Putting on the Dog
Poodle Riffs on Futilitarian Response to Batman Massacre
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Dark knight of the soul: In the aftermath of 9/11, we were exhorted to get back on the plane and fly. Otherwise, we were warned, they would have won. And we would have let them. So I flew. But now, in the bloody aftermath of the Batman shooting spree, I’m not sure I can rally myself to watch the latest Dark Knight masterpiece. Maybe I’ll wait for its release on DVD. In this case, don’t pretend to know who they are, but I’d say they clearly have already won. In the United States, we have rendered groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda superfluous. What they would do unto us, we already do unto ourselves. James Eagan Holmes was yet another in a long line of quiet, intelligent loners who opted to crank up the volume when confronting a life of quiet desperation that apparently loomed before him. Or something like that. Colorado public officials are now suggesting that the media should not utter Holmes’s name. The notoriety, we are told, is what people like him crave. Deny it, and they won’t get the pay-off.
Angry Poodle
That’s a solution?
The next time some troubled introvert starts flinging hot lead in a crowded public space, I kind of doubt the cone-of-silence treatment will offer much cover. But for some things, the silent treatment has been all too effective. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m still astonished by all the talk I’m not hearing, however watered down, about gun control. Not a peep. Even knee-jerkers on the subject, like U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, have learned to shut up. It’s an election year. The National Rifle Association has money and knows how to take candidates out. Gun control — in any form — is so dead that no one bothers to bother anymore. Instead, we’ve been told by leaders of both parties, spend time with our families. Hug our children.
It used to be a mass murder like this would have occasioned some pretense of legislative remedy. In 1981, a crazed gunman in love with Jodie Foster — apparently he didn’t know she was lesbian — shot and nearly killed then-president Ronald Reagan. That eventually gave rise to what’s known as the Brady Bill, which requires background checks for prospective gun-buyers. In 1993, an unsuccessful middle-aged entrepreneur who claimed to have been the victim of monosodium glutamate poisoning got off an Oakland elevator on the 34th floor and shot to death eight employees of a prestigious law firm. Investigators would later discover the gunman meant to get off on the next floor up. Senator Feinstein seized upon the incident to win passage of a federal assault weapons ban. That bill would expire 10 years later, after efforts to prevent its expiration failed.
In the 10 years that bill was on the books, the number of semiautomatic weapons involved in murders declined by 66 percent, but the absolute number of murders still increased. Gun control, I readily admit, is an imperfect solution. If you’re determined enough, there are lots of ways to kill. UCSB mass murderer David Attias used his car, after all, to kill four people 11 years ago. But guns are easier. Santa Maria’s Lee Leeds — just sentenced to 100 years for killing his father and three others — used a gun. So, too, did Jennifer San Marco — the quintessentially disgruntled (and clinically paranoid) former postal employee — who shot and killed seven people in 2006, six of whom worked at a Goleta post office.
Strangulation, bombs, and knives are frequently cited by gun-control opponents, and yes, all are deadly. It’s worth noting that of the 11,500 people murdered every year, only one percent are strangled. Choking, it turns out, is very labor intensive and must be continued long after the victim blacks out to achieve a deadly result. And for whatever reason, poisoning and bombing never gained traction, accounting for less than .01 percent of all violent deaths respectively. Though knives are used in 13 percent of all homicides, guns — fast and convenient — account for 68 percent. Of the 11 people shot every hour, 1.3 are killed.
It’s been suggested that if we all packed heat, we could take care of business when the next whack job flips out. Perhaps. But if I showed up at the Cineplex locked and loaded, there could be problems. I might be too inclined to go Emily Postal on some of the chatty cathies who provide unsolicited running commentary. Some gun control opponents have even suggested that body armor might become a necessary fashion craze. But for the price of a full get-up — complete with crotch-n-collar protection — I’d rather buy an Armani. And besides, body armor makes everybody’s ass look fat.
The most devastating critique of gun control, of course, has been the staggering incompetence of those charged to enforce it. It’s no doubt true that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is now under attack by opportunist demagogues. But given the fatal ineptitude of the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” sting operation (in which federal agents sold semiautomatic weapons — equipped with faulty tracking devices — to Mexican drug cartels, which were then used to kill other federal agents), the demagogues and opportunists are entitled. When Amazon predicts with routine accuracy what books I want to read next, it’s hard to fathom how Colorado’s red-haired, wannabe Joker could order 6,300 rounds of ammo on the internet and not trigger any alarms. But that’s typical for Big Brother: never there when you need him.
Like all the trigger-happy massacres that came before, this will be forgotten. No one need tell us not to mention James Holmes’s name; we will have forgotten. Anderson Cooper’s graveside intonations notwithstanding — and all the purple balloons in the sky — nothing will be done. What’s different this time, no pretense at effort has been made. So get with your families and hug your children. But while you’re at it, pat them down. Make sure they’re not packing.
Related Links
Comments
Revoke your NRA membership and become and a big I Independent.
The "ineptitude" was not with the ATF but with the pro gun right wing local office of the Arizona Federal prosecutors office. Read all of this twice >>> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...
The NRA is probably ginning up Fast and Furious as a scandal and as a fund raising tool for its own organization. The scandal is the result of the NRA and its infiltration into the federal government prosecutors office in Arizona.
