user wielding a model he was indeed familiar with? This question is not entirely sarcasm, because I would really like to know if the average citizen is truly incapable of receiving competent training and experience at, say, a professional gun targeting range.

That makes me wonder if perhaps one reasonable solution to the problem of civilian gun ownership may be to require anyone who legally purchases a firearm–after acquiring a license for it, if one insists–be required to take a training course, and even to regularly train, at a firing range to keep their skills from getting rusty. This would, of course, be at the gun owner’s own expense, but I would argue that politicians and gun control advocates not play a possible game of dirty pool by insisting that the cost of these training courses be made ridiculously (read: prohibitively) expensive–the cost should be reasonable, perhaps even tailored to the individual’s income level.

Civilians who are willing to abide by the law and do things the right way should be rewarded in various ways, not discouraged from doing things the correct and lawful way with games of dirty pool. In other words, a reasonable compromise on this issue should be made between the law and society at large, with both being expected to play fair and straight with the other. These training courses should also include safety at home studies, and gun owners who have kids should be encouraged to bring their kids to that part of the study to teach them the proper usage–and the many potential hazards–of having a gun in the house, just as we should do when it comes to dealing with traffic, swimming pools, sex education, etc.

Now there is another matter I do not see discussed very often at all, which connects with the previous issue I raised of cops using guns. If civilians cannot be trusted with guns, why should society allow police officers to carry weapons that are designed to kill rather than subdue in a non-lethal fashion? Should a government sanctioned employee be trusted more than a civilian? If one argues that they should, then what is that saying about the relationship between the government and the civilian populace? I know that officers do carry non-lethal weapons such as mace and tasers, but why not a more advanced form of taser that is not restricted to the use of a wire? Before you accuse this writer of advocating sci-fi technology, let me remind my readers that we are technologically advanced enough to have brought people to the moon and back nearly 45 years ago, and have developed computers and cell phones with amazing capacities. Are you to tell me that a wireless taser is beyond the capabilities of our weapons manufacturers to create, especially in a world that is promoting a “go wireless” mentality so heavily in all other aspects of technology? And why not other forms of non-lethal but effective weaponry, that causes no permanent damage but subdues even the nastiest criminals effectively? Or weapons with different settings, that offer the option of subduing non-lethally or increasing to a level that will subdue with extreme prejudice in particularly serious situations? Or even offer purely defensive weapons to civilians? Or mobile, affordable electronic panic alarms that can summon the police and/or ambulances faster than dialing on a cell phone could?

If we regularly see cops and soldiers carry guns, and insist that crime and warfare is fought with weapons designed to kill and inflict heavy amounts of destruction, and see individuals in positions of authority and power who routinely call for such measures as the solution to so many problems, how can we not expect a culture that supports the use of violence–and specifically lethal forms of violence on large scale–to develop? Our media and government regularly encourages citizens to act as cheerleaders of war and to canonize soldiers (on our side, that is) as heroes regardless of what they do, or how necessary it was to do it, yet we cry for harsh measures of prohibition whenever we see people in regular society resorting to such means when they seek to lift themselves out of rampant poverty or develop severe mental illness.

And please do not be silly and tell me “how much respect you lost for me” for allegedly “criticizing” or “feeling as I do” about the military. If you are a soldier, or have family members who are or were soldiers (and the latter group includes me), then you do a disservice to the very principles America is supposed to uphold by defending the military no matter what it does, or under what circumstances it does them simply because they were inflicted on people who weren’t Americans. That is not respect, it’s a form of worship and a tribalistic mentality that exposes the dark side of nationalism, and displays a profound disrespect for democratic principles and for the value of human life in general. I will gladly praise the military when they put their lives on the line to defend our borders and prevent some despotic foreign power from invading us, or the many rescue missions they regularly risk life and limb to conduct; I will also strongly support them by demanding they not put in danger or hellish conditions for no good reason, i.e., reasons that have nothing to do with self-defense or rescuing people, and that they be given good benefits in return for serving the government under such risky conditions. I will not support them, however, for fighting ostensibly on behalf of Wall Street, or for participating in the same types of massacres regularly committed on foreign civilians and children during wartime as we are decrying civilian mass shooters like Adam Lanza for doing on a much smaller but still horrifically tragic scale. In my estimation, a “good American” is defined as a citizen of the United States based on the principles they uphold, not by “following orders” without question, or doing whatever a certain authority figure in a uniform commands them to do. End relevant side rant.

