"Walk like a man, talk like a man
Walk like a man, my son
No woman's worth crawlin' on the earth
So walk like a man, my son
Oh wee ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh, ooh-wee-ooh
Walk, walk, walk, walk."
Walk Like a Man, 1963, The Four Seasons
The same year I stumbled upon Ralph Waldo Emerson in the school library and read his essay, Self Reliance. I was thrilled by his words. Be an independent, empowered non-conformist. Yes! Emerson was more work than Top-40 music on KBOY and KYJC, the local A.M. radio stations, but there was a confluence in timing. It accompanied that burst of testosterone that happens to boys of 13.
I remember feeling pumped.
A thoughtful reader of this blog sent me a comment on gun culture in America. He is experimenting with breaking out of his ultra-civilized, city-boy life of high-tech business. He goes off on weekends into wild places to hunt with a bow and arrows. He carries a handgun. He is noticed something about that experience.
Packing my revolver in the wild when I am sometimes miles from the nearest road and out of cell range seems prudent, but it does not make me feel "invincible." It's only when I find myself still carrying it (if I have no safe place to store it) when I am near populated areas that I experience that burst of empowerment. I don't understand the psychology or neurobiology of what toting a gun in public does to you, but for me it creates this very strange, inflated sense of importance, power, and invincibility. The closest kind of feeling I can think of is when I got my drivers license and my first car.
I can relate. When I turned 16 I got a drivers license and could drive! I became fully human. I was empowered.
My correspondent observed people at the gun club where he practices shooting.Something very powerful happens every time I holster my side arm. I am suddenly profoundly aware that I am carrying a lethal weapon. I subconsciously begin to look for potential threats. I thought this was just me, but the thing I notice at the shooting range is that others seem to be getting ready for a kind of urban battlefield. Many of my acquaintances who carry have a nonchalant bravado in their relationships to their firearms. The clubhouse has a poster of Trump's face on a Rambo body, and it's not considered ironic.
He includes a warning for Democrats.
If you have enough voices telling you are entitled to it, and other people want to take it away from you, you've got a fight on your hands. I think its grip is rooted in the feeling of identity and agency. We aren't having a policy debate.The gun issue looks like a policy debate, but it isn't. I got my 92-year-old father to stop driving--with difficulty. He would have answered polls saying that 92-year-olds with vision and mobility problems must not drive. That was his policy answer. But he, himself, drove well past the time when he should have stopped. It was an identity issue. Losing ability to drive was a watershed event of of dis-empowerment.
I think we have a gun problem in America. They are ubiquitous, so they get used. It is crazy to have mass ownership of guns in the 21st Century, but it persists. Democrats have dug in as the party that wants legislation to limit gun access. They blame the NRA and Republican officeholders for a political system that is increasing gun access, not reducing it--notwithstanding the polls.
The polls deceive. Americans are not rational here, and polls measure what people want for other people, not what they want for themselves or feel in their hearts. A great many people resist having them taken away.
Democrats will understand the gun issue better if they liken it to the effect of trying to take away cars from people who are statistically dangerous drivers, people under the age of 25 or over the age of 75. It would not be easy or popular.
[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
32 comments:
After the latest mass murder in Texas, Gov. Gregg Abbot once again insisted the root cause of so many mass shootings is the mental health issue. In a way, he’s right. It’s insane that we allow virtually anyone to buy rapid-fire, high-capacity firearms whose only purpose is to quickly kill as many people as possible.
Did I say we? I mean Republicans, of course. Rather than ridding society of this scourge, they have schools putting children through “active shooter drills.” In Texas, lawmakers have introduced legislation to train schoolchildren as young as third grade in “battlefield trauma care.” They want all fetuses protected, but once out of the womb it’s like open season. They love their guns more than children.
There are only a few legal reasons for civilians to own guns: hunting, target shooting and self-defense. None of those require assault weapons.
