Warning: Constant ABSPATH already defined in /home/grumpypu/public_html/wp-config.php on line 33
politics | The Grumpy Pundit | Page 4

Tag Archives: politics - Page 4

Is What We Fear Most Each Other?

I expect this to be the last thing I have to say about gun control for, I hope, another five or ten years.

I’ve written, recently, to try and lay out a few facts about gun control and what we might do about it. The response to those pieces has been interesting. Most people don’t seem to care about why people like James Holmes go on their sprees. They don’t seem to want to really do anything serious to prevent future massacres. One side doesn’t want anything done at all, the other is only interested in banning AR-15s. (Very curious considering that James Holmes seems to have carried out most of his shooting spree with a shotgun. Why then is all the attention on the weapon that didn’t work?)

It was very baffling to me. These people are not, for the most part, stupid or malicious. Why, then, did they seem to care so much about the wrong things? Am I the one who’s wrong? (No way!)

My position is the same as it’s been for years regarding airport security; the tool isn’t nearly as important as a person’s willingness to use it to do harm. This seems so obvious to me that I’ve always been puzzled why other people don’t see it. But I think I’ve figured something out in the past few days.

This comic sums it up:

When we live in close proximity to thousands, tens of thousands, of complete strangers, we have to take it on faith that they won’t try to kill us. We, quite literally, aren’t built for this. Humans lived for millions of years in small bands of hunter-gatherers, in close-knit social groups where everyone knew everyone else. You might not like everyone else in the group, but if you had enemies you knew who to watch out for. These people could be trusted, those might try to harm you; no unknowns. (People from another band, of course, were enemies who would try to harm you. We haven’t gotten away from that bit of evolution either.)

Today, we live surrounded by people. We can’t know and trust more than a tiny fraction of them, but we can’t go through our lives constantly on guard against attack by every stranger we see. We have to take it on faith that other people have no interest in doing us harm. Our society can’t work any other way. When you get on a crowded elevator, you have to be comfortably certain that one of the other people isn’t going to stick a knife in your back. So certain that the thought never even enters your mind. Because if someone else on that elevator wanted to stick a knife in you, there’s nothing you could do about it. You’re standing there staring at the numbers over the door, waiting for your floor to light up, and there are five people behind you and if one of them decided to see what your insides look like, he can.

We trust our lives every day to people we don’t know, who we’ve never seen before and will never see again. Any other driver you see on the highway could crash into you at any moment. All that person in the next lane over has to do is yank the wheel and you’re dead. That nice person who compliments you on your beautiful baby might break your baby’s legs.

We have to believe that they’re not going to do that. We have to. Without a certain level of trust, of belief in the fundamental goodness of the people around us, we can’t function. Nearly everyone you see on any given day has the ability to harm or kill you; it’s only the fact that they don’t want to that keeps you alive.

We don’t think about this. We can’t; it would drive us crazy if we did. That’s why these mass killings shake us up so much more than a far greater number of traffic deaths. Traffic deaths are (mostly) accidents; we can take thirty of forty thousand of those a year in stride. We don’t even think about it.

A dozen people killed by a random stranger, though, strikes at that trust, that fragile assumption of good intentions, that holds our society together. It suddenly, at a very deep level, makes us fear that person behind us on the elevator. The delivery guy bringing a box into the office. We look at people differently.

We realize there is a chance that the stranger really is out to kill us. Not a huge chance, not likely, but it’s there. It can happen. We may not think about it consciously, but the fear is there.

Our civilization can’t work that way, though. We can’t live in cities together if we don’t trust the strangers who surround us. If our trust in strangers is shaken, but we can’t get away from them, what can we do? We’re stuck.

So our monkey brains patch around the problem, just as they’ve been doing for thousands of generations.

Some of us internalize the fear. Those people embrace the paranoia. They stroke their guns and think, “I would have been ready. I wouldn’t be a victim. No one will get me.” They arm themselves and so gain the strength to face the endless parade of potentially dangerous strangers.

Some compartmentalize it. It’s not strangers they have to worry about; it’s guns, or certain kinds of guns. They narrow the source of the danger, at least in their own minds, to a point where they can function without being afraid of everyone they see.

Some blame movies or comic books or video games. Get rid of those things and strangers won’t want to kill them.

That’s why some people cling more tightly to their guns in the aftermath these tragedies, while other people call for getting rid of those guns. It’s two different coping mechanisms for dealing with the same problem, the same fear. It’s unfortunate that the two methods are not just incompatible, but directly opposed.

There’s another thing we do: We forget. Within a few weeks, the memories fade and so does our fear and mistrust. We can again carry on our daily lives without fear, even though surrounded by strangers. It’s easy to mock how quickly we forget, but how could we carry on if we didn’t?