Again, I’m not a pacifist, and I’m certainly not arguing against violence, and sometimes even lethal violence, in matters of justifiable self-defense, or as a last resort when genuine attempts at diplomacy–either on an individual or international level–fail. I’m not asking for anyone to take the “doormat” role. But when we see our government regularly calling for things like preemptive strikes; perpetual war; policies of violence based on revenge, business matters, and imperialism rather than self-defense or securing of our borders; turning a blind eye towards any civilian casualties, including children, that comes as the result of any act of violence from warfare who aren’t specifically of American citizenship; the hiring of armed mercenaries trained and rented from a private company (like the former Blackwater) to supplement and in many instances replace government-hired soldiers; and the tolerance of a president who demands the right for the targeted assassination of even American citizens without due process, then how can we expect a mentally healthy, non-violent citizenry to emerge and not rationalize such measures on fellow citizens whom they dislike?

And let’s not even get started on the continued sizable support for the death penalty in America, which encourages citizens to believe that meting out retribution via killing in a situation where the assailant isn’t armed and/or threatening or attacking anyone is a viable way of conducting affairs in a democratic nation.

Considering all of the above, coupled with an economic system that creates great amounts of poverty and insecurity for millions of citizens, why do we act so ‘shocked’ when so many people develop the ideology that the use of violence to improve their own standing in society is an acceptable way of achieving the much vaunted “American Dream”; or when mental illness becomes so rampant, and so many of these people vent their extreme rage by taking a gun to other people before taking it to themselves, as Adam Lanza just did? This makes it quite clear yet again that the problem is not simply “too many guns” or “guns in the hands of too many civilians,” and I fully credit Michael Moore for making this clear, both in his Twitter feed and in his excellent documentary about the culture and glorification of violence in America, Bowling For Columbine.

To quote some of Michael’s recent statements:
“Yes we need gun laws & better mental health care. BUT even that won’t stop the killings. Because, let’s face it, America believes in killing
“A country that officially sanctions horrific violence (invade Iraq, drones kill kids, death penalty) is surprised when a 20-yr old [Adam Lanza] joins in?
“I hate to say it, but killing is our way. We began America w/ genocide, then built it w/ slaves. The shootings will continue- it’s who we are
“The long term solution to reducing gun deaths is to change our society from one of perpetual war and fear to one of peace and tolerance.”

He further said:

“Also, end the U.S.-sanctioned policy of killing: End the wars NOW, end death penalty. Stop banks and insurance companies from destroying ppl.
“It’s all violence & it’s all connected. Why does this happen only in America? The answer is right in front of u. And it’s not just the guns.”

Yes, there is the issue of (yup, every reader of mine who is now saying “Here it cooommeesss!!” is totally correct): The wonders of our money-based, production for profit system, reverentially referred to as capitalism. Yanno, where the “can’t pay, can’t have,” “profit before anything else,” “price tag on almost everything,” and “dog eat dog” ideology and accompanying culture glorifying greed, avarice, selfishness, and inequality is the primary law of the land?

Before anyone dares to suggest I am exaggerating in this instance and unfairly dragging our poor system through the mud, let us not forget, as Michael also pointed out, that health care services, like nearly everything else, charge for their services, and are not subsidized by the government and dispensed based on need. It is thus filled to the brim with doctors and other mental health practitioners who operate according to the “bottom line” more than anything else. Yes, these people have to eat, have families to support, have mortgages and other bills to pay, etc., and should be paid well, don’t get me wrong. But this pay should not come at the expense of the many people from poor neighborhoods who seriously need such care–or anyone else, for that matter. A society laden with poverty, insecurity, and other difficulties which the average civilian faces today should not be expected to produce a population of largely healthy people. Moreover, doctors and everyone else–including those who run prisons and collection agencies–shouldn’t be permitted to profit off of other people’s misery.

