Incident reports in extreme sports often reveal a typical pattern. Accidents rarely happen due to one big mistake, but rather a series of small blunders, insignificant on their own, but when they add up you will eventually end up in the hospital with a broken back and a shattered femur. Silently sobbing over what your now deflated testicles made you do while you edit your GoFundMe page.
Some time ago, my small blunders caught up with me. The first one was to order sushi at a cheap restaurant in a meth infested area. The second was my attempt to wash it down with a large amount of Sake and Bud light, the third and decisive one, was to mention "gun control" with a Texonian at the table.
For the next 4 hours, I desperately tried to ride out the storm. Sure, I could have just given up and pleaded my ignorance. But instead I decided to practice my Trumpian Kung Fu skills: stand my ground, double down, and absorb the verbal punches with my belly fat.
The gun debate is one of those political issues that are decisive for many voters. It is right up there with abortion, healthcare, and taxation. Political candidates on both sides use the issue as a talking point to suck up to their base.
The discussions follow a repetitive pattern. Somewhere in America, a mass shooting occurs. Children are being slaughtered by weapons that many define as assault rifles. Their expertise often derives from Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and Whoopi Goldberg's statements on "The View."
People are shocked and wonder in front of reporters how this horrible act could have happened in their quiet and peaceful neighborhood. The option of stricter gun control is brought up by some. Others are frustrated by the ignorance concerning the technical terms: assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons, slide fire stock, and bump stock. They rush to defend the usual suspect and the poor villain of the story: the AR-15. The civilian version of the military's M16 assault rifle which is America's most popular rifle and often used in heavily reported mass shootings.
For many, it is just too soon to start talking about solutions in the middle of a tragedy. Better to look sad and start every sentence with the classical: "thoughts and prayers...". Some take the extra step and post a sad meme on social media, which is always consoling. Time goes by, the 24-hour news cycle quickly comes up with a new, more exciting distraction, and nothing changes.
If one would take a few steps back and view the topic as a whole, it all makes sense; mass shootings drive headlines, but they comprise only two percent of gun deaths. Putting mass shootings in the center of the gun debate is like ordering a diet coke after a 3-hour session at a Golden Coral's buffet.
For many Europeans and over 60% of snowflake Americans, stricter gun control seem to be the only solution. Take away the weapons made for warfare, implement stringent and thorough background checks, and make sure only the good and responsible individuals have guns. How hard can it be? The Texonian rolls his eyes and shakes his head:
- Sure, but HOW would you do that?!
Australia is often brought up as an example. In 1996 Australia suffered from its 14th mass shooting in 18 years: the Port Arthur Massacre. That incident broke the camels back. The guy with the MAGA hat at the Golden Coral's dessert section finally burped, got heartburn, and ordered a diet coke.
Only some months later, new gun control laws were passed. A gun buy-back scheme soon started, and the government repurchased and destroyed about 1 million firearms. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent. There are also reports that suggest that the homicides dropped by 20%. The number of suicides decreased, and Australia has not had a mass shooting since.
Many argue that Australia is too different and should not be used as an example for the US. Based on the resistance the reforms got in Australia, one could argue that there are many similarities. The counterpunches were the same. If the government comes for the guns: It is a dictatorial overreach! Democracy is at stake! The Indonesians (read: Mexicans) will take over!
But the most significant difference was that the man leading the reform was the conservative prime minister John Howard who risked his political career and fought against his constituency. For the Republican leadership to do a 180 turn and take distance from the second amendment is as unlikely as it is for Trump to do a round of golf without cheating. Some states in the US have, in fact, given it a try, but the results have been as disappointing as Mueller's report.
The United States is the big melting pot of all cultures. Hence, the nationalistic tools used to boost American identity differs from many other countries. This partly explains why the flag is so crucial for many Americans and why so often, military veterans and their family members are being honored during public events. Freedom, exceptionalism, and the envy of the world define the United States of America.
For millions, the second amendment, which secures gun ownership, is a vital identity anchor. Consequently, the mere thought of giving up their guns is viewed as an imminent threat and an overreach by the government. It will lead to Socialism and a Kenyan version of North Korea. Understandably the devotees rarely mention the "a well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment.
Nevertheless, limiting the gun rights would be like suggesting to the Finns that the government should send Swedish metrosexuals to come and take their saunas and sausages away from them. The only way the Finns would agree to this would be if the Swedes promised to emigrate to Tasmania. They won't.
At this stage, the Swedish banker who is sitting with us grunts and moves uncomfortably in his seat. But before he has the time to argue against a Swedish mass emigration, another customer joins the discussion. Bob is a black ex-police officer who looks like a defensive tackle. For a second, I worry that I need to start warming up and use my 6 hours of Krav Maga training that I got 20 years ago. Due to a cold, Bob sounds like the son of Michael Jackson and Bonnie Tylor; it immediately puts the rest of us at ease. He is friendly and just wants to make a point:
-The only thing that can save us from a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun! Therefore, we need more guns!
The Texonian looks at me like a teenager who is being helped by his grandmother to open a pack of condoms. Bob is not the lifeline he was hoping for. Our debate just leaped from liberal Austin, Texas, into NRA territory.
