I don't stop for people stranded on the road. I mean, I have at times when I've prayed immediately before and it feels right in my gut. But that's rare. Usually I don't even pray about my decision, I just keep on driving. It's not because I'm an unkind person. And it's not because I can't relate to their situation. I was once stranded on the side of a busy road close to a steep (though not very long, thankfully) cliff. My lights didn't work because the problem with the car was that the threads in my battery had been shredded so when I hit a bump, the entire battery stopped. I barely had enough time to get the car off the road and onto the precarious shoulder where I sat, waiting first for a friend to come and sit behind me with her flashers on and then for the tow truck, who first had to pull another car from the river that sat below me.
So I sympathize with people who are stranded. But I still don't pull over for them. I will, however, call the police or the Highway Patrol to tell them a car is stranded and they should go help.
I also don't accept candy or rides from strangers. Admittedly, when I was 6 years old, it was my brother who stopped me from going too close to a car of strangers who offered candy in exchange for directions. (Because when you're legitimately lost, the people you're most likely to ask for directions are an eight year old and three six year olds...) After that, I very diligently stayed away from strangers in cars with candy. When offered it, I was to call my parents and the police. (It's admittedly been a long time since that's happened).
As a child, I was not to let anyone - not even teachers, ministers, or doctors - touch my no-no places without my mother knowing. If they had ever told me not to tell, that's when I was supposed to scream the loudest. This is admittedly not the rule anymore in my 30s, but if I'm at a bar and put my drink down and walk away - even for just a few seconds - I never pick it up again. Hell, I've been known to be a complete pain to sweet-talking guys because if you seem too smooth, I'm also going to distrust you. And I always lock my doors.
Why? Because as an American, we're taught not to trust strangers. Too many people were killed when they were nicely helping strangers stranded on the road; too many children kidnapped with the promise of candy; and too many girls raped with roofies. Our news brings us regular stories of too-trusting individuals who are betrayed. Hollywood turns these stories into made-for-TV grist (or Pretty in Pink if we're talking about too-smooth guys).
We are a society that recognizes that you both earn trust and you give trust responsibly. Our children know "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me." (Or as President G.W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you? If you fool me, you can't fool me again.")
So why is it that I'm supposed to blindly trust every American out there with a a semi-automatic weapon? Why is it that I'm supposed to just trust you to not kill my friends' children or my nephews and niece with weapons that have fewer licensing regulations than any of the 6 cars my immediate family owns?
That's ultimately what my gun-friendly friends on facebook keep telling me: we don't need fewer guns, we need more of them; we should arm our teachers and our principals so these people we already don't pay enough for the jobs they do have can also be the people who we now trust to responsibly keep a semi-automatic weapon within 5 feet of our curious and industrious children and teenagers.
I'm supposed to just trust every guy who doesn't have a felony conviction, or a drug conviction in the last year, with a semi-automatic weapon. I have to hope they bought their weapon from a federally licensed dealer who did the mandatory background check and 3 day waiting period.
That's the reality of our gun regulations. I keep hearing about how tough US gun laws are and how they don't keep guns off the streets - just out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Of the (at least) 62 gun-related mass murders since 1982 - mass murders being defined as 4 or more people killed in one incident - 49 of those used guns that were legally purchased. 3/4 of the 142 guns these killers had were legally obtained.
And if it feels like these shootings are occurring more frequently, that's because they does. Of those 62 mass shootings, 7 have happened this year alone. One a month from April through December except for June, October and November, 11 since 2010, and 25 since 2006. This is by far the deadliest year with 7 shootings and 156 injured or killed. 1999 had five shootings, with 91 injured or killed, and then 2009, 2007 and 1993 had four shootings each (73, 86, and 57 injured or killed, respectively).
Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe that all of this indicates we should have more people carrying weapons in more places. If more guns and looser regulations about where you can carry them are supposed to ensure greater safety, this should've been our safest year yet. In the past decade, the number of states with concealed carry laws went from 29 to 49. Only Illinois is not a concealed carry state, and their law was just struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appellate court.
Even in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, my home state's asshole Governor wants to make it easier for people to take weapons into areas where our state employees work, They have to trust every person who comes in with such a weapon to be a good guy. His justification? It's not an issue of access to guns; it's a complicated issue of culture and mental health. His proof? Apparently it's his gut instinct because he offers nothing else.
Assuming the Governor's gut instinct about the problem is correct, then let's fix those things first and then we can talk about loosening regulations. Don't regulate our society based on your gut instincts while doing nothing to fix any of the issues your gut tells you are the problems.
