A few years ago, I was out camping
with some friends. One evening, we were sitting around a campfire,
sharing a little single malt and telling stories and cracking jokes.
Conversation drifted from songs to movies to what the hell is going
on in the world? Amidst this banter, one of the campers made a point
that has intrigued me to this day.
He noted that resource depletion leads
to wars and to oppressive governments. And with many resources in our
world dwindling, major political upheavals and social disintegration
are like to become the norm. Such resources include clean water and
air, arable land, rare minerals used in manufacturing, fossil fuels
and building materials. “I would add one other resource to that
list,” he said. “Civic sanity.”
I asked him what he meant by civic
sanity and he explained that it meant the expectation that people
around you will act rationally—or at least not in a manner that
will heedlessly endanger others. “When you are diving a car, you
expect all other drivers to stay on their side of the road and not
run into you. When you walk down the street in a city, you expect
people will not come up behind you and whack you over the head with a
baseball bat. Things like that. Now once in awhile, people do drive
their cars into others, or assault strangers on the street. But
currently, in most parts of the United States, this is an aberration.
What happens, however, if it becomes the norm? What happens if you
can't walk out your door to go to work without fearing a sniper is
going to shoot you?”
Like other resources, he suggested,
the depletion of civic sanity has a tipping point. After this week's
gun massacres, I am wondering, are we approaching that tipping point?
Have we gone over it?
The prevalent meme in America is that
we value freedom more than security. Individual liberty, not the
nanny state. Rather than ban certain types of weapons to keep us
safe, just let us all strap on a gun and be able to shoot it out with
the bad guy. Is that really how we think? Like most issues in our
culture, we are a divided nation. I haven't seen any polls, but I'd
venture that most Americans are smart enough to know that firing more
guns in a crowded public place is going to result in more casualties,
not less.
There are at least 300 million
privately owned firearms in the United States—more than one for
every adult—but a majority of American adults do not own even one.
So most of us think it's unnecessary to own a gun. Many of us
understand that households with guns are more likely to suffer
gunshot wounds and deaths than households without guns.
Can we ban the kind of guns used in
the slaughter of innocent children or people shopping at a mall at
Christmas time? Gun advocates say banning these guns won't work
because criminals won't respect the laws and will find illegal means
of obtaining them. They cite our nation's experiment with Prohibition
of alcohol in the early part of the 20th century. While I
certainly wouldn't want to return to the days of speakeasies and
bootleggers, the notion that Prohibition failed is debatable. During
the 1920s, alcohol consumption declined significantly—initially to
30 percent of the level prior to the Volstead Act, rising to about 60
percent later on. And once Prohibition was repealed, most states
instituted strict regulations on it sales and consumption.
Yes, illegal alcohol fueled the rise
of organized crime syndicates. It should be noted that these crime
syndicates existed well before Prohibition and were the outgrowth of
the oppression of late 19th century immigrant minorities,
mainly Italians, Irish and Jews. This was at the height of the last
Gilded Age and since the Robber Baron rich were plundering everything
in sight, they set an example for the lower classes. And, of
course,the same thing is happening now, only the drugs are different.
But perhaps gun control is not the
only answer to random slaughter. Given the power of the NRA, it may
not be possible. Let's assume that the Second Amendment continues to
be interpreted as an inviolable right to own whatever firearms any
citizen desires. We keep that freedom. But to do so and yet make us
safer in public, we will have to give up other freedoms. We already
have.
Many people may not know that there
was once a time when anyone could walk into a government building
without going through a metal detector. Nowadays, almost all state
and federal office buildings—or at least those who have offices for
elected officials or other important people--are protected by some
kind of security moat. The same applies to other institutions. I
started working for The Oregonian in the sports department when I was
in high school. At that time, anyone could walk into its building on
Southwest Broadway and Jefferson, at any time of day or night. A
little later, I worked for a couple of small town daily newspapers
that had the same kind of open access. There were times I'd be
writing a story and somebody off the street would interrupt me.
Usually, the kind of person who bypassed the receptionist and strode
straight for my desk was a crank, an annoying and garrulous fellow
who would elaborately lay out a conspiracy theory and insist that I
write it up. We also would get visited by gladhanding politicians,
promoters with free tickets and homeowners angry at their neighbors.
But once in awhile, a really good story would walk in the door, a
story we might not have gotten if we didn't let the public have open
access to our office.
In the late 1970s, I took a break from
newspapering and worked a few years for a Congressman in his district
office. There were no security checks there, either, and constituents
would stream into our offices with tales of woe. These days, not only
are your elected representatives hunkered down in their bunkers, but
so are their staffs. A few years ago, Portland spent a big chunk of
money building an underground parking garage below our courthouse,
just so judges could go straight from their cars to their chambers
without having to risk being on a street for even a second.
