In search of the tipping point

Dutch cartoonist Arend Van Dam presents the gun controversy with a touch of "O wad some power the giftie gie us."

I realize there is a popular definition of patriotism that involves not caring what anybody thinks of us, but self-confidence and arrogance are really two different things, and, while the former is a very healthy thing, the latter is one of ugliest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

And it does matter what others think. Years ago, standup comedian John Wing described Canadians as "unarmed Americans with health coverage," and noted that nobody's mad at Canada.

"You never hear a Shiite in the Middle East saying 'Canada! Canada is Satan!' because we're not. We're Satan's little neighbor."

Though I guess he said "neighbour."

Which sums up both our international image and the curious fact that a gun in this country will cost you less than a colonoscopy, even if you have half-decent health insurance. 

What's more concerning than what people in other countries think of us is what we think of ourselves. You hear people say we have the best health care system in the world.

Sure. It's in mint condition, like Cameron's dad's car in "Ferris Beuller." Low mileage, permanently garaged, we're not allowed to touch it.

American: The 1961 Ferrari 250GT California. Less than a hundred were made. My father spent three years restoring this car. It is his love, it is his passion. 

Anybody In Any Other Developed Country In The Entire Freaking World: It is his fault he didn't lock the garage. 

To which a superpatriot would respond, "They get good health care because we developed it and so we must pay the necessary cost of all that R&D."

Which is to say, we're smart enough to develop all this great technology and pharmacology, but too stupid to set an appropriate price for it and so are forced to cover our own losses.

Not an explanation that boosts our national image.

Meanwhile, on the "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" front, we're told that safety and freedom require armed guards in every elementary school, because the alternative would be taking the same sensible precautions taken in countries where they don't need to post armed guards in every elementary school.

And we accept this explanation, because we've been assured that we're the best.

"Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able …" 

We've now moved beyond any semblence of rational argument, to the point where the NRA honestly compares the security issues around the First Family to those of an average person and pronounces the Obamas to be elitist for accepting Secret Service protection.

To the point where any restrictions become "gun-grabbing" and, in fact, the NRA began refuting the recommendations of Obama's panel before they had even been announced.

(Disclosure: I don't agree with every recommendation. But I came to that conclusion after their release, not before.)

You have to wonder, at what point do people step up and recognize that they are being manipulated, that when a madman in China attacks children with a knife and a madman in America attacks children with a gun on the same day, the moral of the story is not that people without guns will use knives.

The moral of the story is that every one of those children in China is alive today.

Every one of them.

When is enough enough?

At what point does Van Dam's cartoon become prophecy? 

And will responsible gun owners stand up and become part of the solution, instead of remaining silent and being part of the problem? As in any popular movement, as in any transformative moment, he who is not with me is against me, and silence implies allegiance to the status quo.

Little darling, it's been a long, cold, lonely winter. And it's getting lonelier out here on the limb.

Comments

[Lost in A**2]

Mr. Peterson (blast; I just realised that I don't remember the final vowel of your name, Sir :( ), by the definitions you offered earlier this week, I'm an idealogue: I see nothing wrong with private citizens owning crew-served weapons, up to and including the latest and greatest stealth bomber and fighter aircraft. I see *practical* reasons to choose not to own such weaponry, but the law should not be an impediment. (John Travolta owns and flies a 747. He can afford the maintenance; few other than Mr. Buffett or Mr. Gates can afford the infrastructure of a modern war plane.)

I've never owned a firearm, nor am I likely to: I don't have a personal need for one.

Still, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Well-regulated" and "militia" don't mean to us what they meant to the authors. From what I've heard and read, they meant something more like what the Swiss are reported to have than our National Guard. Gun-control legislation and regulation is the wrong way to go. No mater how helpful it would be. We have to find another solution to the problem.

I disagree with your assertion that "If they don't have guns, they'll use knives" is not the lesson of the Chinese incidents. A great many mass-killings have been accomplished with edged weapons over the past decade or so. As with those killings, our problem is social.