The fact that 2012 - with all its lax gun laws - wasn't safer shouldn't surprise those who research in this area. Those who more than their gut instinct to determine facts and truthiness say that access to guns is the problem.
Peer reviewed studies that control for poverty levels indicate more gun ownership results in a higher level of homicides or suicides. This is true across federal states and across countries. And no, Israel and Switzerland are not exceptions to the rule.
Yet, gun enthusiasts keep telling me I should trust them with these weapons. I should trust them and their gut belief that they would've been able to effectively use their weapon to stop the bad guys. I'm supposed to trust them and their understanding of the situation rather than the statistical data that tell us a serious, long-term solution to this issue exists. It involves controlling what types of guns can be sold, to whom, and under what conditions.
I was told not to use the words "gun control" because they evoke emotional responses. I was told we already have gun control - with "tons" of regulations on gun ownership. So let me explain our "gun regulations" that we have tons of. Since I'm not an expert, I'm relying on these guys who are (again, academic research, not just some guy on the internet who says he's an expert because he likes shooting things).
According to them, many people who have been convicted of crimes that are still allowed to possess firearms under current laws. "Data from two studies of individuals who have committed the most serious crimes indicate that prior to committing these crimes, the perpetrators were not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law."
The prohibition on drug abusers owning weapons is limited only to persons with "a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years, if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or … [is] found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year." So you just need to wait a year after every drug conviction and you can get a gun. And then hope you don't get arrested again for a year because it apparently doesn't matter how many times you actually get convicted for drug abuse, as long as you're not arrested in the past year you're totally fine to own a gun.
Oh, and that prohibition on drug abusers having access to semi-automatic assault rifles? It only affects people addicted to illegal drugs. Alcoholics - no matter how abusive or dangerous - are not prohibited from owning firearms. So if you like shooting shit up, alcohol should be your drug of choice. Go ahead - have 20 drunk driving convictions. That's totally fine! Go ahead, get in a few barroom brawls. It's with a legal drug! We're happy to give you a gun.
That 3-day waiting period all my gun-enthusiast friends hate? You don't need if it you buy your gun from a guy on the street. Private sales aren't required to have a 3-day waiting period. They aren't required to register the sale. And there's no need for that pesky little background check thing that would tell the seller that you're actually a convicted felon from another state who has killed 8 people. If someone privately sells a weapon to someone with a felony record who then goes out and commits more felonies, the first person is immune from suit. 40% of firearms sales occur from private sales. So 40% of our purchasers never undergo a background check.
If you are a licensed dealer and you have shady practices? The ATF can't access data relating to gun trace evidence and use that in their licensing procedures. So go ahead - screw that 3 day waiting period! You'll probably still get your next licensing.
That's the state of our gun control. That's what I'm supposed to trust to weed out the bad guys who would harm our children. That's the policy that protects my nephews and nieces from the next Adam Lanza walking into their school.
As for those for whom 'gun control' elicits an emotional response that makes you automatically defensive, let me say this clearly: if you are more emotionally attached to your gun than you are to those 26 people in Connecticut, then you really shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon. Any weapon including scissors or really sharp nail files. Those 26 people were real, living beings with dreams that were snatch and families that will mourn. Your gun is a piece of scrap metal that was nicely crafted. It has no emotions, no dreams, and it really doesn't given a damn about you. If you can't see that difference, you really don't deserve sharp objects.
That brings me to my final point. Under current regulations and the stated idea of the 2nd Amendment that so many people have, I'm supposed to trust people not because they have proven themselves, but because they happened to be born on American soil. I'm supposed to trust people with unencumbered access to semi-automatic weapons because they were lucky their grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated to the US.
The map in our living room tells me that in the past 3 months, people from over 16 countries have come to my home. Some of those stickers represent friends I would trust with a semi-automatic assault weapon; some I wouldn't. Most I would trust a lot more with a semi-automatic assault weapon more than I trust most of the Americans I know with such a weapon. Why? Because as human rights activists, they have shown a great deal of respect for human dignity and for the sanctity of life. Many Americans don't. That's not because they're Americans; it's because they're humans.
We don't trust people simply because they have the same passport as we do. If we did, I'd get into cars with strangers who have candy upon proof of a birth certificate. I'd leave my drink unattended in any bar in Euclid, Ohio (because I've never met a foreigner there who wasn't traveling with me). I'd leave my doors unlocked and stop for every stranded car on I-71. And my parents would've been perfectly happy leaving me unattended with doctors and teachers who wanted to touch my no-no areas.
