The NRA’s True Colors
In an opinion column in Tucson, Arizona’s Arizona Daily Star on Sunday, President Obama called for a dialog among all stakeholders in the debate over access to firearms. After describing the carnage firearms cause in America every day, in addition to the massacre in Tucson, he asked if the parties could at least talk about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill and children.
While his column was upbeat, it was also realistic:
I know some aren’t interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
While the anti-firearm camp has agreed to meet with the President to explore ways to limit the carnage, the National Rifle Association, predictably, refused. Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of the National Rifle Association reportedly said:
Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?
Is WC the only one who is tired of the NRA’s knee-jerk reactions for even the simplest discussion?
America works — well, America used to work — precisely because people with strongly opposing views were willing to sit down and try to reach a compromise. Our government cannot work if parties to differing sides of an issue aren’t willing to talk, aren’t willing to seek a middle ground. The answer to LaPierre’s question is, “Because that’s how government has to work, if it is to work.”
In 2009, the last year for which WC can find data, there were at least 9,146 homicides caused by firearms (Florida hadn’t submitted data and Illinois’ data were incomplete). That’s 25 firearm homicides a day, over one an hour. Could that be another reason to sit down and talk, Mr. LaPierre?
As we debate this issue, Gabby Giffords struggles to regain her ability to walk, speak and live independently. Could that be another reason to sit down and talk, Mr. LaPierre?
Be an American, Mr. LaPierre. Meet with the President.
Mr. LaPierre hardly seems like someone I could have an adult conversation with. If he showed up what could be accomplished? Is his statement intentionally hyperbolic or is it a true expression of his world view? I bet he spends his time ducking and covering from imaginary ogres. He may even have a bunker. I am not trying to be hyperbolic.
CEight
March 17, 2011 at 11:21 am
Your expectations are too high, or rather, misplaced. We live in a Nation where image is everything and substance means nothing. So any image of ‘sitting down to discuss an issue’ is seen as a capitulation. Not to mention, the NRA sees the 2nd Amendment as iron clad, and therefore there really is nothing to ‘discuss’. Its like you saying – why don’t we sit down and ‘discuss’ my desire to restrict your voting rights. That pretty much guarantees the discussion is a non-starter.
So what’s the ‘solution’. Well first, I have to take exception with your statement, “the carnage firearms cause in America every day.” People cause carnage, not firearms; vehicles, knives, fire, alcohol or any inanimate object. But I am the first to say that it probably isn’t necessary for any person to own a .50 caliber rifle. In fact, it is completely ludicrous.
I would also argue, so are swords. I don’t have a razor sharp knife in my whole house because I don’t think they are safe. But more precisely, I don’t believe that I am safe in handling them, NOT that they are inherently unsafe. There is a difference, and that difference is, I am not about to tell you that you can’t have one just because I am uncomfortable with them. This America, people own deadly poisonous snakes, tarantulas, boa constrictors, chainsaws, bow and arrows (which are every bit as “dangerous” as a rifle), cars, and any number of other ‘deadly’ weapons. So what exactly makes the “gun” different?
I don’t know, but I would venture to say its’ perception. And I for one believe we already have a decent balance of ‘restriction’ based on – no automatic weapons, background check (such as it is), and I was even ok with the limited clip size. But beyond that, there really isn’t any practical way to ‘regulate’ something which, like it or not, is a constitutionally protected right. The South tried that for the better part of the last century in regard to restricting voting ‘rights’ for blacks. And sometimes, well, your side just loses. So either, get over it and move on, or be prepared to make your case for discussing why AMERICANS have such a high incidence of gun related issues. And don’t say its becasue we have so many. Plenty of other Countries have, on average, more than one per person.
Of course, I doubt the current group of Repubs would sit down to discuss mental illness in this Country either. Especially after their 30 year effort to dismantle every bit of public funding for the mentally disabled. THAT’S wrong, and they should be brought to task on it. But anyone who focusses solely on the “gun”, is every bit as shortsighted and, dare I say, prejudice as those they decry.
So what is the real ‘issue’ here WC?
mrderik
March 17, 2011 at 12:18 pm
(1) Anyone who pulls out the “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” loses most of their credibility. Firearms are an exceptionally effective way of killing people. Jared Loughner would not have killed six people and wounded another fourteen if he had been armed with, say, a knife.
(2) What President Obama asked for was a meeting to discuss keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill and children.
(3) The point of the essay was to show that if our society can’t get beyond treating discussion as capitulation, or compromise as capitulation, it is going to fail.
(4) We have many restrictions on voting rights. You have to be registered. You have to be a resident. You can’t be a felon still under sentence. In the primaries in Alaska, you have to be a Republican to vote the Republican primary ballot. We can and do sit sown and talk about these issues. We reach compromises. So your illustration serves WC’s point. It’s possible.
(5) Don’t get WC started on the crimes done to the mentally ill…
Wickersham's Conscience
March 17, 2011 at 12:41 pm
WC, my husband and I agree with every word you wrote in your post and in your comment.
I hesitate to add to your well-written and well-reasoned presentation, but I will simply because we have little patience for the over-simplification of the dangers of firearms by arguing “guns to not kill people, people kill people.” Such thinking is a combination of ignorance and arrogance and has been carefully perpetuated by the NRA into a nifty little soundbite, easy to remember and repeat ad nauseum.
This argument “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” isn’t fully developed. Even if you can successfully argue there is no inherent danger in guns, you cannot deny that “people with guns can and do kill people – a lot of people and often not the ones who pose a threat.”