The first thing to do is eliminate the "insanity" defense. OF COURSE the killers are insane. They couldn't have done what they did and be sane. Still, we need to protect ourselves from them. (Which is my primary argument for the death penalty, BTW.)

The second part of the problem is far harder and is alluded to above: identifying and HELPING people before they reach that final step.

Personally, I think we missed a bet by not outlawing health and medical insurance as part of the Affordable Care Act: If each of us paid for our own care, the doctors and hospitals and pharmacies would have to adjust their prices appropriately. Or go out of business. (NB: I've not had medical insurance for many years; I've seen my doctors adjust my treatments to what I can afford. I've seen the pharmaceutical companies provide support for the medicines I need. It *CAN* be done!)

On NPR yesterday, I heard an interview with a representative of a fire-arms industry association. The interviewer asked a question along of the lines of "But your business is making and selling guns. don't you have a business interest in the status quo?" My response to the radio was, "Well, no s*** Sherlock! The business of business is BUSINESS!" Firearms, insurance, food, cab driving: all of us are in it for the money. If there we no money in them, we would do something else to feed ourselves and take care of our families. So lets skip the obvious and the tautologies and get down to it.

I've been thinking about this for a few days, obviously. I had decided not reply because I don't have the time to participate in the conversation, to my great distress. I changed my mind because you asked for company on your limb. Here I am. :)

[Dann]

It appears that A**2 is familiar with the wisdom contained in RA Heinlein's written works. Me, too.

More specifically on the funding of healthcare research, I supposed we could "set an appropriate price". The consequences of which would be to drastically reduce future medical innovation. Assuming I make it to the year 2040, I'd prefer not to be stuck with medical technology of 2013. I'm willing to bet that those future innovations will save quite a few lives.

I'll close with the thought that majorities can be wrong. Just because the rest of the world thinks ill of us....and I do think understanding their perspective is important...it doesn't make them right. A fair number of Iraqi Shi'ites think quite highly of our removal of Saddam Hussein...

--
Regards,
Dann

[Jan]

The Israelies developed quite a bit of our health technologies. Just sayin'.
And I know that Americans have SO many more weapons than any other wealthy country that it's scary and wrong.

[Mike Peterson]

So, two questions:

1. As I said in the posting, if it did cost us so much, why is it so cheap overseas? Why are we giving it away to them? Shouldn't it be expensive for other people and really affordable for our own, instead of the other way around? (Or are we just getting screwed because we're willing to put up with it?)

2. Why are people who are so incredibly unconcerned with the needs of people in their own country so utterly devoted to doing good deeds for Iraqis and others? I'm not advocating isolationism so much as questioning some priorities. If you're going to stand by and watch people suffer, shouldn't you watch EVERYBODY suffer? If you don't want to pay taxes to help OUR people, why so willing to pay taxes to blow up people in other countries on the pretext of helping other people in those countries?

Not to say that I'm not happy to be a Beta. I'm awfully glad I'm not an Alpha and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a Delta or an Epsilon, but still ...

[Sherwood Harrington]

Mr. A**2 (and I hope I'm getting that last punctuation mark right -- sorry, but I don't have the time to go back and look) says: " 'Well-regulated' and 'militia' don't mean to us what they meant to the authors. From what I've heard and read, they meant something more like what the Swiss are reported to have than our National Guard."

The Swiss have slaves? http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery#.UPWE542ssHs.blogger

[Mat]

I posted a lengthy discussion of what I feel would help gun control a few days ago in response to another gun comic. I've discussed the issue with several friends and my mom and girlfriend. In almost all situations, the response was similar to the response I got in the comic below: Silence or a big fat "meh".

In almost all situations, no one is interested in what the non-crazy gun owner has to say. People are more willing to pay attention to the hardline positions and just throw rocks at both sides.