We don't do that because simply being American doesn't mean you're trustworthy with the things most precious to us: our bodies, our children, and our lives. That shouldn't change simply because you like shooting things.
So I sympathize with people who are stranded. But I still don't pull over for them. I will, however, call the police or the Highway Patrol to tell them a car is stranded and they should go help.
I also don't accept candy or rides from strangers. Admittedly, when I was 6 years old, it was my brother who stopped me from going too close to a car of strangers who offered candy in exchange for directions. (Because when you're legitimately lost, the people you're most likely to ask for directions are an eight year old and three six year olds...) After that, I very diligently stayed away from strangers in cars with candy. When offered it, I was to call my parents and the police. (It's admittedly been a long time since that's happened).
As a child, I was not to let anyone - not even teachers, ministers, or doctors - touch my no-no places without my mother knowing. If they had ever told me not to tell, that's when I was supposed to scream the loudest. This is admittedly not the rule anymore in my 30s, but if I'm at a bar and put my drink down and walk away - even for just a few seconds - I never pick it up again. Hell, I've been known to be a complete pain to sweet-talking guys because if you seem too smooth, I'm also going to distrust you. And I always lock my doors.
Why? Because as an American, we're taught not to trust strangers. Too many people were killed when they were nicely helping strangers stranded on the road; too many children kidnapped with the promise of candy; and too many girls raped with roofies. Our news brings us regular stories of too-trusting individuals who are betrayed. Hollywood turns these stories into made-for-TV grist (or Pretty in Pink if we're talking about too-smooth guys).
We are a society that recognizes that you both earn trust and you give trust responsibly. Our children know "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me." (Or as President G.W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you? If you fool me, you can't fool me again.")
So why is it that I'm supposed to blindly trust every American out there with a a semi-automatic weapon? Why is it that I'm supposed to just trust you to not kill my friends' children or my nephews and niece with weapons that have fewer licensing regulations than any of the 6 cars my immediate family owns?
That's ultimately what my gun-friendly friends on facebook keep telling me: we don't need fewer guns, we need more of them; we should arm our teachers and our principals so these people we already don't pay enough for the jobs they do have can also be the people who we now trust to responsibly keep a semi-automatic weapon within 5 feet of our curious and industrious children and teenagers.
I'm supposed to just trust every guy who doesn't have a felony conviction, or a drug conviction in the last year, with a semi-automatic weapon. I have to hope they bought their weapon from a federally licensed dealer who did the mandatory background check and 3 day waiting period.
That's the reality of our gun regulations. I keep hearing about how tough US gun laws are and how they don't keep guns off the streets - just out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Of the (at least) 62 gun-related mass murders since 1982 - mass murders being defined as 4 or more people killed in one incident - 49 of those used guns that were legally purchased. 3/4 of the 142 guns these killers had were legally obtained.
And if it feels like these shootings are occurring more frequently, that's because they does. Of those 62 mass shootings, 7 have happened this year alone. One a month from April through December except for June, October and November, 11 since 2010, and 25 since 2006. This is by far the deadliest year with 7 shootings and 156 injured or killed. 1999 had five shootings, with 91 injured or killed, and then 2009, 2007 and 1993 had four shootings each (73, 86, and 57 injured or killed, respectively).
Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe that all of this indicates we should have more people carrying weapons in more places. If more guns and looser regulations about where you can carry them are supposed to ensure greater safety, this should've been our safest year yet. In the past decade, the number of states with concealed carry laws went from 29 to 49. Only Illinois is not a concealed carry state, and their law was just struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appellate court.
Even in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, my home state's asshole Governor wants to make it easier for people to take weapons into areas where our state employees work, They have to trust every person who comes in with such a weapon to be a good guy. His justification? It's not an issue of access to guns; it's a complicated issue of culture and mental health. His proof? Apparently it's his gut instinct because he offers nothing else.
Assuming the Governor's gut instinct about the problem is correct, then let's fix those things first and then we can talk about loosening regulations. Don't regulate our society based on your gut instincts while doing nothing to fix any of the issues your gut tells you are the problems.
The fact that 2012 - with all its lax gun laws - wasn't safer shouldn't surprise those who research in this area. Those who more than their gut instinct to determine facts and truthiness say that access to guns is the problem.
