Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Obama's underwhelming speech in Newtown

Not sure if any of you saw Obama's speech in CT about the shooting (since they interrupted the 49ers game for it, I expected it to be good). But I was terribly disappointed. He's not the inspirational, transformational leader of 2008 anymore, and it just looks sad when he tries to be these days.

This was from an interview on NPR Weekend Edition with Pastor Eugene Peterson, who was offering advice on what to do (and not to do) for a grieving person. He brought up examples from his own life and ministry.

[At my mother's funeral, this man] put his arm across my shoulders, and he started giving me cliches and talking God talk. And after a few minutes of that, he left. And I said to my daughter Karen: Oh, Karen, I hope I've never done that to anybody. And she said - she was so dear. She says: Oh, daddy, I don't think you'd ever do that. But I had done that. But you learn not to do that when you've been through this a few times.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/15/167346785/spiritual-strength-in-times-of-great-need

Obama's speech was at an "interfaith" service, so we can expect some spirituality, but I think he really went overboard with the "God talk", obvious parenting advice, and other cliches like "our children are our hearts". To me it's patronizing, which is exactly what Peterson said grieving people don't want to hear. It's of very little comfort when a stranger tells you that the dead "are in a better place now" or we "have to have faith that this is part of a plan." What are you saying, that we shouldn't grieve and be happy instead? That is not empathy, that is lecturing. Or if Obama insists on this course, at least do it powerfully and succinctly like JFK (crescendos delivered in <1 br="br" min="min">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf4eQhrHbKA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyR_b98weiQ

Sometime (or too often) Obama speaks like a wimp - too guarded and professorial, which makes him come off as weak and un-authentic (compare this to the fiery Obama of 2004-2008). I really think he should fire his speech writers (and definitely his debate coach). It's not campaign season anymore, he doesn't need to blabber on for 20 min with vague, colorful, but distracting language. Otherwise people tune out. I realize it is was terrible situation for a speech, and it is not an easy task even for a gifted orator. Plus Obama is clearly not a natural like Bill (see how well he handled the OK City tragedy, in just 9 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DgXx_evi6Q). Even if he was a total phony (which I doubt), he came off as an expert of humility and empathy, as a great source of comfort and inspiration, as the president we needed then. No wonder why Bill would be the runaway pick for the Dems in 2016 if he could run again. But I guess that's not fair for Obama if he has to try to measure up to that (but I think he compares his presidency to Clinton's a lot).

If I was part of the Newtown community, I would appreciate if he said what he would do to spare other Americans the same pain. Something CONCRETE. A promise, not the other BS he spewed after the last 3 mass shootings during his presidency. Maybe he was heartfelt, but we didn't feel it, and there are no points for effort. I am sure Obama did better meeting solo or in small groups with the victims and local community. But in a nationally televised speech, he has to do better or don't bother at all (since as pastor said, silence is sometime the best thing you can give). After Obama's speech, I don't feel like things are going to get better. I just wonder when he and the Dems will puss-out to the gun lobby, and when the next horrible shooting will be. Obama made me feel cynical, upset, and defeated, whereas JFK and Clinton made me feel energized and hopeful, even if their words are decades old (and we now know about all their personal flaws).

Everyone already knows (apart from the NRA) that the status quo is not good enough. Everyone already knows that protecting our kids is our top priority. Tell us how we're going to get to a better place. The GOP isn't totally wrong; Obama is very thin on details at times. And I'm not talking about a deep dive into policy minutia, research findings, and wonky specifics. There has to be a middle ground between fluff and wonk, and that is where most Americans prefer to communicate and understand. Clinton got that right almost every time, it was uncanny. I respect Bush Sr. for at least having the sack to promise no new taxes, even if he had to break it later. At least he put it out there and the people knew where he stood. Same thing for JFK proclaiming that an American would reach the moon before the decade was out. Maybe he had his doubts, but it helped to quell America's fears about Sputnik. So Mr. no-drama, play-it-safe Obama, can you just say that it's going to be harder for deranged shooters to get their hands on weapons and commit massacres? Maybe attacks won't go down to zero, but please reassure us that things will improve. You said we have to change, and you are Mr. Change, so tell is WHAT exactly is going to change, dammit!

What's it going to be, Barack? What do you want your second term to be remembered for? You somewhat mocked the people who were unsure about you in 2008 as "clinging to their guns" - now you won't even say the word (it's not Voldemort!). Sometime a leader has to tell the people the hard things they may not want to hear, but need to. He even said tonight, good parents can't hope to shield their kids from the world forever. That would be doing them a disservice. Wasn't he all about doing the unpopular thing as long as it was the right thing? Didn't his former chief of staff Emmanuel admonish to never let a crisis go to waste? And he may be surprised that there is more latent support for stronger gun restrictions than the Beltway pollsters suggest. 

---------

The excuse-for-inaction machine has already started to rev up in DC:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-highlights-obstacles-taking-action-guns-205115017--politics.html

Jay Carney: "I think we all recognize that this is a complex problem and there are obstacles to taking action coming from a variety of places... no single piece of legislation, no single action will fully address the problem. So I don't have a specific agenda to announce to you today."

---------
Critics say the Obama administration hasn't done enough to combat gun violence. Carney responded to that criticism Monday by saying the president has supported an assault weapons ban and that the administration has "taken steps" to improve background checks, "but as you heard the president say last night, we all need to do more."
When pressed by ABC News' Jake Tapper to name specific legislation pushed by the administration, Carney cited "actions" on background checks and again stressed that more action needs to be taken.
Actually the Obama admin. has done nothing of substance. The only notable change was in the other direction - guns are now permitted in national parks.

----------

Following the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., in July, several Democratic lawmakers pushed legislation to outlaw the sale of high-capacity gun magazines. At the time, Sen. Dianne Feinstein  (D-Calif.) was one of the voices cautioning against wading into gun control during an election year. "It's a bad time to embrace a new subject," Feinstein said.

Only FOUR members of Congress pushed for renewed discussion on gun legislation after Aurora. And Feinstein, who was known as one of the strongest gun control advocates in the Senate, basically told them to shut it down until after the election. Well the election is over now and we have another shooting. Now what?

-------

But at least some NRA A-rated Congressmen (Manchin, Warner) are now joining the call for an assault weapons ban ("No hunter I know uses an assault rifle").

Some good comments in the discussion below. Sadly, it is pretty much the same discussion as the one post-Aurora. The pro-gun guy rehashed the same "solution" - armed school staff could have stopped the shooter. But the gun control researcher believes that America is different now. A shot Congresswoman and a shot-up movie theater wasn't enough it seems, but now a pile of slaughtered children may have actually woken the nation up. He predicts this could be the beginning of the end for the NRA, as there is a trend of more NRA-funded politicians losing their elections. Bloomberg has proposed starting a well funded opposing advocacy-lobbying org to directly challenge the NRA. Some gun-owning conservatives (who also want more gun restrictions) called in and they said they are tired of having the NRA be the blanket face and voice of all US gun owners. That is like the Tea Party speaking for all Republicans. Very true. Like how the Tea Party really just represents extreme libertarian pro-business interests, the NRA really just represents the gun industry, and indirectly others who benefit from loose guns, like criminals.

An Australian called in and commented on his nation's ban on many types of guns. He said that Auzzies aren't lamenting their "loss of freedom" to possess certain guns, but instead are thankful that they have the freedom to walk in the street without much fear of getting shot.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201212170900

----------

http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/111151/could-newtown-change-gun-control-politics#

Cohn makes the argument that the politics of gun control have changed. It used to be that Democrats needed at least some percentage of rural conservative voters in Ohio, Virginia etc to win the presidency - Clinton got them, Gore didn't. But over the last few elections those folks have gone entirely towards Republicans, and Democrats have won anyways. The basic argument is that rural gun-lovers are going to vote Republican no matter what, and they're going to lose. So there's no point trying to pretend you care about them, especially if ignoring them allows you to win over real swing voters who prefer fewer guns and fewer massacres.

----------

Thx, J. Yeah, the modern Dems seem predisposed to at least try to reassure voters that they respect the 2nd Amendment and don't want to confiscate all types of guns (just as they feel the need to reassure America that they will be tough on terrorism and rein in spending). I guess it's a knee-jerk to demonstrate that they aren't pansy pinkos. But yeah, it seems we are past the days of Kerry getting a photo-op while hunting to woo rural independent voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50527-2004Oct21.html

It seems the Dems can win elections without this segment in their corner, but what about passing meaningful legislation? They may not even be able to keep their own tent in line on this one, much less persuade many Republicans. I can see a lot of the GOP speaking out about gun control (they are probably rightfully outraged and it's also conveniently the political thing to do), but when it comes down to an actual vote, they could cite some technicality to vote no. Though I think a lot of politicians are wary that if they oppose even a toothless, ceremonial gun bill in the wake of Newtown, they would look like heartless bastards with 2014 not far away. Getting 60 senators could be tough, especially since the gun lobby may rightfully realize that this is an existential moment for them and go all-out.