I go beyond that and say that objects can be dangerous in and of themselves. Adding the volatility of often emotional, irrational and inept humans simply increases the likelihood of negative outcomes.
Anyone who would say an object is not inherently dangerous is someone who is being disingenuous. Matches can spontaneously combust given the right conditions. An unattended magnifying glass left in a sunny window or outside near dry materials can create fire without active human intervention. Others can add to the list, but the idea that something cannot be inherently unsafe is foolish.
Why else do we have safety standards on simple things like the manufacture of electrical cords. If not manufactured correctly, those cords can heat-up to dangerous levels without the electrical tool or appliance being turned on – simply plugged-in. Many people lost lives or homes simply because the electrical cords were dangerous to use before adequate regulation was in place to maximize safety.
Poison is inherently dangerous even if many types of it are widely available to the public at large No one would say poison it is safe because it can be dangerous just sitting in the bottle. Vapors of certain chemicals can sicken or kill people.
Gosh, even some medications are dangerous for women, particularly pregnant women, to even touch. Men are supposed to thoroughly wash their hands after handling those medications before touching a female. The danger is in the product, even though some proplr may be careless in handling it.
Certain foods can kill. Ask any parent of a peanut-allergic child. People can have a fatal response to a food they have never eaten before even though most people deem it harmless.
Guns do kill people. Guns have fallen off tables and discharged on their own. Loaded guns may explode during fires. Malfunctions cause guns to explode when being fired even in the hands of the most capable shooters.
To address gun safety when humans use them: police officers know that to keep their jobs they have to maintain their ability to shoot efficiently and effectively. Even after routine training and hours on the firing range, police often miss their targets. Imagine how poorly an untrained or poorly trained private citizen will perform. Sarah Palin unintentionally gave us a clear example of how hard it is to shoot even a top-notch scoped rifle during her reality show, and she claims more than passing knowledge and experience with one (though, that claim has been disputed).
To use WC’s example, at least with a knife, the attacker stands a chance of inserting the knife where he or she intends it to go. At least with a safety razor you stand a chance of not cutting your throat. At least with minimum safety features and mandatory, routine training, background checks to limit who is qualified and trustworthy enough to handle a weapon, and strictly regulated manufacturing standards, we can minimize the dangers inherent in guns and the handling of them.
We should not act like threatened children who resist any kind of rules, any kind of oversight. Regulations are usually not promulgated in a desire to exercise raw power over people or deny them freedoms; regulations usually are enacted to enhance protections and safe usage.
Very few, very, very few, are arguing for the complete abolition of firearms. Even if such a law could be enacted, it would be impossible at this point to implement. However, reasonable people are considering reasonable oversight and limitations for the good of both the individual and our society at large.
At a time when people routinely take medications that make them dangerous to use heavy machinery, when increasing numbers of people struggle with anger management and lack the self-discipline to handle the frustration of having their whims, needs or desires instantly fulfilled, and when many people indulge in various illegal drugs or misuse common ones such as caffeine or alcohol, we stand in wonder that there hasn’t been stricter gun control already.
How many times have any of us who drive exclaim, “How the heck did that person get a driver’s license?” Now we are having the same complaint about individuals with guns. We test and license and require insurance to drive cars. We take away that privilege from those who cannot see or whose sight is failing, who have lost the mental or physical capacity to operate a car safely or who have proven themselves irresponsible. Why shouldn’t we apply those same expectations and standards to gun owners?
kssunflower
March 17, 2011 at 2:45 pm
>1 Firearms are an exceptionally effective way of killing people.
So are cars, poison, and alcohol. Credibility should be based on actions and perceived motives, not determined by feelings or fear.
>2
Granted, but we all know what he MEANT.
I am kidding, of course.
>3
Agreed.
>4
Agreed, and I am all for not allowing unreasonable things (in general, not just weaponry). But you may have missed my point. I contest that there are plenty of people who wish to restrict the rights of others simply based on their own bias or innate fear of something. In complete disregard of the otherwise responsible persons desire to simply exercise his rights. This is the very (crude) definition of prejudice and I believe it applies here. I don’t believe it applies to our current President, however, based on his actions to date. But WC, I’m not so sure about…
>5
Compassion is a terrible thing to waste. And the repubs seem to have run out a long time ago.
mrderik
March 17, 2011 at 3:03 pm
To use your examples, we license the use of cars, poison and alcohol. The inference is obvious.
Wickersham's Conscience
March 17, 2011 at 3:05 pm
“Is WC the only one who is tired of the NRA’s knee-jerk reactions for even the simplest discussion?”
No, but you may be the only one who has not given up the hope that the NRA will behave as a responsible and rational association of American citizens. I don’t include President Obama, since he had to make the gesture of inviting the NRA to the table.
freshwatersnark
March 17, 2011 at 7:06 pm
>(1) Anyone who pulls out the “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” loses most of their credibility.
- Likewise anyone who uses the argument ‘Becasue they are dangerous’.
So there is your impasse in a nutshell.
My point was not to disprove how dangerous guns are, it was to bring to the surface the issue of people who simply have a prejudice against them. It’s ok to admit, and it’s your right to feel that way. I don’t even have a problem with that – I have a prejudice against snakes, and I freely admit it.
All I was hoping for in this discussion was for discovery of your feelings about the issue, the why of your opinion, not the statistics. Becasue I genuinely wanted to understand your position.
But it is your Blog and you can say, or not say, whatever you want. I do thank you for your willingness (to allow me) to drag this one out as long as you did. I believe I understand now.
mrderik
March 17, 2011 at 7:25 pm