The following is not what I planned (and partially wrote) for today. Rather, it is quite similar to the article I posted on Jan. 10, 2013 (see here), but it is more than just a repeat or an update.
Less than a month after the unbelievably tragic Sandy
Hook mass school shooting in Connecticut, I wrote about my staunch support for
increased gun control in this country—and my serious doubts that there would be
any meaningful legislation passed. And, indeed, there wasn’t.
And now in 2022 there have been mass shootings in Buffalo
(N.Y.) and Uvalde (Tex.) and . . . and . . . .
While there is a small glimmer of hope that some minimal gun
control legislation might soon be passed by the U.S. Congress, there is not
much possibility, it seems, that there will be any bans on the sale of AR-15 type
of assault weapons.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why any private
citizen needs to own a high-powered assault rifle, but from what I read (here),
a federal ban on such weapons “stands no chance of winning the needed 60-votes
in the Senate.”
But as Eugene Robinson posted on June 6, “We’ll get less than half a loaf on gun control. We should take it.” So, yes, something is better than nothing. But I am pessimistic because of my doubts that that something will substantially reduce the mass shootings that have become so common.
In addition to guns, alcohol is also the cause of needless
deaths daily. According
to USDoT, every day “about 32 people in the United States die in drunk-driving
crashes. . . . In 2020, 11,654 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic
deaths.” Some of them were school-aged children.
When 20 children are killed by a needless mass shooting, it
is, certainly, an unspeakable tragedy. But is the pain and suffering any worse
than that of the families of 20 children killed, separately, in needless
drunk-driving accidents?
I assume that (probably) all my many “liberal” friends
are strongly in favor of significant gun control legislation. But I also assume
that maybe all of those friends, most of whom drink alcohol to varying degrees,
would not support any ban on alcoholic beverages.
Again, I assume those friends would say that the problem is
not alcohol but irresponsible drinking and people who break the anti-DUI laws.
And to a large extent, they are probably right. But isn’t that exactly the same
sort of argument the anti-gun control people widely use?
I still support widespread gun control legislation, and I
firmly believe that such legislation would reduce both the number of homicides
and suicides.
But even with the passage of such legislation, the number of
gun deaths would likely remain high—just as the number of drunk-driving deaths is
high in spite of strong anti-DUI laws and the legal drinking age being 21
(rather than 18 as it is now for assault rifles.)
Despite, or in ignorance of, the data, the general public
lives with—and are seemingly not particularly upset by—the 11,600+ yearly deaths
in the U.S. because of “drunk-driving crashes,” which DoT says “were all
preventable.”
Perhaps that is all that can be expected about mass
shootings (and all gun-related deaths) as well, despite the media mania when
tragedies such as the one in Uvalde occur.
But put things in perspective: the percentage of children
killed by a mass killer inside a school is really very, very small.
Since I live in Missouri, I researched the number of school
deaths by shootings in the state. According
to this website, only 14 people in Missouri have been shot to death at
school over the past 50 years—and none of those was by a mass shooting.
In 2021 there were over 860,000 K-12 students in Missouri
schools, and many of these were in the 2,200+ elementary schools. Why should so
many children (or parents) be traumatized by fear of what, odds are, will never
happen in their (or their children’s) classroom?
They are most likely safer there than in the family car going
on a 50-mile highway trip.
Short of researching the phenomenon of "trade-offs" in American life--in exchange for "freedom," our liberty to pursue lifestyles that assure allied risks, don't we agree that the risks are "worth it"? Whether legislatively or behaviorally, intentionally and verbally or tacitly, most often unconsciously, many of us do indeed choose to embrace the possibility of daily apocalypse in life--if not ours than generally in society: "that's the way it is".
ReplyDeleteHow many of our legislators are unmindful of state and federal legislation's permit of the angry gun idolaters to
"get" something our of their system or to plead their right to "bear arms" as they choose? To be sure, paranoid men with private arsenals rather unmindfully are more prepared to "defend" violently than they themselves understand, and more than most of us really want to know. The ongoing mini-apocalypses reveal deep fault lines in American society: the lack of social and public accountability in fractured and alienated communities so that we would be aware of these psychotic soldiers, and the irresponsibility of lawmakers and others in charge to defend against patently unnecessary butchery.
Solve this? I hope and pray. Ran across this piece about keeping the kids safe:
https://www.plough.com/en/topics/life/parenting/everything-will-not-be-ok?utm_source=Plough+-+English&utm_campaign=117dab217c-Dig&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4cbb94afa4-117dab217c-297112874
Jerry, thanks for your comments, and while there are things I would like to say about your first two paragraphs, I will respond to the third paragraph only. As most others likely don't know, the piece you referred to is in the new issue (Summer 2022) of "Plough Quarterly." I have already read many of the essays in that issue but hadn't read the one you linked to until after seeing your comments.