Is it any wonder Americans feel more
alienated from their government now? Do we trust any of these big
institutions, public or private, that make it virtually impossible to
talk to someone in charge, either in person or on the phone? Most
Americans have figured out that there is a small elite group of
movers and shakers who never have to come in contact with the rest of
us, never have to deal with the kind of annoyances and horrors that
the rest of us endure every day. Very few, if any, politicians or
corporate executives have been strip searched before boarding a
plane. It's not necessary when you have your own airplane.
The rest of us shrug, adapt and carry
on. It's surprising that there is not more resentment of the elites.
Americans idolize success, thus if the privileged flaunt their
privileges, it must be because they are better than us, and they must
be protected at all costs because they are smarter, stronger, better
looking, harder working and above all, irreplaceable. Never mind that
most of them got to the top either through inheritance, or by being
willing to do things that make the rest of us squeamish.
I keep thinking that one day, instead
of mowing down shoppers, movie goers, school children or ex-wives,
someone is going to open fire on the banksters at Goldman Sachs or
the hate mongers on talk radio, or even the Supreme Court. In the
minds of liberals, the world would be a better place without these
people. But liberals believe in the sanctity of human life after
birth and are not going to shoot anyone. Liberals still cling to the
notion that democracy can work, even when all the cards are stacked
against them. Liberals don't become suicide bombers. They'd rather
talk than fight. Sometimes, liberals are too sane for their own good.
So back to freedom and sanity. Aside
from banning certain types of guns, the most common plea since the
Newtown massacre has been to increase access to mental health care.
Mental health is the neglected stepchild of our health care system.
It's true that no sane person would saunter into a public space,
shoot as many people as possible and then commit suicide. However, it
is also true that most of the shooters, including the last two, had
not been diagnosed as being mentally ill, even though it's obvious
that almost all of them suffered from clinical depression. People
who are depressed normally don't seek out help, at least not
explicitly. Many end up ending it all without taking the lives of
other people.
It's possible to profile mass killers.
Virtually all of them are male, predominantly between ages 15 and 30.
They are likely to be depressed and suicidal. In addition, they may
feel they have been grossly victimized by someone or something else,
be it a school, employer or their fellow students/employees. Finally,
they think that going out in a blaze of infamy will gain them
posthumous respect and fame. Eric Harris, one of the Columbine
killers, had speculated that Quentin Tarrantino would make a movie
about him and fellow shooter Dylan Klebold. I'm sure, after in-depth
studies have been done of all 62 mass shootings since 1982, that an
even more sophisticated profile can be constructed.
But then what? Do we round up every
male between 15 and 30 and make them take a comprehensive psychiatric
exam? What do we do with the ones who test out as likely candidates
to become mass killers? Sequester them and administer drugs? Attempt
to reprogram them? Doesn't this remind you a little of what the
Soviets did to dissidents in the bleak era of Breznev?
Certainly, counseling would help,
especially in middle school and high school, where budget cuts have
eliminated a lot of counseling positions.
On the other hand, given how so many
crucial issues are captive to capitalism, more mental health services
could make matters worse. Pharmaceutical companies drive the mental
health field. Overbooked and underpaid counselors often have little
time for talk. Unless you are able to pay top dollar, you don't get
to lie on a couch for an hour and talk to a shrink. No, you get ten
minutes and a prescription. If you are depressed, you get a
prescription for Prozac or Zoloft. Unfortunately, anti-depressants
backfire with a lot of people, making them even more depressed. Not
to mention confused, angry and suicidal. One report I read after the
Newtown massacre indicated that several shooters, though evidently
not Adam Lanza, had been on anti-depressants.
Neither depression nor any other form
of mental illness is unique to the United States. On the same day as
the Newtown tragedy, a deranged man in China stabbed 23 school
children with a knife. Americans are 12 times more likely to be
murdered by a gun than people in other Western countries, but we do
not have 12 times more psychologically disturbed people. In fact,
rates of depression, bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia in the U.S.
are about the same as those in other developed countries. Children
and teens play violent video games at the same rate in other
countries, too—the Japanese are the world's video game champs.
Hardly anyone in Japan, however, dies from a gunshot wound.
In reading the reactions to
Newtown—and I've read hundreds of articles in the past week—I'm
reminded of the adage, “If you only have a hammer, ever problem
becomes a nail.” Everyone reacts according to their own experience
and biases. Ardent gun advocates argue that more people should be
toting guns to deter the criminals and crazy shooters. Mental health
professionals, who believe their field is underfunded, want more
counseling and intervention. The religious right wants to bring God
back into schools, whatever that means. The radical left links gun
violence to the oppressive economic inequality in the U.S., as well
as rampant capitalism, thus the solution requires a complete
reordering of American society. Second Amendment purists believe
these shootings are the price we must pay to keep our country free
from tyrants, as if a motley militia armed with semiautomatic weapons
would last for very long against a force that has missiles and
drones.