Reader Feedback: AI and guns are BORING.
How many blogs do you intend to write on these subjects? Thought this was a political blog. (I know, "everything is political," blah, blah, blah.)
I can geek-out over AI and guns elsewhere.
Would you like readers to suggest some political topics?
Supporting Peter’s point:
At one point in ancient history, the king of Persia decided to invade Greece. His enormous army had to pass through a narrow chokepoint on their way, and 300 heroic Spartans held his army off for an amazing amount of time before dying in battle because they had been betrayed.
At one point, the Persian king demanded that the Spartans surrender and give him their weapons. The Spartan leader, replied, “Come and take them.”
That’s “Molon labe“ in Greek, and it’s a common sight on T-shirts throughout the world of gun owners.
Molon labe!
It wouldnbe fair to leave out that Texas is depriving hundreds of thousands of its citizens mental the opportunity of seeking mental health care by Hot Wheels refusal to approve Medicaid Funding, making Texas 1 of only 10 States to not accept Federal Funding for Medicaid.
Dear anonymous, with the comment on AI and guns being BORING.
OK, message received. The AI stuff is boring to me because I don't understand it, but I think I need to. It is like eating my salad. Not as much fun as pecan pie, but important and good for me. So I suffered through it, recognizing that AI may change the workplace in a way that does to the office worker what mechanization did to coal miners. (It turned them from Democrats who voted for Stevenson, Dukakis, and Clinton into Republicans for Trump.
I took the gun thing in a different direction in an effort not to bore readers. It was about the psychology of being armed. I am trying to think what must have been going through Kyle Rittenhouse's mind.
I considered both of them to be political topics, but I recognize that they are a step away from writing about the Pew poll that shows that a majority of GOP voters still love Trump and believe what he says about almost everything. And they think that women he fondles were asking for it and wanted it so it is their fault and Trump is the victim here.
Thanks for reading me.
Sure: suggest topics that you think would be more interesting.
Peter
I greatly enjoy the AI postings (as you can tell!) keep them coming, if you please.
I realize how unpopular my stand on allowing trained, volunteer, teachers to have easy access to guns IN THEIR CLASSROOMS is, but so it goes.
Moron labe.
In prisons there is a periodic search of cells which results in a reduction of weapons (shivs), among the prisoners. Then more are made. Do the inmates have them for offense or defense? The answer is both. In dangerous environments a weapon seems needed, but in safe environments it seems excessive. I guess Americans view the need for guns depending on whether they feel safe?
I personally find the AI and gun topics quite interesting. This particular “Anonymous” is just one voice.
Anyone who is interested in the gun rights perspective on the gun issue would do well to read this viral essay.
I agree with Malcolm that we should allow teachers who want to have guns to do so. I would much rather see some psycho shot and killed than a group of innocent children and their teachers. Teachers who don’t want to do this should obviously not be forced to do it.
The former “assault weapons ban“ did not actually ban that kind of rifle. Manufacturers were easily able to produce and sell equivalently capable rifles that did not fall under the ban by leaving out features like bayonet lugs that no one really cared about.
The ban also prohibited newly manufactured magazines holding more than 10 rounds, but there were plenty of pre-ban magazines available in the aftermarket. And besides, a day or two of practice can make someone very quick at switching magazines, so it’s not clear that even an effective ban would have had any significant effect on mass shootings.
Today developers of AI testified before Congress and asked for it to be regulated, saying its revolutionary potential was more comparable to the atom bomb than to the printing press. You don't have to understand it to be interested, any more than you do with climate change or gun violence. You just have to care about your offspring.
So we just maintain the status quo of doing nothing to reduce the near daily slaughter of innocent children. Got it ! And,
not so incidentally, as one who has been on the receiving end of hostile fire, I think arming teachers with s.all arms is the most granddad proposal I've heard since Drumpf got elected, along with putting an armed rent-a-cop in every classroom.
