Society

Another Day; Another Shooter

I just learned about a mass shooting at a school in Connecticut.

Coincidentally, two days ago, I was debating gun control on Facebook. The spark to that thread was another shooting at an Oregon mall that happened earlier in the week.

The thread was as you’d expect.  Those of us on the left think we’d be better off with increased gun control.  Those on the right side of the fence believe we have the right to own as many guns as we want and that increased gun ownership reduces the amount of murders by guns.

I can kind of follow the logic of more guns bringing down the incidents of murder by guns.  However, I can’t subscribe to it. The reason is simple: We are human.  We get passionate and we get emotional.  There is nothing wrong with that but it means that, at times, we are not thinking clearly or rationally about

The result is that we do things that we and others regret. Personal freedom doesn’t only mean that we have the freedom to do whatever we want.  It means that we can do what we want within constraints set bu laws, society, whatever.  One of those constraints, in the US and many countries is that our actions should not infringe on the rights of others.

But these kids and teachers were killed because, at a very fundamental level, the shooter was exercising his right to have weapons. Because of this right, we have arms available at the local Walmart.

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

True.  However, guns allow people to kill efficiently: quickly and en mass.  There was never a mass killing by sword, for example.  Even if someone were to attempt it, you could probably keep the guy at bay with some rocks or whatever projectile was handy. You can’t really do that against a gun.  You really need another gun to go up against that.

“If more people were armed, they could stop the shooter.”

I don’t know that, in a crowded school or mall, I want ten people shooting at one person. I mean, in a high stress situation like that, are they going to be able to correctly identify the bad guy if they all have guns?  Also, there is the risk that three out of the ten (my guess) can’t shoot straight and might hit an innocent person.

Realistically

Realistically, trying to ban guns would be like trying to ban drugs or alcohol.  But I am an optimist.  I think that we can shape policies and laws that effectively limit the availability of firearms.  In fact, I know we can do this.

However, there are many who don’t believe there should be any limit and, given our history, I don’t foresee any meaningful change in policy or laws in the near future. Part of the reason is that we have many interest groups who, rightly or wrongly, would be against additional limits.

The other part of the reason is that we have the second amendment to the Constitution.  We adhere to it and we defend that right which was written in 1791 when we lived in a largely agrarian society and most of us hunted for food.

Do What Makes Sense

We might want to consider using the Constitution’s ability to be amended to adjust that right for these times.

It is time we started looking at doing what makes sense and not blindly going down a path simply because it was laid out 200 years ago. The Founding Fathers were very intelligent men. They were intelligent enough to provide for amendments because they understood that they could not predict the future.  They understood that, however smart they were, future generations would be increasingly smarter.

Let’s exercise our greater intelligence to do something that makes sense.

Those people, especially the kids, did not have to die this week.

What do you think?

False Logic: Red vs. Blue Inequality

In today’s column, The Wrong Inequality – NYTimes.com, David Brooks says there are two types of inequality:

• Blue – which is the inequality that has been in the news lately and exemplified by the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. He says this is the inequality experienced in places like New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles…basically, major metropolitan areas. In this case, inequality refers to the difference between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.
• Red – which is the inequality experienced in small towns like Scranton and others like it.  In this case, the inequality experienced is “between those with a college degree and those without.”

In the Red case, Mr. Brooks further explains that the inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment.” This, he says, is the more important inequality and that it should be getting more attention than the Blue type.

To improve this type of inequality, he says, we should be focused on “the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.”  We should be trying to improve it.

Here is where this logic is false.  First, the reason that this Red inequality exists to such an extent is largely because of policies enacted to created this gap.  Policies that, in practice, say that government cannot solve any of the nation’s problems.  These policies also say that, if we leave the problems to the free market and private enterprise, charitable giving will take care of the social problems.

Mr. Brooks, in saying that we need to take care of this Red inequality, is saying that we need more social stability and opportunity.  However, as a conservative, he is probably also thinking that charities and the private sector should be the ones to do something about it.

Second, Mr. Brooks does not make a causal connection between the Blue and the Red inequalities when, in fact, there is a glaring relationship.  The Blue-type inequality is a direct (but not sole) contributor to the Red. Today, we live in an age where the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people and that spending money is a form of free speech.

It follows that the more you are able to spend, the louder your voice.  Very few of us (none in the bottom 99%) have the wealth or disposable income of a corporation.  If your are running for state or federal office today, you have no chance of succeeding without the monetary support of corporations.  In fact, the corporation is the citizen group you most depend on.

In a way, I agree with Mr. Brooks column.  The Red inequality is a major problem and one that must be addressed.  But it cannot be successfully addressed without doing something about the Blue inequality first.  To be clever, one might say the underlying issue is green.