I know I have been contradicting myself regarding how powerful the gun lobby actually is, and how pro-gun Congress actually is, because the truth is I have no idea. Like with health care, the problem with the gun issue is that conservatives always pivot to the personal freedoms, Constitutional rights, and gov't oppression stuff. "No one wants more mass shootings, but having the bloated federal bureaucracy regulating our guns is not the answer. The people and the states can make their own firearms decisions." They justify doing nothing as preventing bad legislation.

It is also possible that we are in the heat of the moment now, but passionate interest in gun control will wane with the holiday shutdown and fiscal cliff looming (not to mention NFL playoffs and Oscars). A massacre of kids is a major downer, and I don't think the MSM will be covering it heavily after Xmas, especially because the "villain" is already dead (no periodic court appearances and criminal profiles like with other shooters). The pro-gun camp may be counting on this, so they are just biding their time until America naturally forgets? Sorry for the cynicism.

----------

http://ktla.com/2012/12/17/sen-diane-feinstein-to-introduce-gun-control-bill/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/5-most-popular-guns3.htm

Hope it passes, but it's not retroactive. Sadly, the AR-15 is one of the top 5 most popular gun models in the US, if not the most. This is shocking to me considering a base weapon is like $1,000, vs. a  decent hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver for $300. Also the AR-15 is not exactly compact to transport and store securely, and cleaning it must be a bear. An ATF agent on NPR tonight said that he predicts AR-15 sales to spike this holiday season, even though Lanza used one to massacre kids. There will be worries about a possible ban, it is a very "cool" looking weapon now with more notoriety, and people will justify it by claiming they are owning one to stop any future Lanzas. Some people are taking notice though, as Wal-Mart has now pulled the AR-15 from its website (you can't buy it online but they show you the stores where it's legally available).

After the first assault ban expired in the 2000's, there was a flood of such guns into the country. So even if we put up a new ban now, how do we deal with the many in circulation?

Our ground wars are winding down and it's getting harder to legally arm overseas warlords, so the death dealers need US consumers to pick up the slack.

PS - Wal-mart's role in the US gun culture ("Save money, kill better"): http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/walmart-ar-15-online-store/60077/

You can even put rifles on your wedding registry:

http://www.walmart.com/browse/hunting/guns,-rifles-amp;-ammunition/4125_4155_1088608?search_query=&tab_value=all&ic=60_0&search_sort=3&cat_id=4125_4155_1088608

You'll remember in "Bowling for Columbine" how Moore et al. got K-Mart to stop selling ammo (they didn't sell guns at the time)... no such luck for the world's biggest retailer.

-----------

Yep, anecdotally AR and overall gun sales are spiking now. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-sales-spike-virginia-colorado-record-highest-background-174415554.html

But some major investors are closing their positions in the (highly profitable) gun industry, such as the CA Teacher's pension fund (understandable) and Cerberus private equity (the owner's father lives in Newtown). Could the gun industry be the new black mark industry like tobacco?

What the foreign press is saying about us after Newtown: http://news.yahoo.com/connecticut-school-massacre-world-sees-us-105500647.html

An interesting discussion of assault weapons: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market

- The guest (Tom Diaz) said that we have made way more significant legal changes, spent way more on research & countermeasures, and fundamentally changed our society (and other societies) in response to terrorism (namely 9/11) than we have for gun-related civilian violence - even though the death toll from terrorism is tiny vs. gun violence. I can understand that terrorist attacks are often large and traumatic vs. the "slow bleed" of (generally unreported in the media) daily gun violence. But mass shootings of kids with military rifles may change perceptions.

- M touched on this already, but the original assault weapons ban wording was so weird with a bunch of irrelevant restrictions on pistol grips, bayonet mounts, etc. Ironically, this helped companies like Bushmaster rise in the 1990's because they redesigned the M-16 into a simplified model that met all the assault weapons ban requirements. So basically you had the same potent weapon that was now legal. Assault rifle designs have been around for decades, so developing nations started to pump out clones at bargain prices. When our ban was lifted in 2004, these cheap weapons started to flood the US and elsewhere.

- There is a recent marketing push in the gun industry to equip US civilians with "military looking" weapons. In some cases, they are the exact same weapon with the same damage potential (e.g. a .50 cal sniper rifle with armor-piercing rounds). Gun makers don't make high margins on military contracts, due to the Pentagon's bargaining power and maybe some legal issues. The civilian market is larger and a lot more lucrative. So gun makers developed a strategy to win military contracts with a low-ball offer, and then their weapon would gain a lot of publicity, prestige, and visibility (movies, ads, video games, news footage, etc.). This would be free marketing and whip up civilian demand for the same model (but with higher markups). Beretta pioneered this trend with the M9 sidearm.

- Most data on gun usage in America looks bad for the gun industry. So they pushed Congress to enact the Tiahrt Amendment (R-KS, NRA stooge) preventing the ATF from using its budget to publish any gun data to the public. Plenty of private orgs research and publish gun studies, but they don't have the deep access and "big data" resources that the ATF does. We could know which gun models were most often used in which type of crimes, smuggling/lethality rates, etc. But this could severely impact sales, so the info is not available to the public.

- Both Clinton and Bush signed executive orders to limit or block the importation of gun models that do not have a "clear sporting purpose." So far Obama has not, but he could with the stroke of a pen. It wouldn't regulate domestic manufacturers, but would still help. 

Saturday, December 15, 2012

More on gun control and mass shootings

I think D's smoking analogy is spot on.  There needs to be, on the whole, a social change in how guns are viewed in this country.  The USA was rated at 88.8 guns per 100 persons, that sounds like an awful damn lot.  That number of guns for, probably, no reason should be socially unacceptable.
And T I think guns ARE a lot like drugs and booze in that there is a widespread, non criminal, desire to have them.  "normal" people became criminals during prohibition, happens now as well.  Lots of otherwise "normal" folk are occasional drug users, especially marijuana.  It is the wide spread domestic desire, not simply criminal desire, that leads those types of restrictions to fail.  So in smaller countries or ones with a different history with gun ownership the same restrictions are not, today, likely to succeed.  

So instead of trying to ban laser sights and extended clips, do like T suggested and tax guns more, put some more ads on TV, if they are really bad educate the masses.
------
 Well I would also ban assault weapons and accessories with massacre potential, on top of the taxes and education campaigns.

But I think I wasn't clear with my comparison of guns and Prohib. It's not about the % of use that is criminal as you suggested, it's about cause-effect. What I meant was:

- Prohib. was doomed to failure because the goal was to improve morality in society, and the vehicle for accomplishing that was erroneously assumed to be banning booze. They were barking up the wrong tree. Ironically as you said, Prohib. increased criminality, because otherwise moral people still wanted to drink or found new ways to profit handsomely from booze.

- The cause-effect relationship with gun violence and lack of gun control is much more solid. It is true that the majority of guns are not used in crimes, and the majority of gun owners are not criminals. Those people could be affected by selective gun control, but only weakly (we're not talking about a full ban on guns here, though I wouldn't mind that). For the minority who do intend to use guns for violent crime (or those who don't realize it until it's too late, like Belcher), smart gun control should make it harder for them to accomplish their goal.

Prohib. was like chemo - hurting healthy cells and cancer cells alike. Not that smart and obviously not popular or sustainable. But targeted gun control should make it much harder for people to commit serious crimes using guns (won't be 100% perfect of course), but not preclude the regular gun owners from using their guns for lawful purposes. Though the NRA is constantly pushing the envelope as to what constitutes "lawful" gun usage.

It may be hard to tell which gun user intends to commit violent crimes a priori, but clearly certain types of guns are more likely to be used in crimes than others (Tek-9, AK-47, high-penetration rounds, extended mags, etc.). So regulate those more. It's like how motorcycles have different insurance premiums and driving laws than passenger cars or semi-trucks. Target the laws appropriately based on the specific risk profile. Though for that balancing act, I would prefer that the laws err on the side of caution. I'd rather piss off a million hunters than have one more child slaughtered or spouse shot during a fight. 
-----------

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-statement-newtown-shooting-3-15-p-m-195212145--politics.html

It's very frustrating that Obama and other leaders have basically repeated the exact same quotes after the last few mass shootings in the US (Sikh temple, Giffords, Aurora, now CT). They vowed to "take action" each time, but we're still waiting. I know they must be frustrated too, but that does not grant them a pass. Since Day 1, reinstating the assault weapons ban (that expired under W) was part of Obama's policy agenda. I know he had wars, recession, and re-election to worry about, but come on it's been 4 years. He spent more time on DADT and other less important issues IMO.

This article seems to refute some of the points from the Freakonomics link that gun control "doesn't work": http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Major findings (I can't vouch for the quality of the research, and opinion surveys can always be manipulated, but it is Ezra Klein and the Wash. Post):

- The South is the region with the most "assault deaths" (not sure if that means gun attacks only, or any murder).
- The assault rate in the US now is actually 1/2 of what it was in the 1970s, but that probably also tracks with the overall trend of lower crime in the US (and Freakonomics would say that is mainly due to Roe v. Wade).
- There is a strong correlation between states' gun murder rates and the strictness of their gun control laws.
- Recent mass shootings have not really moved the public opinion needle on gun control (though it did in the wake of Columbine).
- Similar to opinions on Obamacare, Americans seem to generically favor gun freedoms over gun control (but since 9/11 it's about 50/50). When asked about specific policies however, they are much more pro-gun-control.