At the same time, to be fair, mental health practitioners should be given a say on how best to treat patients in accordance with their professional expertise, rather than be subservient to either business imperatives (e.g., HMOs and Big Phrama companies) or politicians who lack their expertise and may be more interested in helping preserve the status quo than truly helping people in need, and may try to control how mental health professionals dispense treatment towards such ends. Of course, the mental health industry should be regulated to make sure abuses aren’t going on, but that is another issue that I am looking forward to discussing in its own post when I tackle the mental health industry as a whole (I can hear some of my readers shuddering already! Muah-hah-hah!).

In short, the government needs to realize and acknowledge that this system destroys and hurts many people who are left behind, and the majority are not doing well in it. This is not because most of them are lazy bums or inherently incompetent individuals. Many of them, in fact, are children and teens who are not legally allowed to work even under the most humane conditions but may have much to contribute to society and a strong desire to do so; and elderly people who are no longer able to work but spent decades of their lives as productive workers.

This issue is a moral issue, far more so than arguments over whether or not gays should be allowed to marry (their equal rights as citizens should go without saying and be considered protected by the Constitution no matter who it may offend); or whether stem cells contain little souls and thus shouldn’t be used in medical science to develop cures for genetic-based diseases (you don’t have to be an atheist to desire secular decisions from the government or the separation of church and state); whether or not Christmas should be called “Christmas” in public or not (it shouldn’t be an argument that people of faith be allowed to call it as they please, and those who do not subscribe to any faith system should be totally free to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” if they so choose, without the other side getting in a huff about it), etc. I’m sorry, but economic issues and those revolving around social justice and civil rights are moral issues, and have a far larger intrinsic effect on our well-being than the typical wedge issues Americans fight over and support or refuse to support politicians about during any campaign or election year.

Again, though I have never heard Michael Moore call himself a socialist, he is responsible for another excellent documentary that dealt with much of our society’s fetishistic loyalty to an archaic and destructive system, Capitalism: A Love Story. (Again, I do not agree with absolutely everything he says in that documentary, but I certainly agree with and support its basic essence and message.)

Now, before anyone starts accusing me of giving Michael metaphorical fellatio here, I hope he understands that I do take issue with a few of the things he said on this Twitter feed, which he reiterated in the letter he shared with his subscribers earlier this morning. He had every right to say these things, of course, and I’m sure he understands that he needs to expect some feedback that will not be entirely agreeable.

To wit (quotes in bold face):

If only the first victim, Adam Lanza’s mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.
RT ‏@marlasuehale @MMFlint obviously that argument the NRA folks have been using doesn’t work after all.
RT @kazic284 @MMFlint Thanks for pointing out how dumb that logic is. People have been screaming, “If only the principal had a gun!” Missing the point.

I think the really dumb logic is anyone who thinks that anyone having a gun without the proper training can be expected to take out someone who does have the proper training. Period. All weapons are tools, and one must practice with them in order to learn how to use them properly, just like any other type of tool.

That being said, I again say that I do not think a regular sane citizen cannot be expected to wield a firearm as competently and accurately as a lunatic if they have a comparable amount of training, something that needs to be ongoing as described above. After all, the vast majority of cops and soldiers are sane (or at least start out that way), and prove as capable as any lunatic with a firearm on a regular basis due to their training.