DeleteI thought it was a good and helpful article, but it was the opposite of one of the points I was trying to make. Wisely, the article stressed that we should not assure children that everything will be all right when, in fact, things sometimes turn out not to be all right.
But part of what I was saying in the blog post, and perhaps not clearly enough, is that school children should not be caused to have persistent fears of being shot in their schoolroom. They are not repeatedly made to fear being killed in a traffic accident caused by a drunk driver, which is fine, but in fact, statistically they are more likely to be killed by the latter than by a mass shooter in their classroom. Mass media is largely responsible for the trauma caused in many school children, but the media rarely mentions the problem of alcohol-caused traffic deaths--and as I said to Dr. Hinson below, the entertainment media actively promotes the drinking of alcohol.
It always seems easier for people to deal with issues emotionally rather than rationally.
Leroy, I see and agree with your point as clarified, and which I had not responded to properly. If I understand correctly, the frenzy of media-induced dread affects everyone, particularly parents and then, to varying degrees, the schoolchildren. A dreadful atmosphere inside or outside the classroom is itself harmful. On the alcohol issue, we all recall the MADD campaigns, continuing even now, I think, but less heard from, and yet there are still the unacceptable incidences of DUI and deaths.
DeleteWhat, then, for parents, children, and the wider community? The shock and dread should be left behind at some point, but not the determination to take objective and rational steps, as I think you suggest, to address the problem of guns. I don't hear enough anywhere about the public commitment to firearms laws and policies that contribute more surely to the public good, including the public schools. I'm not advocating that people with guns be stripped of their liberties as they fear; I do believe the broader public must try to help their fellow carrying citizens arrive at a more reasonable, responsible, and less open-ended definition of citizens' freedoms. Woe to us if we tolerate those whose addiction to their "freedom" works against the general welfare.
P.S. I do not consider a huntsman's gun cabinet or safe an "arsenal" as such. Unless there are large-clip semi-automatics in it. As to the first statement, to clarify: our automobiles and roadways, recreational activities and sports--these and more are inherently risky. Most people understand and abide by certain common-sense limits.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I find this blog confusing unless your points are that we shouldn't be overly concerned about gun deaths and should be supporting some kind of ban on alcohol or that we should be just as alarmed at drunk-driving deaths as most of us are at the deaths of children by gunfire. Perhaps you're trying to make the point that the argument often made that guns should be regulated as much as are the use and ownership of cars is unfounded?
ReplyDeleteApparently in 2020 gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 35 states. https://vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-compared-to-motor-vehicle-deaths/ And apparently gun deaths account for more years of life lost than do traffic deaths in the USAmerica, "firearms overtook car crashes as the single largest cause of traumatic death in the U.S. in 2017." https://www.npr.org/2022/02/23/1082564685/guns-leading-cause-of-premature-deaths
I have argued that vehicle-related deaths should be a cause for investing in public transportation and stricter controls on the use of vehicles. I have argued for strict control of guns. Both causes are important to address and only feebly addressed with regard to drunk driving but hardly at all addressed with regard to gun deaths. In sociological perspective both are major social problems; i.e., systemic in nature and solved only on a collective level.
Thanks for your honest comments, Anton. In the email I sent to you Thinking Friends about this new blog post, I encouraged careful reading so as not to misunderstand what I was saying. I assume you did read the post carefully, so I apologize for not making my thinking clearer. (I probably tried to cover too many aspects of the issue for a 700-word article.) Let me amplify with the following responses to what you wrote:
Delete1) I do think we should be concerned about gun deaths, and I staunchly support gun control legislation--but at the same time I don't think that tragedies such as the one in Uvalde should be emphasized so much that school children all over the country become fearful of going to school and caused to experience (even mild) trauma because of that isolated tragedy.
2) I am not advocating "some kind of ban on alcohol." As we all know, the abolition of alcohol was once made in an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but it was repealed because it didn't work.
3) I am suggesting that "we should be just as alarmed at drunk-driving deaths as most of us are at the deaths of children by gunfire," but I don't think there is much possibility of that. Twenty deaths in one school shooting are far more sensational, although not less tragic, than twenty deaths in twenty (of maybe fewer) separate traffic accidents caused by drunk driving. Much of the public's concern is shaped by the 24/7 news media, which always tend to go with the sensational.