Some more data on global gun ownership and violence: http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/12/14/the-united-states-of-firearms-americas-love-of-the-gun/

The only nations ahead of us on gun murders per capita are basically lawless or war-torn: the LATAM drug nations, S. Africa, and probably also Sudan, Central Africa, the Middle East (data not collected for every nation). I'm not sure why Chile and Argentina are so high, about on par with the US.

Profiling mass murderers: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/14/167287373/many-mass-killers-have-had-chronic-depression

Since shootings seem to be on the news fairly often, we are inclined to think that they have increased in frequency recently. The guest says that's not so, as the US has had about 20 mass shootings per year (resulting in 100-150 casualties) for decades. I think Michael Moore tweeted that there have been 30 school shootings since Columbine. So while that is obviously unacceptable and tragic, it pales in comparison to the 10,000 other gun murders per year. Therefore it may not be best to fixate on how to stop mass shootings, since they are not the biggest component of the problem. Though if the mass shootings affect the populace and gov't enough to take actions that would also reduce the incidence of other types of gun murders, then that is helpful.

Some pro-gun conservatives believe that arming the "good people" is the answer, so we can kill the shooters before they kill so many victims. A more sane proposal is to increase mental health screening and "warning signs" monitoring. That is ironic because the conservatives want to cut the deficit by gutting a lot of social services. Therefore there will be fewer resources for mental health, and fewer services in general to go around, which will increase overall mental stress and possibly lead to the warning signs of homicidal behavior (but of course not every stressed person kills others). Not to mention more desperate people will be fighting over fewer resources/jobs, leading to more opportunities for hostility and conflict. And let's remember that a lost job or reduced gov't benefits affects the whole family, not just the individual. Any or all of of them could experience sufficient stress and depression to start to exhibit warning signs. So unless we discover a new funding source, we'll have fewer resources to prevent gun violence, and more people fitting the psychological profile of a shooter. It's similar to the VA finding itself ill-equipped to handle the huge spike of PTSD cases from returning war vets.

So what's the more economical alternative? Stricter gun laws and taxes (that would probably be revenue-positive). At least there is no gun deduction loophole that I am currently aware of, though I am sure gun makers have minimal tax exposure (plus they reaped all the bloated gov't contracts to supply our recent wars).

---------

A story of the same situation, but the dude didn't have a gun.  No one got killed.

---------
That story he stabbed 2 people and fled.  6 other mass attacks on children in 7 months.  20 dead and 50 wounded.  Not a lot better than gun deaths but I guess somewhat fewer dead on average.  But it goes back to my point that, for these types of attacks, guns aren't required just enabling.
---------
I'm sorry but I have to strongly oppose your claim that guns are not much more dangerous than knives or "home made bombs". Their track records and body counts are completely different in recent history. Those attacks in China are horrific, but keep in mind that their violent assault rate per capita is one of the lowest in the developed world (at least reported). If the US was the size of China, we'd have 40,000 gun murders a year instead of 10,000. I don't like how some anti-gun-control folks argue that there were mass killings in Norway, Finland, and South Korea too, places with fairly strong gun control. Yeah, there was like ONE such attack in those nations over 50 years. It's hard to make a society 100% massacre-free, especially when there are a few guns circulating, either legally or not. That is a poor argument to totally refute the effectiveness of gun controls. In fact it may bolster the case for them. It is very hard to thwart a methodical, dispassionate, planned attack like Columbine or Norway. But the fact that Norway and other such nations have so few "regular" gun murders vs. the US shows that something is working, legally and/or socially.

FYI the US is 5% of the world's pop. but accounts for 11 of the worst 20 civilian gun massacres over the last 50 years

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/

Imagine that the "base rate" of violent assault deaths per capita is X (hypothetically no access weapons, just fists I guess). Now add knives, home made bombs, or other improvised weapons to the model and it's like 1.2X. Add guns to the model (a device whose primary purpose is to damage flesh, target shooting aside) and it would be like 20X. I'm making these #s up, but you get my point. Guns may not be technically "required" for a violent attack, but they are a huge multiplier. I wouldn't just say enabling, I would say exponentially magnifying.

I mentioned this previously in the thread, but "mass knife attacks" will probably only work against children, handicapped, or the elderly. Others can defend themselves, run, and call for help after the first slashing. It's harder to outrun a bullet. Also you need to have some skill to be able to kill with a kitchen knife, whereas any bozo who played a video game can probably get lucky and make a kill shot now and then. Or putting it another way, I would rather take my chances with a deranged knifer than a deranged shooter, and probably you would too (if we had to make that choice). The weapon makes a lot of difference, so let's not pretend it doesn't. Otherwise modern soldiers would still be using broadswords.

Also, I believe it was revealed today that the CT shooter Lanza was armed with 2 semi-auto handguns and 1 semi-auto rifle when he attacked the school. Those guns were legally registered to his relatives, he didn't buy or own them. There is a big problem. Shouldn't we hold the owners of those firearms liable because they failed to properly secure them? It's not good enough to check that the gun customer meets eligibility requirements just at the time of purchase, we also have to check that they are owning their weapons responsibly and legally thereafter. The NRA would find that intrusive and unconstitutional, but it is not unprecedented. We have to renew our car registration and prove to the state that we passed smog. Otherwise we are causing a health and environmental problem for others. Same thing with unsecured guns and negligent gun owners.

----------

Mine was a response to gun control = massacre prevention.  China had 7 mass attacks in 7 months with 20 dead and 50 wounded.  All against children.  I'm not saying don't do gun control because of this evidence, I am saying gun control is NOT random mass attacks prevention.  Gun controls number 1 benefit is all the non massacre deaths that occur everyday.  The school shooting brings up gun control but that reactionary response is the same thinking that got us the tsa airport security.  We would be 50 times safer if we took an honest and dispassionate look at why the attacks happened but instead we were reactionary.  Craft good gun control legislation but for the right reasons.  I bet instead we got security guards at schools and more guns near children.  Massacre minimizing might be one of them but is a drop in the bucket compared to the total gun deaths in a year.

----------

I see, thanks. Yeah I agree with that. "School security" probably went overboard after Columbine, and metal detectors and rent-a-cops may not have deterred or prevented Lanza from doing what he did. But still, it's hard to prove how many potential attacks were actually averted because of those excessive, reactionary responses. So they may have had some value. I can't make a judgment as to if it was worth it.

We get a little irrational when it comes to protecting children. I guess that is understandable. You are right that TSA is "security theater", pretty much BS, and not really making us any safer vs. likely terror attacks involving commercial air. Smart gun control will also reduce the likelihood of massacres, though by how much is debatable. But as you said, massacres are about 1% of total US gun deaths, so devoting disproportionate resources to it (plus it's a harder problem to stop) is probably inefficient. Though let's be honest, America cares more about protecting kids like the ones at Columbine and CT more than stopping redneck-on-redneck attacks in the south, or urban violence involving poorer people of color.

Gun control doesn't have to be reactionary. The assault weapons ban expired years ago, but it could have been renewed by Congress before all this. I am not sure if it would have prevented the recent attacks of 2010-2012, but at least it would have kept more assault weapons and hi-cap mags off the streets for future criminals and shooters. Also I think law enf. would much rather patrol streets where they don't have to worry about perps potentially equipped with better armor and firearms than they have. As you would expect, the data regarding the effectiveness of the ban is unclear, and it depends on who you ask (pro-gun research says it was ineffective, pro-control research said the opposite). It is true that assault weapons are used in a small % of total gun crimes (probably due to their cost, size, complexity, and the fact that several states already ban them, even if the Feds can't). But in terms of the worst massacres, they are used much more often (and you can kind of see how their utility would increase specifically for mass shootings):

WORST 25 SHOOTINGS (assault weapons used in 14 of them, or 56%)

Aurora - yes (an AR-15 like rifle with 100 round magazine!, purchased I believe)
Columbine - yes (Tec-9 and other weapons taken from parents)
CT - yes (AR-15 taken from mom)
OR - yes (AR-15 stolen from an acquaintance)
Sikh temple - no (9mm handgun, but he had military training)
Norway - yes (semi-auto carbine)
Giffords - no (Glock 19)
Ft. Hood - no (3 handguns, but again he was a soldier)
Baku Oil Academy - yes (automatic pistol)
Binghamton - no (2 pistols)
Alabama - yes (AR-15 + others)
Finland schools (2 attacks) - no (pistol for each, but it's likely that assault rifles are banned in FIN)
V Tech - no (but he had 19 magazines on him for his 2 pistols)
Germany - no (shotgun + pistol, but like FIN, probably assault weapons are hard to get)
Australia - yes (AR-15)
Scotland - no (4 pistols, but probably couldn't get assault weapons)
Killeen - no (pistols)
Jacksonville - yes (M1 carbine, actually the only black man on the list)
Quebec - yes (same carbine as the Norway guy)
England - yes (assault rifle, carbine)
CSU Fullerton - yes (carbine)
Okla - no (pistols)
McDonald's in CA - yes (Uzi)
Austin - yes (M1 carbine + others)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Of course the assault weapons ban law didn't get 100% of those weapons out of circulation, but the NRA and others were fighting it at every turn. If we get a better version of that law out there, with more cooperation and support, the results could be better and may prevent or reduce the body counts of massacres.