One can argue that someone with a regular firearm could never take out someone with an assault rifle holding a mega-clip, but that is nonsense, because despite the advantage someone with the latter would have over the former, it’s been shown in other demonstrations that speed and skill can overcome someone with superior firepower. A computer simulation on an ep of Spike TV’s (admittedly violence-demonstrating) series Deadliest Warrior nevertheless strongly indicated that Jesse James and his crew, using their talents in combination with their regular six-shooters designed in the 19th century, could be expected to win over Al Capone and his gang from the 1920s wielding brutal assault weapons like a tommygun. You can dislike that show all you want because of its theme of violence, and deride anyone who watches it (me included) as a “violence nut,” but please keep in mind that the warrior ethos does not always mean support of violence as a first resort or in a preemptive manner, and many of the shows ep’s include simulations depicting units of the U.S. military and police forces–whom we are expected to cheer for–and not always criminal organizations.

And since the Left loves to support similar scenarios to determine the efficiency of regular (possibly untrained) citizens caught in hostile scenarios (without the use of computers, natch) for strictly informative purposes, then a show like Deadliest Warrior can be viewed in the same spirit. People who say that those who watch such shows must necessarily advocate violence in a knee-jerk manner as a response to any possible problem are doing the same thing as people who accuse violent video games and other TV shows of being the cause of gamers and couch potatoes for acting violent in real life, and I will remind fellow supporters of Michael Moore that he opposes such simplistic mentality, particularly because it has no reliable science to back up such claims.

Of course, maybe a future ep of Deadliest Warrior can feature the following theme: Trained Civilian vs. the Trained Lunatic–who would come out on top? (I kid, I kid!! It would still make a bitchin’ episode, though!).

Time for action. The debate & discussion are over. Just as no one should debate whether “rape is legitimate,” this gun debate is effing over.
Not a fair comparison, Michael, and you know it. Sorry, but I cry foul here, dude! You’re trying to use an emotionally sensitive issue to get your position through, because you know it will discourage people from thinking rationally on the subject as a whole. Rape is by definition a non-consensual form of violence inflicted upon one person by another, an extreme sexual intrusion upon another person’s body, and this cannot be justified under any circumstances. But that is not always the case with firearms or the gun issue in general, which is much more nuanced and complex. Rape is never a suitable form of “self-defense,” but that is not always the case with the use of guns, because not everyone who uses a gun does so for maladjusted, selfish reasons, but may be doing so to defend themselves or a loved one. Further, guns are used in ways that do not factor human targets into the equation, such as hunting, firing range, etc.

But you cannot, in contrast, rape a target on the wall, and I never heard of a sport where hunters rush out into the wilderness to force themselves upon as many deer or raccoons as they can find in a single night (I hope I didn’t give any out-of-the-way redneck clans any ideas here!). My flippancy aside, I think my main point here stands.

As is often the case in these shootings, the gunman seemed to single out the women to kill (CNN: 18 of the dead are female; 8 males.)
Ooooh. Some men didn’t like that last tweet. So let me give u another: When’s the last time u saw a woman walk in & spray a place w/ bullets?

Michael, I think you know many men didn’t like that last tweet because one bad habit that people on the Left tend to have is making sometimes blatant, sometimes sorta subtle misandrist comments. And feel free to call me a misogynist for making this statement, which would be no different than some pundits calling anyone in America who dares suggest that government officials of Jewish ethnicity behave no better than any other ethnic group when in positions of military power must be “anti-Semitic.”

I will have you know that my closest friend is a woman, and if you knew her personally, you would see that she is hardly the meek, “stay in the kitchen” type; no, she runs her own business, is fully independent, and tough as nails, and would never tolerate a male BFF who was an actual misogynist. And I have many other women as close and valued friends, and many whom I work with in progressive circles, who would also not tolerate a misogynist of either gender amongst them. And I can tell you that none of them would ever make a misandrist comment aimed at men in general, even though they rightfully dislike certain types of men–as well as certain personality categories of their own gender. This is called egalitarianism, and it is, IMO, a higher form of moral ideology than either feminism or masculinism, even though I support both in essence of their empowerment of each gender, but back away from the extreme tendencies of either that seek to provide “evidence” that one gender is inherently superior than the other when it comes to ethical behavior.