4) No, I agree that guns should be regulated as much as cars are. But I am not optimistic that even if stricter gun laws were passed, which I don't think is likely, there will still not be a significant reduction in the number of gun deaths. There are laws against drunk driving and serious penalties for those who are arrested for DUI; nevertheless, as I cited in this morning's post, "In 2020, 11,654 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths.”
I have seen the statistics you referred to in your second paragraph, but accidental death is still the leading cause of death for children 12 and under.
Does this make my point(s) any clearer?
Here are comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"I agree with you both about the AR-15 and the alcohol problem. What many do not realize about alcohol usage is that vast numbers are prone to addiction, as were my father and older brother. A society that promotes alcoholic beverages like Kentucky promotes bourbon takes advantage of these addictions."
Thanks, Dr. Hinson, for your comments and sharing from your own family experience. It was probably in 1958, when I was still a student at William Jewell College, that I gave a speech at some local event and was selected to go to a regional event in another city to give that speech again--which I did. The title was "Attacking Alcohol Advertising." My concluding words were, ". . . it is imperative that in the interest of our nation as a whole the advertising of alcoholic beverages be prohibited." (I just happened to come across that speech a few days ago and read it again for the first time in decades.)
DeleteIt is true that many alcohol advertisements now, as opposed to what things were like in 1958, encourage people to "drink responsibly." But as I understand it (as a teetotaler), the more a person drinks, the less that person has the ability to make responsible decisions. No doubt part of the blame for the 32 deaths every day resulting from drunk driving rests in the (bloody) hands of those who advertise ("promote," as you wrote) alcoholic beverages.
Dr. Hinson then responded to my response to him with these words:
Delete"You spoke rightly in 1958. The government throughout Kentucky boosts bourbon without warning about its addictive effects. That troubles me."
Thinking Friend Tom Nowlin in Arkansas shares these comments about gun control:
ReplyDelete"I would support a ban on 'assault weapons,' but when I discuss this with gun enthusiast friends the discussion soon turns to obfuscation and NRA 'talking points.' The NRA used to be about gun and hunter safety (I used to be a strong supporter and recruiter in my youth for many years) but it eventually became politicized, leading to the absolutizing of the 2nd Amendment. The truth is we already accept gun regulations and controls. New machine guns cannot be manufactured and registered with federal authorities, but old registered machine guns can still be bought and ownership transferred after a 9-month federal background check and payment of a federal $200 “tax.” In most states a conceal/carry permit is required to carry a gun hidden/open in the public. No one can own a tactical nuclear weapon. Etc. The obfuscation? 'What exactly is an assault weapon?' 'What is considered excessive muzzle velocity?' 'My grandpa’s old shotgun has more knock down power than my AR-15 or Mini-14.'
"In short, the NRA has done an excellent job of 'resistance training' (perhaps a better word is 'brainwashing') its members against any reasonable gun control. By learning these NRA 'talking points' (obfuscation arguments), one is made to think him/herself smarter than others and thereby empowered, possessing a GNOSIS no one else has (this resonates with revealed theology arguments, but I digress.). This does not mean the conversations with anti-any-gun-control folks are unproductive. They certainly are needed. And I am convinced that we are not really that far apart. And, for the sake of agreement, I acknowledge the 'absolutizing' (and fear) goes both ways – absolutely zero gun control vs. absolutely zero guns. (Not just AR-15s, Mini-14s, M4s, and so forth. But why stop there? On what basis?). I am not saying I do not have my limits. Battlefield weapons (AR-15s, Mini-14s, M4s, etc.), designed for rapid distribution of lead and maximum human casualties, need to stay on the battlefield (not on our community streets). In reply to those who argue that hunting rifles (30-30s, 30-06s, 308s, etc.) are far more lethal (the lethality argument with higher muzzle velocity, higher knock down power, etc.) I ask then why does the military not deploy those to all US military infantrymen and women on the battlefield. Because the lever action/bolt action rifle does not shoot as fast and is not designed for maximum killing, but rather designed for a single target as in hunting (or for military snipers). I will stop here. These “discissions” can go on and on. And they are wearying. Yet, they need to be had. And, as I argue above, the goals of having a safe society in which to live (free of fear of random violence) while preserving a proper understanding of the 2nd Amendment are not mutually exclusive."
Thanks, Tom, for your detailed comments. I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me and other readers of my blog.