Peer reviewed studies that control for poverty levels indicate more gun ownership results in a higher level of homicides or suicides. This is true across federal states and across countries. And no, Israel and Switzerland are not exceptions to the rule.
Yet, gun enthusiasts keep telling me I should trust them with these weapons. I should trust them and their gut belief that they would've been able to effectively use their weapon to stop the bad guys. I'm supposed to trust them and their understanding of the situation rather than the statistical data that tell us a serious, long-term solution to this issue exists. It involves controlling what types of guns can be sold, to whom, and under what conditions.
I was told not to use the words "gun control" because they evoke emotional responses. I was told we already have gun control - with "tons" of regulations on gun ownership. So let me explain our "gun regulations" that we have tons of. Since I'm not an expert, I'm relying on these guys who are (again, academic research, not just some guy on the internet who says he's an expert because he likes shooting things).
According to them, many people who have been convicted of crimes that are still allowed to possess firearms under current laws. "Data from two studies of individuals who have committed the most serious crimes indicate that prior to committing these crimes, the perpetrators were not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law."
The prohibition on drug abusers owning weapons is limited only to persons with "a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years, if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or … [is] found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year." So you just need to wait a year after every drug conviction and you can get a gun. And then hope you don't get arrested again for a year because it apparently doesn't matter how many times you actually get convicted for drug abuse, as long as you're not arrested in the past year you're totally fine to own a gun.
Oh, and that prohibition on drug abusers having access to semi-automatic assault rifles? It only affects people addicted to illegal drugs. Alcoholics - no matter how abusive or dangerous - are not prohibited from owning firearms. So if you like shooting shit up, alcohol should be your drug of choice. Go ahead - have 20 drunk driving convictions. That's totally fine! Go ahead, get in a few barroom brawls. It's with a legal drug! We're happy to give you a gun.
That 3-day waiting period all my gun-enthusiast friends hate? You don't need if it you buy your gun from a guy on the street. Private sales aren't required to have a 3-day waiting period. They aren't required to register the sale. And there's no need for that pesky little background check thing that would tell the seller that you're actually a convicted felon from another state who has killed 8 people. If someone privately sells a weapon to someone with a felony record who then goes out and commits more felonies, the first person is immune from suit. 40% of firearms sales occur from private sales. So 40% of our purchasers never undergo a background check.
If you are a licensed dealer and you have shady practices? The ATF can't access data relating to gun trace evidence and use that in their licensing procedures. So go ahead - screw that 3 day waiting period! You'll probably still get your next licensing.
That's the state of our gun control. That's what I'm supposed to trust to weed out the bad guys who would harm our children. That's the policy that protects my nephews and nieces from the next Adam Lanza walking into their school.
As for those for whom 'gun control' elicits an emotional response that makes you automatically defensive, let me say this clearly: if you are more emotionally attached to your gun than you are to those 26 people in Connecticut, then you really shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon. Any weapon including scissors or really sharp nail files. Those 26 people were real, living beings with dreams that were snatch and families that will mourn. Your gun is a piece of scrap metal that was nicely crafted. It has no emotions, no dreams, and it really doesn't given a damn about you. If you can't see that difference, you really don't deserve sharp objects.
That brings me to my final point. Under current regulations and the stated idea of the 2nd Amendment that so many people have, I'm supposed to trust people not because they have proven themselves, but because they happened to be born on American soil. I'm supposed to trust people with unencumbered access to semi-automatic weapons because they were lucky their grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated to the US.
The map in our living room tells me that in the past 3 months, people from over 16 countries have come to my home. Some of those stickers represent friends I would trust with a semi-automatic assault weapon; some I wouldn't. Most I would trust a lot more with a semi-automatic assault weapon more than I trust most of the Americans I know with such a weapon. Why? Because as human rights activists, they have shown a great deal of respect for human dignity and for the sanctity of life. Many Americans don't. That's not because they're Americans; it's because they're humans.
We don't trust people simply because they have the same passport as we do. If we did, I'd get into cars with strangers who have candy upon proof of a birth certificate. I'd leave my drink unattended in any bar in Euclid, Ohio (because I've never met a foreigner there who wasn't traveling with me). I'd leave my doors unlocked and stop for every stranded car on I-71. And my parents would've been perfectly happy leaving me unattended with doctors and teachers who wanted to touch my no-no areas.
We don't do that because simply being American doesn't mean you're trustworthy with the things most precious to us: our bodies, our children, and our lives. That shouldn't change simply because you like shooting things.
 |
| http://on.wsj.com/Zd3fqb |