Have you ever considered, Michael, that many of these nuts may seek to target women so often because our society has a habit of continually vilifying sexually active women as “whores” and “sluts”? And before you say it’s men alone who do this (and yes, many men do), you know very well that women often castigate each other in arguments with these same double standard pejoratives. Have you ever considered that many of these lunatics were Bible nuts, and the Roman Catholic Church–even the many liberal divisions, which you include yourself among–still do not advocate strongly for giving women equal positions to men in the clergy? Why not, I wonder? I certainly support high-ranking female clergy members, and I’m not even Catholic. I’m Wiccan, an alternative system of faith that is predominantly progressive and hardly supportive of misogynists!

I am not suggesting that you, or other such Leftist pundits, are secretly misogynists yourselves, so please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. What I am saying is that men have every right to be offended by such “true” comments as any woman would have a right to be when their gender is singled out as being more violent or “worse” than the opposite gender. Equality is not about giving special considerations or favors to any minority group; it’s about empowering them on the same level as those currently considered the ‘majority,’ and to recognize that both genders are afflicted with various double standards and stereotypes that are unjust. But I don’t need to tell you this, of course. Or may I possibly need to simply remind you?

And I also ask you to consider how “kind” and benevolent many female politicians have been compared to their male counterparts when given positions of power. Let’s not forget the likes of Queen Elizabeth, or Margaret Thatcher, or Indira Ghandi, or Janet Reno (let’s not forget she was in command of a massacre of many children and young teens by the FBI at the Waco, Texas incident back during the Clinton Administration, and was Hillary’s close friend), or even Hillary Clinton herself and Condoleezza Rice and their incessant support for war-mongering in the Middle East.
Let’s also keep in mind this recent article by Glenn Greenwald on the atrocious war-supporting and tyrant-coddling record of Susan Rice, who is now Obama’s favored incumbent to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. What exactly is the record for women politicians in general when it comes to support for civil rights legislation?

This is not an attack on women in general, but rather my making the point that all groups of human beings display similar tendencies when placed in positions of power. So I highly doubt putting a majority of women in charge of our capitalist system or powerful political institutions would result in a better world, but rather one that largely resembles what we have now.

In regards to women who kill on a large scale, they tend to do so differently than men do, but no less ruthlessly. There are many examples of female serial killers, for instance, who poisoned people–men much more often than fellow women, and often children (how is that for an emotional chain-puller?)–or suffocated them, or via other means that do not spill the same degree of blood that gun violence has, but which tends to claim no less a number of victims over the long haul. And because of their cunning, subtle ways of “acting out” in comparison to their male counterparts, they tend to often get away with what they are doing for longer periods of time, stretching a massacre out across several years, or even a few decades. Check out this sample of prolific female serial killers in this survey conducted by Meghan Holohan for just an example.

Note what the introductory paragraph by scribe Meghan Holohan (omg, a woman!) said: “Few people think of women as serial killers. Perhaps this misconception is based on the stereotype of women being sensitive and compassionate. For these brutal killers, sometimes the guise of nurturing helped them get in the door, but these ladies are just as depraved as their male counterparts.” Now note the outrage expressed by the first commenter, “Karen,” who thus purports to be a woman, when it comes to the leniency often given to women killers due to the “positive” stereotype that Meghan mentions above: “A woman kills 8 of her 10 children in modern times and gets probation? Awful!”

Am I shameful misogynist for pointing out these facts to any person on the Left–male or female–who may not like them pointed out or acknowledged? Am I disgrace to the progressive ideology and movement for doing so? For that matter, are Meghan and “Karen” (if she truly is a woman, and there is no reason to suspect otherwise) perhaps “self-hating women” for writing this article and comment, respectively? I would argue they aren’t, and I commend them both, just as I do the many amazing women I am friends with and/or work with in progressive circles regularly. If I accused you and the other progressives who routinely make such mean-spirited “factual observations” about members of the “bad” gender of being a misandrist, would you say you aren’t, but simply “state the facts, no matter who may not want to hear them”; or would you perhaps argue that being a misandrist isn’t as bad as being a misogynist, at least as far as progressives are concerned? And is offending your male followers by pointing out such facts in the context you did–which was clearly taking a dig at the entire male gender (at least, that is how the tone of your tweet came off as doing, intended or otherwise)–less of a problem than possibly offending women with a different comment directed against their entire gender?