DeleteHere are comments received yesterday from local Thinking Friend Ed Kail:
ReplyDelete"I appreciate your thoughtful piece on gun control (and alcohol). When challenged about '2nd amendment rights,' I usually appeal to the language in the amendment that talks about a 'well-regulated militia.' It’s clear that the writers wanted the people who were carrying weapons to be regulated for the welfare of all. Unfortunately, the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision back in 2008 changed 200+ years of precedent when it posited 'bearing arms' as an individual right. (I can’t help but wonder how much money the National Rifle Association poured into supporting that change.)
"And, by the way, I recall the article describing how the radical wing of the NRA took over the leadership of the association in the 1970’s and began pushing for 'individual rights' and no regulation of gun manufacturing. Things haven’t been the same since. Now guns have overtaken car accidents as the leading cause of death of children in the U.S.
"I contend that history is behind the banning of 'assault weapons' and related equipment. If someone wants to appeal to the 2nd Amendment, then they need to be ready to replace all their current guns with the muskets and black-powder pistols the amendment was designed for!
"Stop the madness! — regulate firearms in the U.S.!"
A few minutes later, Ed sent another email with this information:
Delete"Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article about the Heller case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller ."
Ed, thanks for your important comments and calling attention to the unfortunate decision in the Heller case. I fully agree with the important point(s) you made. (For clarification, though, from my research it is indeed true that guns are the leading cause of death for children under 18, but automobile accidents are still the primary cause of death for those under 14.)
DeleteConcerning the history of the NRA, I recommend Heather Cox Richardson's May 24 "letter," which you can access (free) by clicking on the right button here:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-24-2022?s=r
(I read her letters every morning and find them very helpful.)
Yesterday afternoon I also received the following email from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your thoughts about gun control and drunk driving.
'New technologies on automobiles will prevent inebriated persons from starting and driving their cars, so hopefully this problem will begin to recede. But even so, Americans need to be constantly reminded of the perils of having more than one or two drinks at a time; no drinks at all is probably best . . . .
"Almost as dangerous, or perhaps even worse, than drunk driving is texting while driving. New i-Phones have an app that prevents one from using the phone while driving, although it can be overridden.
"Guns, however, are a problem. Gun rights activists argue that gun laws do not work and that there is little we can do about gun violence short of confiscation of all guns, something that would be impossible in the U S given the vast number of guns owned by Americans. What these activists ignore is that gun laws work very well in other developed nations, where mass shootings are extremely rare.
"I personally favor gun laws similar to those in Israel or Switzerland--laws which seem much more in line with the whole of our Second Amendment (i.e., the often-ignored part about a 'well-regulated militia'). As with you, I can see no reason why any private citizen needs to own an assault weapon. Except for certain individuals, owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one and that is why Judy and I do not own any guns."
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Eric. I was not aware of the new technology you mentioned in the second paragraph, but how long will it be before even a sizeable majority of drivers will have cars with such technology?
DeleteAnd then yesterday evening I received this brief, and much appreciated, email from Thinking friend Jerry Jumper in southwest Missouri:
ReplyDelete"As always your post makes us think. Thank you for the effort."
The exclusive focus of modern corporations on profits is behind a multitude of problems, including guns and alcohol. Over the years the sugar industry has blamed fats, the auto industry has demonized public transportation, the tobacco industry has lied about cancer, the oil and gas industry has lied about global warming, the plastics industry has lied about pollution, and the military-industrial complex has run roughshod over our foreign policy. So is it any surprise that the NRA has committed what former Chief Justice Warren Burger "fraud" with the false claim of an individual right to bear arms?
ReplyDeleteCraig, thanks for your comments. (I was not expecting to hear from you this time as you are on the road toward your new home in Oregon.)
DeleteTo respond to the rhetorical question with which you ended, it certainly is no surprise that the NRA has made fraudulent claims. If the truth sets us free, which I certainly think is the case, then all the lies you mentioned, among many others, keep us embedded in a culture of death.
Thanks for your thoughts on this Leroy. Some of your readers may be interested in my blog post at https://www.riverhouseepress.com/en/blog/gunlover/ in which I argue that obsession with guns is a spiritual issue, reflecting longing for control and security and misguided effort to short-cut the path to deep security that comes only with soulful surrender to the provenance of the Creator.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ron. I had no idea you were a gun lover (and a good shot), but I read your post with great interest.
DeleteWhen I was in high school living on a northwest Missouri farm, I often used the only gun my family had, a single-shot .22 caliber rifle. I used it for shooting cans off fence posts and shooting at rabbits and squirrels--and occasionally hitting one. I don't see why firearms such as that need to be banned, although even they probably need to be regulated (registered) more than they were in the early 1950s.