Bob's arguments are the standard talking points used by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the core of the Republican party, and FOX news. Trump himself, a devoted NRA supporter, surprised everyone in March 2018 when he proudly took upon himself to be the President who would bring the Republicans to the table and inflict stricter gun control. "You guys are just too scared of the NRA!" he said nodding towards the Republicans in the room.
The adult Republican leaders quickly took the wolf of Manhattan for a round of golf. They let him cheat and reminded him who his key supporters are. To no one surprise, Trump never followed through with his gun control promise and later stated that: "98 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where guns are banned just so you understand."
98% of anything is an awfully large amount and should always raise some disbelief. Without going too much into details, one of the problems with the statistics concerning guns are the complex definitions. What descriptions should be used to categories events like a mass shooting, active shooter, public shooting, soft targets, and gun-free zones?
Using the definitions that gave the 98% result, the White House would be considered a gun-free zone since a general citizen is restricted to carry a firearm in the premises. Despite the snipers on the roof and the Secret Service agents in the hallways, it is seen as a soft target.
Using slightly different characterizations, the number of mass shootings in gun-free zones drops to 10%. According to professor Louis Klarevas, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are placed in the bracket of domestic violence. Now call me crazy, but I have a feeling that both sides of the gun debate will gladly adapt confirmation bias to avoid cognitive dissonance and nothing changes.
But maybe Bob is correct, perhaps the good guy with a gun would make everyone safer even though an FBI report form 2014 claims that only in about 3% of the cases, the armed civilian with the gun saves the day. Ironically, the majority of gun deaths occur when the "good guy" decides to point the gun at himself.
The distribution of the "good guys" would arguably need to be more balanced; 3% of the population owns half of the civilian weapons, which amounts to about 50 times more than the US armed forces. Fortunately for the state of the Union, the armed forces compensate for the lack of quantity with overwhelming firepower. If push comes to shove the government can always use their B-2 stealth bombers armed with nukes.
It is not difficult to find studies, both international and domestic, that strongly suggests that gun control has its benefits. There also seem to be a clear connection with the number of guns and gun deaths both in a comparison between rich countries but also between states in the US. There are, of course, outliers like Idaho and Illinois. Philip van Cleave clearly confirmed this fact in 2013 by saying:
- The US has a very high number of guns. Therefore, there is going to be more chances for somebody to be killed with a gun.
That statement as such does not sound out of the ordinary; what makes it unique is that Philip van Cleave is one of the most hardcore gun rights advocates in the country. His comment was one of those "oops..." moments comparable to the failed presidential run by Texas Governor Rick Perry. On an average day, van Cleave feels that the anxious cowboy should not even have to wait an hour before he receives his rifle after purchase.
Van Cleave also points out that because there is no background check for the first amendment, the right of free speech, why should there be background checks for gun ownership? If you wish to get more familiar with his views, I would recommend watching the youtube clips where he hangs out with the "Borat" guy or John Oliver.
Like the abortion question, the gun debate has been part of the reason for the growing political polarization in the United States. Both sides have dug themselves deep into the trenches refusing to budge. One of the more absurd results has been the: "Dickey Amendment."
Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas realized that if the government would do proper research concerning gun violence, it might result in stricter gun control laws. The NRA agreed and pushed hard to protect the US from becoming a Socialist Kenyan version of North Korea.
To this day, the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) interprets the language in the law as a prohibition on using funds to research gun issues that would be used in legislative arguments. Put bluntly: we cannot use scientific research as a method to improve our society.
Mr. Dickey later regretted his role concerning the amendment: "Scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries. I wish I had not been so reactionary." Rumors have it that Trump felt a similar regret when his son Eric was born.
The gun-rights lobbyists have also been able to limit the efficiency of the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). To save gun owners from governmental overreach, they have prevented the ATF from maintaining a searchable database on firearms. You have driverless cars cruising around in the US, but investigators cannot use computerized search engines to track a weapon. The agency is required to trace guns, but it must use inefficient procedures and obsolete technology. Legislators in effect tell the bureau to do a job, but poorly.
In 2016 President Obama explained, in a town hall meeting, how the Terrorist Screening Center had put an individual on the no-flight list due to ISIS connections. But because of the laws pushed by the NRA, he had no authority to prevent the individual in question from legally buying a gun.
President Kennedy manifested in 1962 that the US would go to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard, a challenge they were willing to accept. How the United States will solve its gun violence is definitely a challenge, but far from impossible for the country which is continuously being blessed by the Holy Spirit and have driverless cars. The more severe problem is finding courage and political determination. Where we agree with the Texonian is that guns are not the ONLY problem; the rooted violence in American society also needs to be addressed. But that is another story.
Needless to say, after 4 hours, the Texonian finally gives in. He admits his defeat as he is cornered by my flawless arguments based on undisputed scientific data presented with a Christopher Hitchens like precision. He promises to donate his AR-15 to Obama as I ride towards the sunset followed by the Swedish female beach volleyball team. Another great victory!
Comments