----------

Have you read what classifies something as an assault weapon?  It is stupid.  I can't have a semi automatic version of an ak47 with telescoping stock, but if it isn't modeled after the ak, with all other essential functions identical, it is legal.  Or if I have a semi auto rifle that has a pistol grip and muzzle grenade launcher mount it is illegal.  However if I favor the externally mounted grenade launcher it is legal.  It is specifically designed for cosmetic features many of which are unrelated to lethality.  You want legislation that is much better than that.  How about no semi auto rifles or handguns period?  Or perhaps super strict limits on magazine size?  Things that actually impact your ability to harm and kill.

---------

Totally agreed. The original law was messy (their first attempt and all), and maybe all those cosmetic, confusing loopholes were injected into the bill from NRA pressure or whatnot. But as you said, version 2 should be a lot clearer.

I hope they ban:
- Any mags > 10 rounds
- Any full-auto/machine guns
- Silencers without a special permit and with a lot of restrictions
- Short-barreled rifles/shotguns (definition could get messy here)
- Any semi-auto rifle > .22 caliber (incl. shotguns, but single-load rifles are fine of course)

Mandatory 10 year jail time for any violators, with a big multiplier if the gun is also used in a crime. Also make gun owners liable for crimes committed by others using their weapons, unless forced to surrender their weapons under duress.

I am not sure if the original assault weapons law was retroactive and required all existing owners to surrender qualifying weapons, but for version 2 I would definitely support that (compensate them at fair market value). Higher taxes on new guns and ammo could help pay for this program and enforcement.

---------

Here is what the UK and AUS did in the aftermath of their worst mass shootings (according to wiki).

DUNBLANE, SCOTLAND, 1996

Similar to CT, a lone male gunman (Thomas Hamilton) entered a school armed with 4 handguns and killed 16 students and an adult. There was a lot of media coverage, victims organized, and put pressure on the gov't to act (700,000 people signed a petition calling for a gun ban). Both the Conservative John Major admin. and the incoming Labour Tony Blair admin. passed acts in 1997 to ban non-historical privately owned handguns in the UK. I am not sure how they went about confiscating all the guns, but a link to the actual text of the acts are in wiki. There has not been a major gun massacre in the UK since (going on 15 years), though a few people are still killed by guns obviously. The gun murder rate in the UK is 50 times lower than ours. But of course the cultural and legal environments for guns are much different in the US and UK, despite our commonalities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre#Gun_control

PORT ARTHUR, TASMANIA, also 1996

Evidence is a bit murky, but Martin Bryant was a lone gunman convicted for a shooting spree that left 35 dead and 23 wounded in a small tourist town (murders occurred over the span of hours at a cafe, gift shop, car park, roadway, etc.). AUS previously had fairly lenient gun laws (yet quite low crime rates), but that quickly changed. Conservative leader John Howard orchestrated a mandatory gun buyback program to remove any semi-auto rifles and shotguns with more than 2-shell capacity from private ownership. 85% of Australians supported the measure, but it was strongly opposed by some farmers and sportsmen. Howard was seen wearing a bullet-proof vest during the period, supposedly as precaution against gun extremists. There were 13 mass shootings (defined as >4 dead) in AUS in the 18 years prior to Port Aurthur, and not a single one since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29

A foreign student with mental impairment killed 2 fellow students at an Australian university in 2002, with a handgun from his shooting club. The gov't then enacted restrictions that handguns should have <11 .38=".38" 120="120" 25="25" 5="5" a="a" actually="actually" again="again" also="also" and="and" approx.="approx." as="as" aus="aus" barrels="barrels" br="br" bribe="bribe" but="but" buyback="buyback" cal="cal" conducted="conducted" crime="crime" decline="decline" denounced="denounced" did="did" effects="effects" enjoyed="enjoyed" even="even" expect="expect" for="for" give="give" gov="gov" gun="gun" hard="hard" has="has" in="in" is="is" isolate="isolate" it="it" licensed="licensed" like="like" lot="lot" mm.="mm." more="more" no="no" not="not" nra="nra" of="of" offer.="offer." offered="offered" on="on" opinions="opinions" or="or" pistols="pistols" program.="program." program="program" qualify.="qualify." reduced="reduced" research="research" rounds="rounds" shooters="shooters" shorter="shorter" since="since" so="so" sport="sport" structural="structural" study="study" t="t" than="than" that="that" the="the" their="their" them="them" there="there" to="to" took="took" trade-in="trade-in" up="up" us="us" vary="vary" violence="violence" violent="violent" was="was" whether="whether" with="with" would="would" years.="years." you="you">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences

Of course we can't conclude that the gun law changes in AUS and UK were the major factors responsible for the lack of massacres (maybe no massacres would have happened anyway), nor if they were even cost-effective, but those nations are showing no desire to lessen their gun restrictions. 

----------

I think the common link here which is hard to get in the US is a total handgun ban.  Most criminal gun deaths are with handguns.  I think somewhere (DC?) Tried this and it was eventually repealed.  Precedent is always hard to overcome.

----------

Agreed. Yeah it was DC, and the High Court over-ruled them. But it would have been tough to enforce anyway. I remember gun owners in DC were talking about storing their firearms in lockers in neighboring VA or MD instead. But at least it would have taken a drive to get them, and maybe they would have cooled off by then and reconsidered using them. I am not sure how prevalent unregistered guns would be in such an environment. But I highly doubt violent crime would spike after a gun ban, especially in a place like DC that already had a lot of violent crime to begin with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Tired of mass shootings

Individuals Generally Support Regulation
The NORC survey further showed that citizens support stricter firearm limits. The vast majority (91%) support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol. High percentages (85% and 82%) want limits on the sale of high-powered 50-caliber rifles and semiautomatic assault weapons. Similarly high percentages favor criminal background checks for all gun sales and the requirement of a police permit before a gun can be purchased. Interestingly, three-quarters of respondents believed that terrorist attacks have increased the need for stricter gun control. Compared with the sale of illegal drugs, 54% want illegal gun sales to be punished more severely, while 37% want the punishments for illegal gun sales to be as tough as penalties for selling illegal drugs.
(Marketresearch.com)

The only ones who want less gun control is the NRA and the gun industry - but they are dominating the issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/guns-america-statistical/story?id=17939758#.UMgr7HfrWea

Some stats about the industry, most of which is probably familiar if you've seen "Bowling for Columbine". Please don't fwd the attached reports around, but just FYI and for talking points.

I've owned and occasionally enjoyed firearms for about a decade. I don't need it at all, never had to use it for its intended purpose, and it is an expensive hobby. Not sure why I started, maybe like a "manhood" thing or just curiosity. I generally handle it safely, but in the past I have done foolish things where an accident could have happened with people I care about. There were times when my emotional state was not great, and if I had quick access to my firearm, maybe it could have been really bad. It's 99.9% liability, 0.1% asset. This situation makes no sense, so I will look into a gun trade-in program with the police. No point selling the gun and transferring the risk to others. I can't in good conscience criticize the industry and perpetrators of violence when I am like one bad day from becoming a major part of the problem.

There are more gun stores than gas stations, and more guns than people, in America. The industry has yearly sales of about $12B, which puts it about 40th percentile of all US industries (and revenue growth is outpacing GDP). All that is under an "anti-gun, socialist" president. Cars and guns each kill over 10,000 Americans per year, despite "technological improvements" and safety education. In contrast, about 5,000 people died on 9/11 and Katrina combined. But we love our cars and guns, so that's that. Clearly guns are doing their job just fine - why the need to ease rules on expanded magazines, assault rifles, ATF powers, stand-your-ground, etc.?

What does that say about the gun industry that they have to spend so much of their revenue on political lobbying and PR? If you have a good, necessary, and safe product - doesn't it sell itself? Why the need to organize and change the laws to protect your product? Ironic that the most harmful industries seem to have the most lobbyists, political spending, and trade associations (dirty energy, tobacco, guns, gaming, financial svcs., junk food, monopolies, etc.). Uncompetitive and obsolete industries rely on propaganda, cheating, and gov't handouts to survive. At least Solyndra never killed anyone. "War profiteering" is the sickest form of income. They make us fearful about everything, so we buy their weapons to feel better, and god forbid we actually use them on other people (usually not due to self defense).

