Yes, Doctor. Really.
My brain started running through every possible explanation for why this man felt the need to carry a handgun into the pharmacy of a grocery store--did he have a badge, was he in charge of a prisoner, was something going on around me that I was not aware of like a law enforcement exercise, or was this guy so serious about needing his meds right now that he wasn't taking no for an answer? None of that applied. He simply had a gun on his hip because under our state law, he can. Then I had to wonder how complicated would it be to transfer my prescription right then so I could remove myself from the area without being harmed--but where to? I already had all my groceries and I needed my medication. I could not help but feel like this guy was holding my prescription hostage just by the mere presence of the gun in his holster. My ears started to work again and heard him ask the woman at the counter if she could just refill the empty med containers he had. She politely explained that store policy states new labels, new containers every time. He countered with the idea that it seems more sustainable to reuse the plastic containers he had. I am not kidding; this fellow was clearly environmentally conscientious, which then made me wonder what he was going to do if she again refused to refill his bottles. Would he pull the gun and make her refill them? I simply didn't know his intention. I felt unsafe and stuck, held captive by my need for food and medicine and this man's desire to exercise what is considered by many to be a right protected by our country's Constitution.
No, Clint. Stop nodding your head. This isn't one of your movies.
Like many in the United States, I have grappled with the second amendment right versus mass shootings and accidental shootings and whether or not restricting gun ownership is the way to make us safer. I have tried to understand arguments from multiple points of view. I have endeavored to reconcile America's love affair with guns and my own disinterest in them. I can honestly say that while I do not enjoy shooting ranges or hunting, I don't think others should be disallowed from enjoying those pursuits. Just because I didn't fall in love with shooting a revolver at a target does not mean someone else like my cousins shouldn't be allowed to learn how to safely handle firearms. I didn't grow up hunting for meat for our freezer, but I know many who do. I enjoy pheasant and venison jerky that hunters make possible. However, I also know people are alive who seek to use guns for other purposes. Therefore, we need to figure out a way to make it possible for people like my cousins to enjoy their hobby while also making it harder for someone to obtain a gun, go to a nightclub, and shoot as many people as possible for no other reason than his own warped ideology and self-loathing.
Yes, Lisa. We can find a way.
I won't bore you with statistics comparing America's gun violence to other countries like Sweden or Australia. Mainly, I won't do this because it's been done countless times before. I also won't do this because I read an article some months ago positing the idea that comparing ourselves to those countries is really just reinforcing all kinds of bias. Apparently the U.S. should really compare itself to other countries from South America for example because we have more in common with them than Scandinavia or Australia. It skews data to only look at developed countries apparently. If we get past our xenophobic stat jumble and compare the U.S. murder rate to Mexico and Venezuela and Argentina and Turkey, the U.S. doesn't look so bad. The author from the Mises Institute, Ryan McMaken, titles his article "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to 'Developed' Countries" to point out potential bias in the gun debate. I get that. As I read it, I could see his point, but I also felt like it was making excuses not to enact sensible gun restrictions. It felt like he was doing the gun lobby's job for them by assuaging our country's guilty conscience to remain inactive on the issue. I think he's wrong to dismiss gun-related deaths in favor of murder stats only. I think suicide, accidents, and mass shootings are all fair game in this debate, and they all need to be considered. When I think about how women and children are disproportionally impacted by gun violence, I think we need to start with a broad definition. If a man takes a gun, shoots his wife, children, and then himself, his act of suicide would remove this scenario from the data if we look just at murders. If a kid finds a loaded gun and shoots herself or a sibling, that's an accident, not murder and therefore not admitted to the data. While not relying on statistics is a good idea since so little data is available due to laws that prevent research into the topic, it seems reasonable to look at other arguments. However, not beginning with gun-related deaths does not cover the whole scope of the issue, and McMaken is just as guilty of statistic manipulation; he's just very upfront about it.
This kitteh vigorously opposes not including all gun-related deaths. He also uses Pantene.
Anyway, as I have mulled over the situation that confronted me at the pharmacy, I've also been sorting through Orlando, Sandy Hook, and so many accidental shootings that it gets overwhelming. I turned my attention to trying to understand the counter arguments. I teach my students that in order to formulate a sound position, you need to show you've considered the opposite view, so I dedicated some time to that. One of my favorite counter arguments that makes me knit my brow and offer some side eye is the good guy with a gun. Wow--it just speaks to America's hero worship that a bystander with a gun can go Die-Hard and save the masses. Until recently though, no good guy with a gun and been all that successful in the last 30 years of available information. Then something interesting happened. An acquaintance of mine on Facebook posted a news report from Augusta, Maine where two armed bystanders stopped a shooting in progress at a Walmart parking lot. Cue heroic fanfare. The report posted on June 27, 2016 under the heading "Augusta police: Legally armed bystanders break up Walmart shooting" by Meilin Topkins at News Center. Essentially, some individuals involved in heroin trafficking got into an argument and opened fire at each other. Two individuals who happened to be armed stepped in and somehow stopped further shooting by the suspects. My acquaintance who posted this report is faithful to his right to keep and bear arms. He asked the question when he posted as to why cops are dedicated to the notion that bystanders with guns should be "good witnesses" and not get involved since in this case, it seems good guys with guns were effective. While I was surprised that the situation resolved rather than escalated, I also couldn't find evidence that the armed bystanders actually drew weapons. Perhaps updates will reveal they did, but how exactly they stopped the situation seemed to be missing from the reports. Also, this was an argument between drug dealers, not a mass shooting or accident scenario. By interfering, the bystanders took an enormous risk that luckily paid off for them. I think about what could have gone wrong, which is likely why cops caution bystanders to be witnesses, not participants. You see, by inserting themselves, they could've drawn focus off the suspects and instead, directed the bullets at themselves; one was grazed by a bullet. They also could've opened fire toward other bystanders increasing the risk of injury and so called collateral damages. Additionally, think back to when Gabby Giffords was shot. A good guy with a gun who was there, Joe Zamudio, said that had he fired, he would've hit the wrong person.