If you never want to read another
headline about a shooting massacre in America, the facts make it
clear what to do: pass legislation that strictly regulates gun
ownership and prohibits certain kinds of weapons entirely. A true ban
on assault weapons (not the wimpy version that was in force from 1994
to 2004) will greatly reduce mass shootings. So will a ban on large
capacity clips. It won't do much to reduce the number of common, more
personal gun homicides (about 10,000 per year) or gun suicides
(nearly 20,000 per year). Women in particular still will be
vulnerable to being shot by ex-husbands, ex-boyfriends or deluded
stalkers. Children will also continue be be gunned down gang
conflicts or family melt downs (about 2,800 children die from gunshot
wounds every year).
To further reduce gun violence, we'll
have to adopt measures similar to those in other countries. Set up a
licensing procedure that includes both training in gun use and safety
and a test. Require that if you want to purchase a gun, two of your
friends or family members must vouch for you. Restrict people from
buying more than one gun a year. Upgrade the background check
database and make it universally accessible. Require that guns be
stored in safes or have trigger locks, perhaps even fingerprint locks
that would prevent anyone else from firing the owner's guns.
If you look at all of the statistical
data on guns and gun violence from all of the countries in the
developed world, you are forced to the conclusion that fewer guns
equals more safety. Of course the NRA and other pro-gun folks will
obscure those facts or cherry pick ones to their advantage. They'll
point out that in Norway, which has very strict gun control, a madman
killed 77 people in one shooting spree. They won't, however, note
that Norway averages about 10 gun homicides a year.
If you were proposing legislation to
promote cleaner air or fuel economy, you wouldn't necessarily let the
American Petroleum Institute write the bill. If you sought to
increase the FDA's oversight of new drugs, you probably would not
leave the details up to the Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers of America. If you were developing a universal
health care bill that would also reduce the costs of health care, you
wouldn't let insurance companies...well, actually you did and instead
of single payer insurance, we ended up with the Rube Goldberg
mechanism of Obamacare.
The
National Rifle Association tries to pass itself off as a grass roots
citizen's organization. In reality, it is a trade organization
representing gun manufacturers and dealers. It's overarching goal is
not the protection of the Second Amendment, but to expand the market
for firearms. A large majority of the NRA's members supports
regulations such as criminal background checks for purchases at gun
shows, mandating the owners immediately notify the police when their
guns are stolen, prohibiting anyone under 21 to have a concealed
carry permit and requiring gun safety training for such permits. The
NRA leadership opposes all of these rather mild measures. The members
pay dues, but the manufacturers call the shots.
And
the shots they call result in bullet-riddled little children.
A
week after the Newtown tragedy, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre finally
addressed the nation and offered the NRA's solution to school
shootings: armed security guards in every school. Ingeniously, the
NRA turned the clamor for gun regulation into an opportunity to sell
more guns. Unfortunately, LaPierre did not take questions and
thus never explained how financially strapped school districts
throughout the land would pay for armed guards. Perhaps a hefty tax
on every gun sold? I wouldn't bet on it.
The
NRA would have us all packing a firearm, because, in LaPierre's
words, “only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.”
But then, what about stopping a perceived bad guy who doesn't have a
gun? It hasn't been that long since Trayvon Martin was gunned down
under the rationale of Florida's “stand your ground” law. What
if the person you think is a bad guy isn't threatening you at all,
but you think this person is evil? Say you oppose abortion and thus
take aim at doctors who perform abortions? Or you think clear cutting
is killing the earth and fire shots at loggers? And then they start
firing back. Eventually, your home town resembles Baghdad in 2004.
Suddenly,
you are in the middle of a Mad Max movie. Civic sanity has
evaporated.
And when you trace it back, if you survive to do so, you discover it's
not because we have all gone mad or turned into zombies by video
games. No, it occurs because of unfettered, insatiable capitalistic
gun manufacturers whose only goal is increasing sales and profits.
The gun dealers don't care, or maybe they believe their own lies.
They are no different than the oil company executives who deny the
existence of climate change.
We're
not going to become a rerun of Mad Max, not unless we face real
physical resource depletion—not enough food, not enough water, not
enough energy. That all could happen, of course. And if it does, it
will affect our mental health and our culture drastically. But as for
now, American is not overrun by crazy people. The vast majority of us
still are repelled by the thought of taking another person's life.
It's just that we are, as usual, complacent until it gets personal,
until something bad happens to us.
For
better or worse, maybe it;s gotten personal to enough of us to make a
difference.
Further
reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?_r=0