The pro-gun lobby would argue that they are just protecting their interests and your rights from the onslaught of socialist, un-American gun control. Because a disarmed public is one step away from bondage. We all know that is BS. Yeah, disarmed nations like the UK and Japan and are soooo terrible, and gun-heavy nations like Iraq and Somalia are model states. And if gun control was such a threat, then why is the pro-gun camp outspending them 17:1 in Washington? It's not like the left was "gunning" to outlaw guns since the beginning. The Brady Bill and other regs were written in response to horrific, preventable attacks. So-called gun proponents did nothing in response to tragedies like Columbine. They don't even acknowledge a problem. If you love guns for sport or whatever, and you see that there are lapses where bad people can sully the hobby you love, don't you want to make reforms and protect the sport? Even unresponsive and stubborn Major League Baseball realized that rampant steroid use was tarnishing its rep and hurting the business, so they made changes. It didn't fix the problem 100%, but at least it's improving. The gun lobby is just getting in the way of progress, and some gun fans acknowledge that the NRA is actually bad for the sport.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/the-anti-gun-control-lobby-spent-17-times-as-much-as-the-pro-gun-control-lobbying-last-year/

The NRA argument just doesn't hold water. Basically they proclaim that owning guns is an American right and even a patriotic duty. But average modern American civilian life is less gun-centric than ever before (i.e. as hunting for food and protecting your homestead from Injuns have declined to almost nil, the gun is mostly relegated to the domain of criminal violence). In a recent survey, only 9% reported that they hunted in the last year. So if they want to hunt, fine. Have your registered long guns stored at a secure gov't depot, and you check them out when you want to use them (after passing a sobriety and police check). Of the greatest Americans that we remember in history (Lincoln, Edison, MLK, etc.), did guns play a big role in making them great? Did those people even care about guns? You know which Americans love guns - mass murderers. I know there are plenty of law-abiding, upstanding gun enthusiasts out there, so let me put it this way: gun affinity is necessary but not sufficient to be a mass murderer, and not necessary at all to be a good American.

On a more practical level, they say guns are necessary to protect yourself, your wealth, and your loved ones from "bad people" - specifically bad people who are armed. So we need to buy guns as protection against gun-toting enemies? At any moment you need to be ready to grab your gun and neutralize a threat (maybe even keep in on your person or in your purse). But NRA-endorsed safe gun ownership requires that you store your gun unloaded with the safety on, and preferably in a gun safe or with a gun lock (more things to buy on top of the ammo, cleaning kit, etc. - a lot of ancillary costs like a car). After the 1-2 minutes to unlock and load it, your child could be kidnapped already. OTOH, if you have your loaded gun ready for action by your bedside, what is to prevent Junior from finding it and bringing it to school (it has happened)?

So guns are both the salvation and the threat, the problem and the solution. It makes no sense. Premeditated rampages aside, most gun owners would admit that people can snap at any moment, and if they are armed it could get ugly (the football player Belcher example recently). But it's never them, it's always other people. Well if everyone thinks like that and shootings still occur, then obviously introspective opinions on gun safety are not entirely accurate. I am sure Belcher never thought of himself as a potential murderer before the day he became one. And he must not have been that bad of a guy when the whole stadium had a tearful moment of silence for him and his victim. I am not proud to say this, but I believe that it could have been me. Amazingly and fortunately, gun murders are relatively rare considering the obscene number of circulating guns and opportunities for random conflict in US society. Maybe that is a testament to our better angels. But it is poor public policy to rely on better angels. Most narcotics and explosives are illegal. In some places gambling and even abortions are basically illegal. We don't have and shouldn't have absolute freedom; there is legal precedent for restrictions to reduce the chance of us harming ourselves and each other when the risk-benefit make sense. Yet guns are available to purchase in virtually every city, in some cases without even a background check or waiting period. I guess we have to chalk that up to the 2nd Amendment, and more recently the NRA.

----------

Obviously this particular mass shooting is of interest to me because of the Oregon ties, and I have to admit that last place I'd ever expect a shooting like this to happen is in a suburban Portland mall.  I remember the year before I went to college up there they had a school shooting in Springfield, OR, but that area is more rural and redneck-y (stereotypes are fun).  Obviously the similarities are an (apparently) disturbed individual with access to weapons.  

The only thing I can really comment on was the TV coverage of this incident.  I flipped to CNN, expecting wall-to-wall coverage of the event and was a tad disappointed with the sense that these types of incidents are becoming blase to reporters.  Fox News didn't cover the event AT ALL, they had Bill O'Reilly on yelling at some people.  I guess that's not surprising.  Is the new normal that these disturbing shootings are just going to happen every 3 months, and unless more than 10 people die there's scant amount of coverage?  Even right now on CNN.com, the front headline is "GLOBE GOES GAGA FOR 12/12/12" while the Oregon shooting is crammed off to the side of the page.  Who the F cares about 12/12/12.  

T, I appreciate your point that NRA people say guns are necessary to protect themselves and their wealth from bad people.  But it's funny... the real bad people we should all be worried about are bankers and financial institution pulling strings behind the scenes that affect the livelihood and health of our economy.  No gun could stop them. 

----------

Well a gun could stop them, but who wants to get lethal injection for knocking off Blankfein (who will just be replaced by a nastier guy)? :) Dang I am on the watch list for sure now. But it sends the wrong message that powerful bad people can only be defeated by violence. Maybe that was true during the European revolutions, but it is inspiring that blacks, Mexicans, women, and gays in America won more rights without having to kill any of their oppressors (though plenty of them were killed). It can happen on rare occasions at least, and is a testament to the good parts of our political system. 

Yeah I hope Daily Show at least shames the MSM for their lack of coverage on this. My theory is that since it happened a a suburban mall in a city known for nice people during Xmastime, it would scare away a lot of holiday shoppers nationwide (or maybe inspire copycats). And the corporate-media complex definitely doesn't want that. But aren't people killed like every year due to Xmas shopping stampedes, fights over parking spots, etc.? That is an issue for another day.

As you said, these occasional shootings are the "price" that the gun lobby and Washington have decided that the public should pay for our "freedom to bear arms" (and their freedom to make $$$ off us). I don't think the CEO of Smith & Wesson and some redneck senator from GA should be allowed to make that call for everyone though. It will only change when someone of import or their loved ones are randomly killed by a deranged shooter who should not have been able to own a gun. But even Giffords didn't move the needle. After Columbine, public support for more gun control hit an all-time high, but the NRA weathered the storm and the public eventually forgot (as we always do). Now in the post-9/11 & great recession eras, there is no hope.

----------

Do you all feel that more coverage is the right answer?  I feel at this point it is local news and a blurb on the national level.  What benefit can there be with nonstop coverage?
Secondly, is access to guns really necessary for large scale killing?  Aren't these mass shootings generally organized and planned?  Guns may be easier to get but the barrier to entry for a home cooked pipe bomb isn't terribly high.  Napalm, poison gas, all relatively simple to make from household products and Google.  What about a knife and some pepper spray with a gas mask?  I have a hard time believing these things would stop happening with more gun laws.  that was stuff I came up with in 30 seconds.  Imagine months of thought.


----------

I thought the coverage over the CO shooting was fairly substantial. Maybe because it occurred near Littleton, and the shooter was such an "interesting" character. It was also noteworthy that he was so heavily armed, much more than past shooters. More news coverage is not the "fix" to this problem, but more awareness and outrage is better than ignoring it.

I agree with M's comments that now we are desensitized to these kind of shootings and they aren't even shocking anymore (to some). I don't want the US to be like Baghdad or Juarez where the people are used to beheadded bodies showing up in a ditch every week. And more guns is not the answer to fix that. I think the scary part is that these shootings are "random-premeditated" and lack the traditional crime-of-passion profile. What I mean is that the shooter carefully planned to lash out at society over some grievance, but attacked random innocents rather than people who directly hurt him. How can you stop someone like that? I guess you can look for mental "warning signs" (there was much discussion of this after VA Tech and the cinema shooter), or you can do the easier and more effective thing - curtail access to guns. Every society has violent sociopaths and otherwise good people who get angry and do something they regret in the heat of the moment. You can't stop that from happening, but at least reduce the chance that those people can do major harm to others.

To address M2's comments: yes there is plenty of knowledge on the internet on how to harm others - either bombs or kung fu or whatever. But those take some effort to master and execute. Guns are the easy solution for mass violence. Based on US history, guns are a prerequisite for mass killings. There are notable exceptions like OK City and 9/11, but those were perpetrated by "professional" terrorists. With a $300 gun bought at Big 5, any Joe who poses no threat to anyone can instantly become Rambo. That is the problem. I guarantee that if guns were outlawed tomorrow, violent crime would plummet. In general, violent crime stats have been going down in the US since the 1990's, but the % of those crimes involving a gun has not declined and may even have risen. I think there are fewer gun murders per year combined in GER, FRA, and UK than Oakland. What's the difference? There are far fewer guns and no NRA/2nd Amendment in Europe.

----------

What is worse?