No, we don’t just maintain the status quo. We try to figure out something to do that is actually possible, instead of wishing for things that will never happen.
Just to keep things factual:
The 1994 assault weapons ban, as limited as it was, still had an impact. In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down.
Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception. The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.
We’ve done it before. We can do it again.
The pros and cons of weapons bans in industrialized countries is already well documented by the decades of experience; that is, radically fewer murders where ownership is severely restricted (Japan; England; Germany). Granted, about two-thirds of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, but still. To me, it's obvious guns are too dangerous for civilian ownership; even with training and the like, people get drunk and angry, you know? These latest mass murderers get an idea, buy a gun legally, and do their shooting just days later. And the Constitution was all about opposition to a standing army, and the need for state regulated militias; and the weapons and facts have changed utterly, so I do not agree with the rightest Justices.
Anyway, does someone here know any great writers who focus on hunting? Someone comparable to Roger Angel for baseball, or Ernest Hemingway for deep-sea fishing? I've never hunted but I'm sure there is an emotional richness and beauty to it, including generational and family bonding, that is beautiful and profound, and includes guns as part of its treasured rituals. I am missing that, which is unfair. I would like to read such works and, if the writer is still living, I would also love to read an essay on this topic by them. Perhaps one or more have already been written. I'm tired of reading screeds; I look forward to reading something thoughtful and true.
The assault weapons ban had only a limited, modest effect, according to ChatGPT:
The impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on gun violence is a topic of ongoing debate and research among experts and policymakers. The ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, prohibited the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines.
Studies examining the effects of the assault weapons ban have produced mixed results. Some research suggests that the ban had a limited impact on overall gun violence rates. For example, a 2004 study commissioned by the Department of Justice found that the ban's effects on gun violence were likely to be small and that the ban's expiration would not have a substantial impact on firearm homicides.
However, other studies have suggested potential benefits of the ban. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Urban Health indicated that the ban was associated with a 9.6% decrease in gun homicides in large cities. Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2019 found a significant reduction in the number of mass shootings and fatalities during the period of the ban.
It's important to note that gun violence is a complex issue influenced by various factors, and the impact of any specific policy can be challenging to isolate. Additionally, the 1994 assault weapons ban had several limitations and exemptions that affected its effectiveness. For example, it only applied to specific firearm models and did not address firearms already in circulation.
Therefore, while some studies suggest that the ban had a modest impact on reducing gun violence, the overall consensus on its effectiveness is not definitive. It's crucial to consider multiple factors and policies when assessing the broader issue of gun violence and its reduction.
Anyone who needs a gun or destroy things to "feel like a man" needs some counseling. So, yea, it's a mental health issue.
Interesting how the GOPee says don't take away our right to by weapons of war but has no trouble taking away a woman's health care choices.
It’s amazing, the contortions people will go through to cast doubt on the obvious. Yes, gun violence is a complex issue with many factors, so let’s go by outcomes:
Extensive research reported in the National Library of Medicine shows that, “A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually,” and, “States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings.” Among 64 high-income countries and territories, the U.S. stands out for its high levels of gun violence. Firearm injuries tend to be more frequent in places where people have easy access to firearms, according to the findings of studies reported in JAMA.
Of course, for those who prefer willful ignorance, we have the recurring mass shooting headline: ‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.
MTb if you don't think the current status is maintaining the Status Quo, what do you suggest be done?
I gave up hunting the second time I was shot (and missed) by a Nimrod who had no business being woods with a high powered rifle. That same year, I lost a client who lost the use of his right arm when another Nimrod shot at a noise in the brush, even though he couldn't see what was making the noise. My client wasn't as lucky as I was.
But, Robert Ruark wrote beautifully about hunting in Africa, his books were where I heard about Mombasa, and Nairobi, and the Great Rift Valley. I don't believe Trophy Hunting is anything but a grave sin, so I'm not sure I would appreciate his books today.