I still think that banning certain kinds of guns is the wrong solution, because there are so very many different ways that strangers can hurt you that it’s futile to try stamping them out one at a time, but I better understand the impulse now. Those people, like the rest of us, are just trying to find a way to get through their day.

If we are ever going to stop tragedies like the recent one in Aurora, though, we have to look past the tools and at the people. It’s not something we’re comfortable looking at. It forces us to admit that some of those strangers are dangerous, do want to kill us, and that’s very disturbing. That’s why we ignore it. It’s not the people, it’s the guns/movie/video games. Make those things go away and all will be good!

But it’s not the things. It’s us. We have to gain some understanding into why some people want to commit these atrocities, maybe even find some way to identify them beforehand and stop them, help them.

Because if we don’t, the killing will go on. No black rifle is as dark as the evil that might lurk in the heart and mind of the stranger standing next to you.

A History of Oil

A somewhat simplified, but essentially accurate, history of oil.

Enjoy Your Workday

You would have to work 24 hours a day, five days a week at a minimum-wage job, to convince Mitt Romney that you’re responsible.

Enjoy. Also enjoy the thousands of dollars in payroll taxes you’ll be paying that Romney considers so negligible that they don’t even count as taxes. And your state and local taxes like property tax and sales tax….

Redistribution of What to Whom?

Mitt Romney says ‘redistribution’ of wealth isn’t the American Way. He’s wrong, and he knows it. Over the last twenty years billions of dollars have been redistributed from the middle and working classes to the wealthy. Romney is fine with that. He’s just afraid the peasants trying to get a little of their own back.

Good News, For Once

“[…]the religious right is losing its political power.”

It’s about time.

Well, Shit

“This tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut wouldn’t have happened if assault weapons were banned!”

“Assault weapons are banned in Connecticut.”

“Oh. Shit.”

“Yeah.”

~ ~ ~

Real world problems are often hard, without easy fixes. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try; just that we have to try hard, and maybe try different things.

Putting It All Together

Since everyone is running around right now asking, “What to do!?” about mass murder incidents (but not really wanting an answer; it’s a rhetorical question, since they already have an answer and usually don’t want to listen to any alternatives) I thought I’ll pull together what I’ve written in various places on the subject.

So, you say you want to stop school massacres? Okay, here’s what you do.

First, secure the schools. I’m not necessarily talking about really expensive systems here; even just locking the fucking doors would be a start. (One in three school administrators admits to leaving doors propped open. ) Right now it’s harder to get into a computer data center than into most schools. What does that say about our priorities?

Second, make sure that the various mental health facilities and organizations update the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check) database, like they’re supposed to. I mean like really make sure they do it. As in, if some head-shrinker doesn’t file the required reports, and the person goes on to kill someone, the negligent head-shrinker, or administrator faces criminal charges as an accomplice. That’ll perk ’em up.

Third, spend some money and fix our broken mental health care system. These mass killings started after Reagan butchered the system back in the ’80s. It’s time to fix it. Colorado, is at least, making a decent start.

Fourth, stop making celebrities out of mass murderers. When someone runs onto a baseball field, they cut the camera feed from the field so as to not give that person any publicity, and encourage others. But if someone kills a bunch of people, they become the most famous person in the world, at least for a few weeks. Let’s stop doing that; do not mention the criminal’s name, do not show their picture. Instead of becoming celebrities they disappear, unworthy of mention.

Fifth, create a smart database of firearms-related purchases. This one requires a little explanation. The idea is that, as I’ve said in relation to other security problems, there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. The most dangerous weapons you can imagine–an armor-piercing semi-automatic nuclear missile with a bayonet, hollow point, and a cyanide coating–isn’t going to do anyone any harm if the holder doesn’t want to do any harm. But practically anything is dangerous if someone does intend harm.

So, watch for people who intend to do harm.

So, put all those transactions into a database. Guns, ammunition, accessories, training classes, all of it. Let people buy what they want (within the limits of current laws, of course), but track it. Any unusual purchases–someone who’s never bought a gun before goes out and buys five in one week, for example–throws up a flag in the computer system and that person’s information gets routed to a special investigative division of Homeland Security, who would then check this person out. A flag would also be thrown in the NICS database, putting a freeze on any firearm purchases by that person. If their address comes up in the NICS system flagging another household member, they get flagged too.

Here’s the thing; this can’t be some ordinary beat cop, some TSA package-grabber, who does the investigating. The investigator has to be more psychologist than cop, because the idea isn’t to determine what the person has done, or what they’ve bought, or what they may be guilty of. We already know that what they bought, and they may not be guilty of anything, yet. The idea is to determine their mental state, to try and get an idea of what they might do.

In other words, if someone starts buying a bunch of guns out of the blue, send a smart person over to talk to them and try to find out if they’re a fucking nutcase who’s about to flip his shit and kill a bunch of people.