(a) A sick, pathetic man who fantasizes about harming innocents

(b) A sane, rational, powerful man who enables said sick man to actually carry out his fantasies, due to his own negligence, obsolete ideology, and/or the profit motive

Men in category (b) often lay 100% of the blame for tragedies on men of category (a) without ever considering their own involvement. I guess this issue relates to the free speech vs. Muslim violence topic we discussed before. How do you divide up blame between those who exercise their "freedoms" by provoking/enabling others to commit violence, and the actual physical perpetrators of the violence (who probably wouldn't have harmed anyone if those freedoms were exercised and regulated more responsibly)?

----------

Someone on Twitter said they need to rephrase "gun control" to "massacre prevention."

----------

Very good comment. Let's stop the NRA from framing this really simple issue only on their fallacious terms.

I would encourage everyone to write their elected officials and protest. Let them fear us more than the gun lobby. Of course I doubt anything much will change, because if our leaders were the type to care more about public good than political survival, then we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. 

But here is my attempt:

Dear X,

Stop being a coward and start showing leadership. 10,000 Americans die each year from gunfire, and there has been one major shooting tragedy after another on the news. I am fed up. We are not talking about an absolute ban here (though it seems to work fine in many other nations), but there should be more scrutiny as to who can own guns, and how they should be legally used and monitored. It shouldn't be easier than getting a driver's license or a bank loan.

You are in office to protect the people, not to care about the antiquated platform of an extremist lobby and how it might affect your party's political prospects. The majority of surveyed citizens want more gun control, or as some would put it, "massacre prevention." But Washington politics is more pro-gun now than the Columbine days. Even the shooting of one of your own, Rep. Giffords, did nothing to move the debate.

Do something about it, or we'll replace you with someone who will. Only Mayor Bloomberg had the guts to speak out against guns. Will you join him, along with millions of victims' loved ones and concerned Americans? Because if you don't, then the blood of more innocent children (outrageously sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed and petty politics) will be on your hands.

 
----------

I thought this was interesting, although I can't verify if it's all totally legit or not.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/
One thing I would like to point about the gun control issue is that most crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns, as the above link mentions. From the Freakonomics book, they did some research and found that gun control in general, gun buybacks, stricter laws, etc.don't have much of an effect on gun ownership because illegal guns are obtained so easily anyway, at least here in America. In other words, gun control has little to no effect on obtaining illegal guns, at least according to Freakonomics.

To be clear, I'm not expressing any sort of stance on gun control laws other than to say gun control's lack of effect on reducing gun ownership. Much like the drug war and prohibition when a LOT of people want something, they can find a way to get it one way or another. If you're looking to seriously reduce gun ownership I think one would should look at anti-tobacco campaigns. It's an useful comparison, as less people smoke than ever and yet, a whole lot of people still smoke. We're at a point in our culture that gun ownership is ingrained and it would take several generations of increasingly stronger social taboos (much like smoking) to even make a dent in the percentage. It makes me wonder if it would be more effective to try to prevent people from shooting up public places to begin with, whatever those reasons may be.

----------

Agreed. The pro-war people got so upset when all those white crosses were put up by Lafayette BART to remind us of the war dead. Why get mad at the protesters - they didn't send our troops overseas to die? We care more about unborn fetuses in this country than victims of violence.

Gun control DOES work, and there are literally dozens of examples in the world. America's patchwork, corrupt, and stupid gun control system is terrible, so we can't use that track record to totally dismiss the relationship between gun control and gun violence. Remember the GOP strategy: they want less gov't, so they have incentive to make gov't appear as corrupt and ineffective as possible, so voters will side with their views. Pro-gun forces want gun control to look as wrong, stupid, and counter-productive as possible, so that it may encourage people to oppose gun control. That is probably why the right has made so much out of "Fast and Furious" when it is really not a big deal (definitely not as bad as Iran Contra). Pro-gun politicians have handcuffed the ATF and made the laws so ridiculous that gun control is almost guaranteed to fail. But that doesn't mean it has to.

The article is right that the NRA has blocked the ATF and other law enf. from better tracking guns and sellers. Why? What do honest sellers have to fear? That isn't stopping our right to form regulated militias. It has nothing to do with gun rights, but it would impact gun sales. That is another problem for them. The gun industry doesn't really care who buys its products (African warlords, Mexican cartels, unstable people, etc.). So they are actually fighting law enf. and making our society (and the world) less safe because they want to sell to bad customers as well as lawful ones. I know there is the argument that "If people really want to get something, they'll find a way to get it." But criminals in Western Europe definitely want guns, and most still can't get them. And guns are not like drugs and booze. Prohibition was stupid (one of many reasons) because it erroneously assumed booze was the primary driver of social decay and undesirable behaviors. So they thought the cost-benefit of outlawing booze would be worth it. But with guns, they ARE the primary driver of gun violence, obviously. So in that case, prohibition or more regulation should produce better results. Some may argue that criminality, anger, and other human social forces are the main causes of violence, not guns themselves. Maybe so, but as we already discussed, humans are always going to be angry and violent at times. We probably can't 100% exorcise that from any society. But when we get crazy and mad and violent, at least we shouldn't have access to WMDs. Knifings and hit-and-runs may spike without guns, but fewer people would die. It's really not that complicated.

I agree with you that better socialization and education will help de-emphasize the gun in American culture. But already we see a difference. As that market research pdf I sent out showed, if you live in higher income, urban, educated areas, you are less likely to own a gun. It's just not a part of your lifestyle, so you probably are less opposed to gun control. But then again, the majority of mass shooters in the US have been somewhat educated, suburban, non-poor people. We tax what we want to discourage, right? Maybe it shouldn't be so cheap to buy body armor and assault rifles. I mean, those are expensive already, but quite affordable for the middle class. Tax guns, ammo, etc. 100% and I'm pretty sure violence would decrease. Use that money to fund education, counseling, and violence prevention programs. As you said, follow the smoking example.

----------

In general I think we could do with more and better gun control, and obviously these mass killings are tragic. But I worry about my own ability to be objective given that I'm not really a member of the culture around guns. That is, guns and gun ownership are a stereotypical red-state activity, and San Francisco is about as opposite-end from that as can be.

So let me play devil's advocate with this problem I've been thinking about: Why should alcohol be legal in the US?

Firearm homicides totaled 11,493 in 2009 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm). Drunk driving fatalities totaled 10,228 in 2010 (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). Obviously drunk-driving fatalities include both the drunk driver and the bystanders, but the overall fatality figures are roughly the same order of magnitude.

Both firearms and alcohol have recreational uses. Firearm recreation tends to be red-state only, while alcohol recreation cuts across cultural lines, but they both have that component.

Firearms have uses as tools, for protection (from wild animals, criminals, tyrannical governments, etc). Alcohol's use as a tool … social lubricant?

So why should firearms be illegal, but alcohol should not? My immediate, emotional reaction is "well guns are bad, and I like alcohol, so … obviously." That's the difficulty being objective about firearms vs alcohol.

I think the proper reason has to do with preserving the state's monopoly on violence. That is, guns undermine the rule of law by enabling a coercive strategy outside the law. If criminals have guns, they can be more effective at enforcing and sustaining their criminal culture outside of the rule of law. On the public safety side (deaths vs legitimate uses), I think we should draw the line in favor of more liberty, such that we'd allow both guns and alcohol (ignoring the rule-of-law effects of guns).
---------

Thanks, J. You are right, guns kill about 10K Americans per year. I said 50K in my OP, but that was over 2006-2010. Apologies.

For alcohol, of course there are more ways to die from it than car accidents, but I get your point. Culture aside and just thinking about policy here, I would say this:

From a personal freedoms and American values standpoint, I think we should allow some guns and booze in society. But not all forms and under all circumstances, obviously. Alcohol is not freely available. You have to be a certain age, the alcohol has to be inspected by gov. agencies, the seller has to have a license, and in some states you can't buy on Sunday or if the alc% is too high. All that makes some sense (to some people) and doesn't really preclude most consumers from using alcohol for its intended purposes and deriving some happiness from it. Not all users approve of all the current laws, but you can't please everyone. The goal is to maximize social utility without harming minorities too much, and accommodating some minorities if it doesn't cost overall society too much.

For guns, even the NRA would probably agree that private citizens should not be allowed to own and use depleted uranium rounds and anti-aircraft cannons. So some "reasonable" limitations on personal firearms makes sense, especially in the interests of public safety. You can't practice medicine without a license, you can't even be a sleazy realtor without passing some exam. So why in many red states can you buy and use a gun just by signing on a dotted line (even signing a false name)? You just need to pay some fee to get a "hunting license" - you don't even need to demonstrate basic knowledge and skills. It is reasonable to enforce background checks, cooling-off periods, mandatory regular training and certification, magazine size limits, concealment regs, etc. Many gun users will still be able to use guns for their intended purposes, and derive some pleasure from it. Some will be disappointed, but their sacrifice is probably worth more people being alive and un-maimed.