Pretty big oops I'd say.
According to available information on shootings from Politico writer Matt Valentine in his piece "The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun", the average person is more likely to be hit by an ordinary citizen rather than a mass shooter. Therefore, the likelihood that someone not involved in the Walmart incident was at higher risk from the good guys, not the criminals. Unlike our Walmart situation, in 2014 more deaths from arguments involving shootings occurred than in shootings committed during felonies, drug trafficking, or gang violence combined. That's from America only statistics, not any comparisons to other countries developed or not. This tells me that the Maine Walmart incident is the exception and should not be used as evidence to encourage the good guy myth as it was drug trafficking. It tells me that the larger issue of deaths from guns comes from other situations where a so called good guy might not be around. It tells me that this incident needs to be considered as gun-related violence to fully address any kind of restrictive laws on gun ownership; ignoring it because it's not a murder helps no one. I also doubt the fellow at the pharmacy would've made a lick of difference in the same situation, but I may have been caught in crossfire had he drawn.
Knights in shining armor are the things of legend and don't belong in this discussion.
While the good guys in Maine had full knowledge of shots being fired in the parking lot, and they likely could pinpoint who the shooters were, good guys who carry are also more likely to misidentify an object someone else is holding as a gun. Think about reports where a police officer shot at a suspect because he/she thought the suspect had a gun, but it turns out to be a candy bar instead. Derek Beres in "Do 'Concealed Carry' Gun Laws Lead to More Violence" raises this point and extends the discussion by stating the FBI reported in 2014 that of 160 active shooter scenarios, 21 were stopped by unarmed bystanders. I feel I must consider what could have happened in those 21 situations had those unarmed people been armed instead. Just by carrying their weapons, they then potentially see anyone else reaching for anything as potential firearm threats. If police officers who we acknowledge as being good guys with ample training on the side of the law make mistakes, then holy crudmuffins and lollipops! All those positive unarmed outcomes in 2014 could've resulted in a far greater body count. Not only that, but authorizing and endorsing vigilantism makes for excellent Netflix binging but not for a trip to the pharmacy. Beres further asserts that digging in heels about guns is part of a manipulation not unlike believing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. There's not a shred of evidence to the claim, but a lot of people believe this idea, which in turn benefits the makers of cereal and other breakfast foods. Same goes for guns. If you believe the myth and feel safer from tyranny and bad guys because of your gun, the gun manufacturers profit.
That's just more money in their pocket while people die.
Which brings me to my next point about what that gun actually means to people like some of my close friends and family. David Ropeik in "The Gun Control Battle isn't About Guns As Weapons, It's About Guns as Symbols" makes the distinction between the groups of Individualists and Communitarians. From a psychological perspective, this article is compelling. Well, it offered names for the two groups I was trying to name in terms other than "ammosexual" and "liberal hypocrits". In this article those in favor of unrestricted gun rights would be Individualists who hold that personal control of choice and values is more important. For the other side, the Communitarians, shared control and sacrifice of some individual freedom for the greater, common good is important. I guess I fall more toward the latter. I do not feel safer, more secure, or in any way more courageous if I handle or see a gun. For Individualist though, they do. Personally, I think Linus' blanket would be more comforting and less deadly. Which leaves us with convenient labels, but no closer to a resolution. The article states that it becomes "...a fight over different views about the sort of society that we want to live in." I think that's true. We've willingly agreed that we will give up our second amendment right when we board airplanes. We will offer up our fourth amendment right to search and seizure safeguards when we pass through metal detectors at the courthouse. I don't want to live in a society where I have to grow desensitized to open carry guns just to go to the pharmacy. I don't think waiting to purchase a gun is unreasonable because let's be honest, if you need a gun right this minute, you're likely not going to do something law-abiding with it. If you need a maximum capacity magazine for your rifle in order to hunt, then you need some more practice because you suck. You'll also ruin some really good venison and a perfectly good hide if you blast the snot out of it.
Yes, Daffy. It is.
In the end, I do not live in the Wild West of old, and guns do not need to be an accessory for every day wear. I believe the Constitution to be a living document that is open to amendment when cause arises just like we've done before. For me, we have sufficient evidence that action needs to be taken. I have yet to hear a single argument from the Individualists that suggests to me that doing nothing is the best solution. Let's open up research and evaluate all the data. Let's close some of the loopholes to make it harder for potential and known criminals to obtain guns. Let's say that if you've got a gun that you didn't handle safely and it wound up in the hands of toddler who shot their playmate, then you get no more guns. Accident or no, you've proven to be an irresponsible gun owner. Let's do these things not because we want to be like other "developed" countries or because we blindly trust the government and police to always do the right thing, but because we can make it harder for the next mass shooter, because we can protect more women from spousal murder-suicides, because we can prevent more toddlers from dying due to self-inflicted gunshot wounds, and because of whatever other problem gets revealed when we evaluate the data. Not taking these steps makes me feel powerless and out of control. I won't exchange those potential solutions for what I see as a false sense of security gained from a owning a gun. This isn't an either/or argument. I have to believe we can come to a reasonable solution.
I know, Doctor. I'm frustrated, too. But we finally figured out marriage equality. This too can be solved.
No comments:
Post a Comment