Since the 3 million members of the NRA seems to be in charge of the U.S.A it would be nice if someone would explain to the membership that the NRA is a lobbying group for weapons manufactures of all kinds. Guns, ammo, mass murdering assault weapons, tear gas, etc. The NRA doesn't care about you and your family or responsible gun owners rights. The NRA is selling products, easily obtained weapons of mass death and destruction; killing your families. Right wingers reportedly hate lobbyists so why support the weapons manufacturer lobbyist the NRA.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2012 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder what the founding fathers would think of this mess? Too bad time travel isn't a reality.
Sadly, I think Welsh is right. Give the American public a few more days and Aurora will soon be forgotten.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2012 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow. Well said, Nick...unfortunately.
LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2012 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, and LSD are illegal to posses, yet people still get hold of those.
Also, what about the fact that 1% of the people in the audience had been armed, many lives would almost certainly have been saved?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 28, 2012 at 1:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If there had been armed people in the audience who really knows the outcome. Lots of people who pack heat are not crack shots. Keep in mind that being in a real live shoot out with some nut with an auto or semi automatic weapon when all you have is a pistol is way scarier and harder than some folks imagine. Even when highly trained police officers get into fire fights they sometimes end up of shooting their own people. I believe in the second amendment but I don't believe the founding fathers had automatic weapons in mind. Some gun control is appropriate, the devil is in the details. The power and near hysteria at times of the NRA and others makes a serious sensible and rational argument difficult.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 29, 2012 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great point, Noletaman, and one actively ignored in the rosy scenarios painted by gun zealots.
Even trained warriors are concerned about friendly fire:
:: "The solutions and preventive measures required to reduce or eliminate incidents of amicicide on future battlefields are problematic. Given the clear preponderance of direct human error as the source of most amicicide incidents, it is manifest that preventive measures must be directed toward the correction or improvement of human frailties, and these, as always, are the factors least amenable to correction.
"The fear and confusion of the battlefield cannot be eliminated. Indeed they are likely to be even more prevalent on the battlefield of the future than they were on the battlefields of the past. The combat experience and steadiness born of the soldier's confidence in his cause, his weapons, his comrades, and himself can be gained in the end nowhere but on the field of battle itself.
"A vigorous study of past experience and the careful selection and rigorous training of soldiers under conditions closely approximating those of actual combat may prove of some value in reducing the incidence of amicicide, but in the last analysis the only truly effective solution is experience coupled with an unremitting attention to detail.
"Obviously, we cannot hope to eliminate amicicide as a problem in modern war, but direct and forceful attention to its human causes may bring some reduction of its incidence and effect."
-- Shrader, Charles R., "Amicicide: the problem of friendly fire in modern war." (Research survey/Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College;December 1982)
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl...
-- Friendly fire remains a problem for U.S.
http://www.stripes.com/news/friendly-...
binky (anonymous profile)
July 29, 2012 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice going,Nick, you called it writing, "I’m still astonished by all the talk I’m not hearing, however watered down, about gun control." We have politicians without principles, or courage, and folks in Colorado are now arming up after the cinema murders at a frightening rate.
We need much much stronger gun controls laws so we can begin to become a civilized country. What about the felon on Anacapa St with the 18 guns? Most comments said, 'Hurray for the cops who stopped the guy' — that was just luck.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 30, 2012 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you want real gun control change the Second Amendment.
The actual power of the NRA on elections is infinitesimal. They spend very little money on most races but the left has foisted them into the preeminent boogeyman for their own propaganda and now people espouse this supposed power as though it's fact. The NRA has been smart enough to bask in their manufactured glory. One actual nefarious thing about the NRA is that the majority of members do not believe in many of the wacky views of their very organization: unlimited access to ammunition; unlimited capacity magazines; access to steel jacketed bullets.
Finally, even the despicable Scalia has something in common with brain dead Ginsburg on this issue as he stated last weekend that he feels there is plenty of interpretation available in the Second Amendment. We'll see...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 31, 2012 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One Comment from a Japanese general about why they never tried a land invasion of the US during WW2 was that they knew every house was armed with skilled hunters and civilians packing heat. the odds in such an invasion of success are limited, they feared intense resistance.
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2012 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Factcheck.org says that's bogus:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misq...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2012 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It was a barricade of memos from David Selznick that stopped them.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2012 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are we talking about gun control or gun prohibition?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2012 at 2:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
we won't be changing the 2nd Amendment anytime time soon, so I'd think we're talking about gun CONTROL.
@Italiansurg, you are correct about NRA membership not really being all the way with their wacky leadership (I've read 70% don't agree with their leaders). However, where do you get the data to support your statement that "The actual power of the NRA on elections is infinitesimal." I think even judiciously selected amounts of money can influence elections...
Control sales of semi-automatic long weapons, Glocks etc., and certainly allow legitimate hunters their 2nd amendment rights.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2012 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DrDan-I was looking at the numbers and their references last month. I will try and look up the citation. On average and with very few exceptions they gave only few thousand dollars per race but were careful to give these amounts to thousands of candidates. Mostly but not exclusively to Republicans with a smattering of Dem recipients mostly in the South.
I find it additionally disturbing that most folks do not understand what constitutes a semi automatic weapon and the breadth of weapons, from sane to insane, included in that definition. Both sides are not candid and the rest of us are all caught in the cross fire...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2012 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)