I don’t personally consider you a misandrist, Michael, but I will tell you that I feel your male followers had every right to be offended by that comment, and you can rest assured that there are plenty of cool, brilliant, and dedicated female egalitarians on the progressive side who would be equally offended, and rightfully so. You have a right to say whatever you want to say, but I’m sure you understand you are going to be challenged when you make comments of that nature. I expect much better from you, as I do all progressives, and I will call you on it whenever you fall short of your best.

And finally, from Michael’s Twitter responses:

A Facebook post from Mark Kelly:
This morning a crazy man attacked 22 children at an elementary school- in China. But all the crazy man had was a knife. Number of dead? Zero
In addition to his two handguns, the killer in CT this morning used an assault rifle called The Bushmaster.

Yes, firearms, particularly assault rifles like the Bushmaster, do make killing large numbers of people at a single time easier. I would expect a frenzied individual carrying only a knife (like the lunatic in China who entered an elementary school) and doesn’t target just one particular individual in a clandestine manner to end up subdued by several staff members before he killed anyone. However, as you will note from studying any cursory list of serial killers (including the list I provided up above), the use of knives, poisons, and even pillows to dispense acts of murder can claim as many victims as these mass shooters do, but simply over a prolonged period of time. And these individuals do not tend to kill themselves following these drawn out massacres as these deranged mass shooters often seem to do.

Again, I want no one to take this as an attack on Michael Moore–including you yourself, Michael, if you ever read this–but simply as what I believe to be well-warranted disagreements, which I have with everyone whom I respect from time to time (and which they have with me also, of course).

Despite the controversial nature of this post, I hope it provides food for thought, and encourages a rational and well-reasoned–not emotionalistic or hysterical–reaction to this latest tragedy involving a mass shooting incident. I hope our solutions are reasonable and in harmony with what we have the right to expect from a democratic society.

And in closing, I hope that we–as Michael asked us to do–take a good, hard look at the many issues outside of the simple matter of civilian ownership of guns that contribute to this problem, and come up with a solution that results in a better and more compassionate society, rather than merely one with more restrictions and less civil rights. If we do not deal with the real cause of the problem, but simply try to target the symptoms, then we are going to continuously miss the point and continue to live in denial of the problems with our current society that we need to address if viable, democratic solutions that actually work are to be implemented.

Check out this link for a sample of how vile female serial killers can be, and how they tend to operate behind the scenes more often than their male counterparts do. They may not become serial killers as often as men (then again, our culture raises men to believe it’s a sign of “toughness” to be desensitized to violence, and to be quicker to mete it out), but when they do go off the deep end, they tend to become every bit as bad as their male counterparts. And note how they do not need guns in many instances to carry out these killings. Those in positions of political power do not need to wield guns themselves, as they simply order soldiers or FBI agents (in the case of Janet Reno) who are carrying all the ammunition to carry out massacres on their behalf–just as their male counterparts do.


2 thoughts on “Gun Control and the Connecticut Shooting

  1. The Pro says:

    Give me as many guns as you can. Infact just give me alk your guns. Problem solved. You know who wants gun Control? DICKtstors. Nuff said

    • thenorseking says:

      Thank you for sharing your enlightened insights on this controversial issue, Mr. Pro 🙂 As for the “‘Nuff said” closing, your inadvertent homage to the great comic book pioneer Stan Lee by using his famous catch phrase was much appreciated by this blogger! Woo hoo and boo-yahh, dude!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s