If I were a teacher with a class full of students (and I have taught math and ESL on voluntary bases, long ago), I’d sure want to have a way to protect myself and my students, in the event that an armed gunman was about to break into my classroom, whether thru the door, or thru a window. I really have a hard time understanding some people’s opposition. Without a firearm, what’re you gonna do? Watch your charges being SLAUGHTERED?
Seriously, Ed, what’s going on with you?
Fascinating discussion y’all. I thought it was interesting to see what I wrote about “what if feels like” turned into typical debates about “what should be done”. I’m pretty convinced that gun ownership these days changes the owners in ways they may not fully comprehend. There’s a rigorous process in my state to get a concealed carry license. It involves a criminal background check, fingerprinting, and a long questionnaire about suicidal thoughts, addictions etc… you go over the laws of gun ownership like ( for example) the legal culpability if your gun is not securely stored and it is stolen and used in a crime. The rigorous process reinforces the gravity of what you are about to start doing. I thought it was just fine- never felt like my rights were infringed upon.
Ever been shot at by someone intending to kill you, Malcom ? If so, how did you react ? Did you calmly seek cover, calmly draw your shootin' iron, Isolate your target, and with precision, shoot the target dead ? If not, I suggest you research the voluminous information available about how trained police react when under fire, or how most soldiers react in a fire fight. Then you might get a glimmer of why arming school teachers, giving them a few hours of training and turning them loose is such a moronic idea.
Anyone who thinks we can make all the guns go away in this country is completely out of touch with the realm of political possibility. The people wearing those Molon Labe T-shirts mean it. Not only would you have to fight a war with them to take their guns, but it is not at all clear that you would win that war.
Solutions that worked in New Zealand are not going to work here.
This country has a strong tradition of individual responsibility for yourself, and that includes for self-defense. I think this thought is very congruent to what Peter said in his essay. People may intellectually understand that there are some other people who are too irresponsible to own guns, but emotionally they still want that option for themselves.
Here’s a scenario in which a relatively untrained teacher armed with a gun could make a huge difference:
The warning has sounded. You have locked the door coming into your classroom and placed your students where they cannot be seen from windows. You have a clear view of the door into the classroom.
Through the window of the door, you see the shooter approaching your classroom. He shoots through the door window, breaking the glass, and reaches through the broken window to unlock the door. You are 20 feet away from him, and you open fire through the window and take him down.
A 20 foot shot does not require a remarkable degree of marksmanship. The armed teacher is not reacting to a sudden surprise, but is mentally prepared. Ask yourself if you were the teacher in that situation, would you prefer to have a weapon? I sure would.
Two brief points:
1. Nobody was suggesting that we try to make all the guns go away in this country.
2. Only a Republican could imagine the answer to gun violence is more guns. The notion of having armed teachers rather than gun control is about as insane as the party has gotten - except for worshipping Trump, of course.
Here’s a gun that might overcome some of the objections to arming teachers in the classroom. Only the owner can fire this smart gun.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172284298/smart-gun-biofire-biometrics
click
Mike S, nobody is suggesting that arming volunteer teachers is “rather than gun control”.
Tell me, if you were the teacher in Michael's scenario, would you seriously prefer to be defenseless?
Michael T. I didn’t click on your link, but I assume the gun only works if you scan your finger prints? I’ve been touting that idea for some tine. Great idea. I gather they’re finally being marketed?
I also would recommend making all new guns work that way, then, nobody but the owner could use it, including her three year old girl. But what would NRA have to say?
The smart gun uses a combination of fingerprint and facial recognition.
https://youtu.be/qi8fXdUh_K8
I have no fear of guns, but I pretty much quit playing with them when I went to college. If I were a teacher and felt that keeping a gun around my children was safer than not, I'd realize I had gone into the twilight zone and quit.
Mike S, sad to say, we are IN the twilight zone. Good comeback anyway.,
Post a Comment