These regs may help reduce gun accidents, but I am not sure how to really stop murders. Maybe if we change the framing of the gun in society. Now it seen as a sign of being badass, how to settle scores, power, revenge, to get noticed, take what you want, etc. That is really bad. As you said, we can't condone violence as a means of resolving disputes (but as Michael Moore's film suggested - what message are we sending when our gov't uses violence to get what it wants overseas?). Of course guns are also seen as protection, deterrent, sporting equipment, etc. Maybe if people perceive them more from a risk and caution angle (what could happen if misused), we wouldn't be so cavalier about them (same with cars and booze). Some think of alcohol for the taste, for social lubrication, etc. Others think of it as a means to get crazy and date-rape women. Most products can be used for good and bad, and we can't really control how they are used once they leave the store. So all we have are social norms and expectations of behavior. Also, people think of sports cars differently than minivans. People think of assault rifles and hi-cap magazines in only a few ways, and they're generally detrimental to society. So outlaw or heavily restrict them. People think about .22 rifles and .38 revolvers much differently. Any of those weapons can bag a deer or stop a home intruder. But some are much more likely to be used in a school mass shooting.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Israel's blockade of Gaza

"Despite claims of self-defense, Israel has not defined a definitive purpose for the blockade, the achievement of which would indicate its end. Official Israeli goals have ranged from limiting Hamas's access to weapons, to seeking retribution for the pain caused to Israeli civilians, and to compelling the Palestinian population to overthrow the Hamas government" - N Ekrat

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/when-will-the-economic-blockade-of-gaza-end/265452/#

I guess we have the ceasefire to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. But when the stronger, richer neighbor nation imposes a clearly illegal, definitely immoral, and seemingly endless economic embargo (not even a military embargo), I think Hamas and the 1.7M Palestinian Gazans (some of the poorest people on the planet per capita) have actually shown great RESTRAINT in not responding with violence more often. I am not justifying their actions (though violent resistance against an oppressor is sanctioned under the rules of law), but the choice almost seems rational: fire rockets now and then to try to get revenge and some international attention, or starve to death silently and slowly, while the developed world is preoccupied with other matters. The IDF has even been known to shoot at aid workers and emergency responders during their clashes in Gaza.

Like most cases in history, the oppressing party imposes sanctions in the hope that the people suffer and get so fed up with the gov't that they overthrow it (but we've tried that for decades with Cuba and Iran with no results). Instead, could Israel change the policy to something like: they lift the embargo and allow the Gazans to have some semblance of human life, if Hamas agrees to honor the ceasefire and not stockpile rockets. Then they appoint neutral Arab League or UN monitors to inspect and patrol the streets, and alert the IDF of any suspicious military activity. If they or other surveillance pick up anything fishy from Hamas, the IDF can bomb those suspected sites to the Stone Age. But leave the innocent people alone for F sakes.

Some rough estimates on the 8-day conflict:

Palestinian rockets fired into Israel: 900 (their air defenses intercepted 300)
IDF air strikes in Gaza: 1,500 (and mind you Gaza is just 20 miles long)
Palestinian casualties: 100 (with probably 10X wounded)
Israeli casualties: I had troubling finding info on this, but I think on NPR it was under 20 dead, not sure how many injured

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20391558

--------

As of Wednesday, the number of Palestinian deaths was over 140.  There are some grim photos of children from this latest attack.

As far as Israel hoping the Palestinian people overthrow their govt.:  didn't they just elect Hamas?  And, what government from Gaza would be favorable to Israel?  You think they'd elect Netanyahu?  I think that would be the only satisfactory govt. for Israel.
This whole thing is about a land grab, clearing beachfront property for people born and raised in Long Island.  They have a  right of return to land they never lived on.  Meanwhile, people born and raised there are never allowed to return to Palestine.

--------

Thanks, L. Yeah that sure seems like what is going on. Make life so miserable that they just give up and disappear. But where do they go? Jordan and Lebanon have been housing Palestinian refugees since the 1947 partition. They can't take any more, especially now that there are more Syrian and Iraqi refugees to absorb.
So what choice do the Gazans have but fight to the death, if they're going to starve to death anyway? That's why I find the Israel's blockade so infantile and un-strategic. There are better ways to protect their Gaza border and encourage the Palestinians to reject Hamas. They could have supported Abbas more, improved conditions in the West Bank, free prisoners, etc. to show Gaza "the carrots" that await them if they vote Hamas out. But they treat the Fatah Palestinians like shit too (though clearly much better than Gaza): increased settlement building, roadblocks, demolitions, etc. that even Israeli courts have declared illegal. So Hamas actually look like heroes as the only ones with the guts to stand up to Israeli oppression. And I guess you can see that manifest in the Arab world, with the Turkish and Egyptian leaders expressing support, criticizing Israel, and visiting Gaza during the siege, when before they probably wouldn't have been so bold.
Israel is legitimizing their arch enemy. But the cynical side of me thinks that is the plan all along. Israel doesn't want peace. There is no scenario where they can lose to Palestinians, and no Arab state will go to war vs. Israel in the foreseeable future (much less win). Iran is the only existential threat, and even that is way over-hyped and premature. They can't defeat Iran unless they use their own nukes, which is probably why they want to trick the US into fighting the war for them (they fire the first shot, and then we have to intervene to "assist our ally" and make sure the region doesn't implode).
But getting back to Gaza, it seems like a Gulf of Tonkin situation. They are not even that diligent about preventing rocket smuggling. Probably because they know that the rockets are not a real threat to them (very few strikes result in fatalities, and their Iron Dome defenses seem to be able to shoot down 1/3 of them). But fear over rockets is a great political lightning rod to get the Israelis behind military aggression. They prod and provoke Hamas into launching rockets now and then, so of course the IDF is then justified to bomb them to the Stone Age or even engage in a ground invasion (a way disproportional "defensive" response). They get to flex their muscles and weaken Hamas by destroying infrastructure and assassinating leaders (not to mention send signals to Iran and others), so that is worth a dozen or so Israelis dead from rockets. The US is fine with this too ("Israel has the right to defend itself"), because we dislike Hamas and then our Sec of State gets to go over there and broker a ceasefire, making us look relevant. I don't think the US is serious about the peace process either. We had our chance in the '90s and now it's gone. Obama is not kowtowing to Israel at least, but he's definitely not showing them the necessary tough love either (well, domestic pressures make that virtually impossible). 
---------
Just a disclaimer that these comments refer to the Israeli government and IDF, and are not a reflection on the Israeli/Jewish people as a whole. I realize that I have described their actions as "scheming" and "treacherous", which may play into some negative historical stereotypes about Jews. That is not my intention, but I call their gov'ts actions the way I see them. Actually I have a lot of respect for the risks taken by the peace movement in Israel, as well as the IDF deserters who refused their gov'ts illegal orders to bomb Gaza civilians or bulldoze West Bank homes.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Election comments

First of all, weed in WA and CO!!! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-marijuana-votes-20121106,0,3992024.story?track=rss

I'll just comment on the election and politics here, not necessarily on the merits of each party's philosophies and policy agendas.

I can't remember the last time I felt so proud of the American people. Personally, I think this is bigger than 2008 considering the current political environment. Voters rejected the GOP's schizophrenic candidate, as well as their policies of exclusion, obstruction, wealth/power inequality, obsolete beliefs, and scapegoating the wrong people for America's problems.

And ironically, the electoral college is now working in the Dem's favor! Romney almost won the popular vote but got wiped out in electoral votes. But now there are "structural" advantages for the Dems in terms of electoral vote distributions, similar to what the GOP enjoyed from Nixon to Bush Sr.

We worried that Cit. Utd. would change politics forever, and I do believe it had a noticeable effect. But Obama's campaign is the most sophisticated and effective grassroots, micro-donation, new media machine we've ever seen (and it's a platform that they can hopefully transfer to future candidates and continue to have an advantage vs. the GOP on). In the end, that beat out the Adelson, Koch, Trump, and Rove led money and misinformation blitz. Outside groups have to pay a higher fee for TV ads than campaigns, so $1 of money raised by Obama2012 equaled about $1.50-2.00 of Super PAC money. So once again, the GOP miscalculated. Everyone (but Nate Silver) predicted that the young people, poor, and minorities (who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008) are now disillusioned and unlikely to show up for Obama like that again. Well they did, and even more so for Latinos. 

But still, about as many people voted for Romney as Obama. A lot of white males, older folks, and the wealthy. Maybe the GOP will realize that America is not like "Leave it to Beaver" anymore and those groups are not enough to guarantee a win each time, but I doubt it. They chose Ryan over Rubio or a woman (and he didn't even deliver WI). Well, the Ryan pick was kind of forced by the nomination of Romney - clearly not the GOP's first choice. I guess Christie wanted to wait until Obama was termed out to give it a shot, probably a smart move. 

So did the "core strengths" of the GOP actually cause them to lose here? It gained them money but cost them votes, and fortunately votes still determine our leaders. The Tea Party, ties to big business, and pro-Israel lobby became liabilities. Most Americans do not feel directly threatened by Iran, do not believe that Israel will be attacked any time soon, and care more about domestic issues. Our foreign policy is far from comfortable, but Osama is dead, America is tired of war, and the focus on these narrow issues to placate their big donors and the hawks didn't persuade many voters who weren't already sure votes for Romney.