Why do this rather than simply ban dangerous guns? Because banning dangerous guns is not only hard, it’s ineffective. People right now are calling for a ban on ‘assault weapons’ to prevent another Newtown shooting, but Connecticut already has a ban on assault weapons. The shooting happened anyway. Gun control alone doesn’t work. Guns aren’t even the most dangerous thing an attacker can use, though you wouldn’t know that from the news coverage. We need to think harder, try harder, and come up with something more effective than one-note rote responses. We can do better.

These things aren’t perfect. Nothing we can implement is going to be perfect. People are inherently imperfect, and some bad people will always find a way to hurt other people. But this plan would, I think, work better than any other proposal I’ve heard. We can stop most of the bleeding, and I think we should.

A Murmur From The People

This is an interesting poll. It would appear that, at least according to this Gallup survey, the common people think that increased school security, better mental health care, and changing the media’s depiction of violence would all be more effective than an ‘assault weapon’ ban. Even 33% of self-professed Democrats think that such a ban would not be very effective.

This is in sharp contrast to the political class, which is all about, and only about, gun laws. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as they get a better sense of how the voters are leaning.

Artificial Additives

The more I think about it and the more research that I do, the more it seems like the problem we have recently with crazy people wanting to kill us is one that we’ve created. We’re manufacturing crazy people.

A few numbers:

Twelve of 15 studies of SSRI’s, a family of anti-depressants that includes Prozac and Paxil, showed no short-term benefit for young people over placebo, he says. But they can cause a host of physical and mental health problems; 25 percent of youth treated with anti-depressants convert to bipolar disorder.

One survey says 20 to 40 percent of people who use anti-depressants long-term become bipolar. Another survey, by the Depression and Bipolar Support Assn.(DBSA), says 60 percent.

About 11% of all Americans ages 12 and up are now on anti-depressants.

ALL drugs have side effects. All psychoactive drugs have side effects. Using them not only can, but does fuck people up in strange ways. Even when talking about very rare side effects, experienced by maybe one person in ten thousand, that’s still thousands of people when there are millions taking the drug. Almost all of our recent horrible murders have been committed by people on, or just coming off of, some kind of psychoactive drug. And yes, those side effects can include things like ‘homicidal ideation.’ That is, thinking about killing people. Even most of the people who experience those severe side effects won’t actually follow through and kill anyone…but a few do. This isn’t speculation; we know that psychoactive drug side effects have lead to suicidal and homicidal acts. Drug companies have been gradually–and quietly–adding warnings to that effect to their side effect sheets.

I’ve said before that we don’t have a gun problem in the United States; we have a crazy people problem. It’s just beginning to sink in, though, how serious a crazy people problem we have, and how much it’s of our own doing. The boom in prescription psychoactives took off in the late 1980s (Prozac hit the market in 1987). I thought that the increase in crazy people killing other people starting in the ’80s was due to the Reagan Administration’s gutting of the mental health system, and that’s probably a factor, but it also coincides nicely with the exploding market for prescription psychiatric drugs.

If we really want to stop these massacres, this really needs to be looked into and gotten under control. We’re altering the brain chemistry of huge numbers of people, with very little understanding of what the long term effects of that are going to be, and it’s a problem that’s only going to get worse if we don’t do something.

We won’t, though. We’ll brush aside the drugs that all of our mass killers were taking, and focus instead on the brand and appearance and capacity of the guns they used. (And even the guns they didn’t.) Want to know why? It’s simple arithmetic.

The gun industry in the US has about $11.7 billion in revenue. Government sales make up a large part of that, with the civilian market amounting to about $7 billion ($5 billion in ammunition and accessories, $2 billion in actual firearms). Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it?

Novartis International, the company that makes Ritalin, had US revenues of $58.5 billion in 2011. That’s one drug company that’s five times the size of the whole US firearms industry. Worldwide, big pharma pulls in about $500 billion. That’s a golden goose that our politicians don’t dare touch, no matter how many people die.

Say What, Joe?

Joe Biden, on gun control:

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. “As the president said, if you’re [sic] actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.

Really, Joe? Really? Saving one life is worth any price? Here are a few things off the top of my head that will not only save more than one life, but save many, many more lives than a silly ban on ‘assault weapons.’

  • Pull our troops out of the Middle East.
  • Ban swimming pools.
  • Implement some common sense car safety legislation (more on this later).
  • Order a serious study of the side effects of psychoactive drugs, and implement stricter controls on them.
  • Ban alcoholic beverages.
  • Ban hamburgers.
  • Free health care for all households with an income under $50,000/year. Subsidized low cost care for every household making under $75,000/year.

Some of these measures may sound pretty extreme to you (it’s silly to think that the government would risk angering the pharmaceutical industry), but it’s not me saying that they’re worthwhile; it’s the President and Vice President of the United States of America. Anything that might save even one life.