How about big business? A private equity mega-millionaire who outsourced jobs to China and didn't support the auto bailout may not be the most convincing messenger for the conservative solution to economic growth. Despite the latent displeasure with Obama over the economy, the "supply side" argument didn't gain traction among non-core GOP voters. And it's not really a great strategy to persuade disillusioned independents and liberals to vote for you when you accuse half the country of being lazy bozos with their hands out (the veterans, elderly, marginalized?), and when you accuse a key growth demographic (Latinos) of stealing jobs and undermining our recovery. 

And then there's the Tea Party. They energized the GOP and thumped the Dems in 2010, but became a liability now. The are too regressive, intolerant, exclusive, and hateful - just not very pleasant people you want to associate with. A lot of presidential elections is about getting casual or infrequent voters out for you. These folks have more centrist, timid views - which is of course anathema to the TP. They aren't winning friends and turning off a lot of key voters with stuff like:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Monday, November 5, 2012

Are US generals helping or hurting war efforts?

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/01/164096479/ricks-firing-generals-to-fight-better-wars

Ricks' recent book describes how less effective US generals are compromising our military and making our current ugly wars even harder to win. Bad managers are not confined to the private sector and politics - plenty of generals are incompetent, selfish, and foolish. It's nothing new - see WWI or the Napoleonic Wars.

In WWII, it was standard procedure to dismiss generals from command for even small battlefield failures, even if they had a track record of good performance. Maybe that policy was too harsh, but there were plenty of other officers to replace them. And often the relieved officer got a new command elsewhere after serving a short penance. 16 such generals were relieved during the 5 years of WWII. Since Vietnam, only one field general has been relieved for combat ineffectiveness. Theater commanders have been "fired" instead: Westmoreland, Casey, etc. - but those moves were more symbolic, from civilian leaders aware of the public's frustration with those wars. In addition, the average duration of American wars has increased, and with worse strategic outcomes. Apart from the Gulf War I anomaly, now the US is engaged in decade-long quagmires, versus less-formidable enemies than the Axis. There are several reasons for this that Ricks postulates:

WWII was a "traditional" war with a clear, existential threat to the US and our allies, with well-defined military objectives. For the nuclear-age Cold War, combat mostly became small and unconventional (keeping the lid on civil wars, counter-insurgencies, nation building, etc.) - situations that generals did not study and were not prepared for.

The relationship between civilian leaders, military leaders, and soldiers has changed. During WWII, in general the priority was to win the war with as little loss of American life as possible. Therefore there was little tolerance for inept generals who put troops under undue risk. As the military-industrial complex grew into its own "special interest", the military strayed from this and became more general-centric. Now war was more about career development for officers, rather than winning humbly and efficiently. Egotistical generals have always cared about their own glory since the dawn of organized battle, but it descended to new lows since Vietnam. Therefore, top brass were reluctant to fire battlefield commanders as a black mark on the fired officers' careers, and also their own. Civilian leaders were also hesitant to fire even inept military leaders, as that could be construed as an admission that the war was not going well or it was the wrong war to fight. So we "stay the course" with inept leaders. Again, US lives took the back seat to political concerns.

Relations between the White House and Pentagon have changed too. Lincoln and JFK's "team of rivals" concept was very much at play during WWII. FDR and George Marshall probably didn't like each other very much, but showed enough honesty, respect, and patriotism to listen to conflicting opinions when it was best for the nation. Most war failures result from incorrect information, improper assumptions, and other possibly preventable errors of judgment. FDR and Marshall did their best to make sure those mistakes were avoided. This isn't just nostalgia for the Greatest Generation, and the Allies made plenty of goofs during WWII too. But their "HR" system was more sound - contrast it to the Iraq War and Bush's team of yes-men neocons, total liar "expert advisers" like Chalabi, and sycophant generals. Now we go to war based on hunches and ideologies. It's the opposite of the dispassionate, data-driven, risk-averse decisions we should be making.

The decline started around Vietnam, and possibly coincides with the trend of US presidents being less and less likely to have served in the military. The relationship between LBJ and Westmoreland was a joke. The two kept info from each other, tried to avoid disagreements, and only told the other what they wanted to hear. I am not sure how Obama deals with the military today, but seeing how many of his policies are quite Bush-like (and definitely not worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize), I bet he is kowtowing more often than giving tough love - which is his job, his duty, and what the citizens expect of him. Part of this is due to the "cult of the military", where we overly venerate the institution. It's schizophrenic, because on one hand we skimp on veteran's care and don't want a draft, but on the other we have to "support the troops" no matter what, with nearly limitless funding. It's verboten to criticize the military, maybe even at the highest levels of government. Sometime criticism is the highest form of patriotism. Just ask Lincoln and FDR. Look how much of Romney's candidacy is about fellating the military. He wants to grow military spending to 4% GDP AFTER we have wound down two ground wars. Even at the peak of it's power, the British Empire didn't spend that much. Ricks finds this especially shocking from a former CEO who made his fortune cutting costs and giving tough love to struggling companies. We should always support our troops, but we have to stop coddling the generals and the institution if it's not serving the interests of the people.

Also there was the gradual phasing out of the draft. When the 1%'s kids were no longer in harm's way, US soldiers quickly became more expendable. All sorts of waivers were granted for the rich during Vietnam, so really the war was fought by the poor and uneducated. That trend continues today, as the volunteer military tends to attract those without much civilian career prospects. A volunteer army also concentrates war suffering on a minority of the citizenry (the segment of society that is already marginalized), so the rest of us are less inclined to care if the war is going poorly and led by bad generals. Tying into a previous point, the causes we are fighting for after Korea are more murky and controversial. Therefore it's hard to get the whole country behind the war effort and engaged with the daily progress enough to hold under-performing commanders accountable. Most of us can't even name an actual combat general serving in Iraq and Afghanistan now, and have no idea what they're doing. National security secrecy and lack of free press access aren't helping either.

Despite the fact that our current volunteer military is mostly comprised of the lower classes, they are actually some of the most professional and high-performing troops the US has ever had (on average). That is both a blessing and a curse. Like a high-performing department with a bad manager, it masks the incompetence of the manager. Bad generals in Iraq and Afghanistan "get away with" more incompetence because their troops sacrifice and struggle so much to accomplish objectives in spite of their leaders. And since the generals know their troops are quite good, they ask too much out of them. They subject them to more risk and strain instead of thinking harder and devising better strategies. Stop-loss is an obvious example. Lazy command, dereliction of duty, lack of concern for the men under your command.

Some other interesting facts about past wars and dispelling some myths:

- MacArthur may be the only general in human history who was insubordinate to 3 national leaders. And yet he had dreams of the White House. Some believe that we should have let MacArthur "finish off" North Korea when he had the chance (or even fight China), but if he had his way, it would have been a disaster. Just for that, Truman goes down as one of the great C-in-C's of US history. Chinese forces were waiting in ambush at the border to slaughter any Americans who pushed too deep. It would have escalated the war, and Mac wanted authorization to use "about 35" nuclear weapons to destroy China's military capability, and then let the Taiwanese come in for mop-up duty. Of course I don't have to explain what a moronic idea this is, but to humor you: the USSR clearly wouldn't just sit idly by while 2 major Asian communist nations got wiped out. They would have conquered Europe, and we probably couldn't have stopped them because we committed forces to the Pacific. It would have led to WWIII. And I don't think even the Taiwanese would have been comfortable with the task of occupying mainland China. As WWII hero General Bradley said, it was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong enemy. Unfortunately we repeated the blunder in Vietnam.

- Patton was actually a mediocre to poor battlefield commander, and obviously a very poor leader in terms of "people skills". But what he was really good at was getting a plodding armored fighting force to cover large distances quickly in pursuit of a retreating enemy, or to relieve a besieged position. So the brilliant foresight and talent management skills of Marshall and Ike knew that Patton wouldn't be really "useful" until the end of the war. They coddled him and tolerated many of his issues until they let him loose in , to do what he was best at.

- Ike was a fairly unproven, junior commander going into WWII, but Marshall picked him to be the combined Allies leader because he was diplomatic, patient, and knew how to work well with others (a rare trait for egotistical generals). Marshall and FDR realized that this was a new chapter of warfare, and the Allies would ultimately beat the Nazis, not just the Americans (and let's be honest, the USSR did most of the heavy lifting anyway).

------

A follow-up with Tom Ricks: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201211140900

He had a good point on the sex scandal - for YEARS in Iraq, hundreds or even thousands of people were dying under incompetent generals, but none of them were fired, demoted, or even had to get chewed out by a civilian committee. But a general sends some flirting emails to a floozie socialite (after years of "drought" serving in combat zones in conservative Muslim nations) - HEADLINE NEWS!!!! NATIONAL OUTRAGE!!!! My only criticism of those generals is their HORRIBLE choice in mistresses. At least learn from Charlie Sheen and Tiger.

For the record, Ike had an affair with his female driver during WWII, and he later became president (I think that was Petraeus' ambition too). But that was the pre-Twitter, integrity in journalism era.

I'm not defending the generals' actions, but let's prioritize our criticism.