[Dann]

Mike,

My understanding of health care technology issues is that other countries will set pricing via government fiat at a little above the cost to manufacture the medicine in question. The small profit involved is nowhere near enough to cover the cost of research. A lot of meds are very cheap to manufacture. It's the research end of thing that is pricey.

My understanding is that if/when we object, or take steps to prevent the spread of new drugs/technology to countries that are unwilling to pay their fair share of the research, then some of those countries will effectively steal those drugs/technologies and make them themselves.

And while a lot of countries do generate new medical technologies, the US is the disproportionate big hitter. Reducing medical R&D in the US will have a significant impact on global health.

And for the record, I am very concerned about my fellow Americans and fully want policies that improve their lives. High tax rates and extensive government programs don't do that.

--
Regards,
Dann

[Dave from Phila.]

I still am asking a simple question, "If you are opposed to a ban on semi-automatic rifles for non-military/police possession – why? What is your balancing need versus the need of society to protect itself from these weapons easily coming into the hands of people who are willing to use them against helpless victims?"

Dave

[Sherwood Harrington]

Dann says: "And while a lot of countries do generate new medical technologies, the US is the disproportionate big hitter."

Source, please. I have one that says it's not "the disproportionate big hitter" in one key area of medical research, biotech: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/150823.php (Scientific American study, 2009.)

[Lost in A**2]

Dave, the weapons will *always* be available to people who are willing to use them. Think about that gun-tracking fiasco down Arizona way that is still fairly big news. Consider why it was attempted, and then why it failed, and then decide whether it was likely to succeed in the first place.

I don't need a "balancing need" for firearm possession. Just as I don't need a "balancing need" for freedom of speech, or security in my home against unreasonable search.

On the one hand, I think it unlikely that privately held weapons will be much use against the Government. On the other hand, Syria, Libya, Arab Spring. Where did all those rifles come from so very quickly? And RPGs? According to the CIA World Factbook, Syria is slightly larger than North Dakota, and Libya is slightly larger than Alaska. Wherever they came from, moving stuff around something the size of one of our States is a lot easier than moving stuff around something the size of our Country.

[Dann]

@Sherwood,

Interesting link.

My observations are based on over a decades worth of reading on the subject. The link indicates this is a "first of its kind" study. So new information is always good information. The link also indicates:

"Although it's probably no surprise that overall, the US had the highest final score,...".

I'd like to have some time to digest the study, but very cursory review suggests that it doesn't really contradict my assertion.

My thoughts are based on lots of different sources. I used to read about this all the time. In real newspapers, no less! For example, about 7-10 years ago, a big chunk of German pharma manufacturers moved to the US. This was done for a variety of reasons; including the ability to recoup R&D costs.

Perhaps things have changed. But the last I knew, the US provided a disproportionate number of new medical technologies to the world market. We aren't the sole producer of those technologies, but we produce more of them in terms of raw numbers.

@Dave,

I had intended to respond in that other post, but have plenty to do. The short version is:

I balance it against the number of lives saved and crimes prevented by the private ownership of those same weapons.

More later over there if I get the chance.

Regards,
Dann

[David from Phila]

"The weapons will *always* be available to people who are willing to use them." Ah - no, the Newtown shooter would not have had access. HIs mother would not have been able to purchase it.

"Just as I don't need a "balancing need" for freedom of speech, or security in my home against unreasonable search." All constitutional rights have limits. Freedom of speech does not include shouting fire in a crowded theater. Unannounced searchs of your home is available with a search warrant. This is how society balances individual and societal needs. And in its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the right to bear arms is not absolute.

"I balance it against the number of lives saved and crimes prevented by the private ownership of those same weapons." Evidence please. I have seen and heard this assertion and never been provided evidence ... and if such exists - does it justify the slaughter of over 20 children?

Dave

[Sherwood Harrington]

Dann, it does contradict at least one of your assertions -- that the US is the "disproportionate big hitter."

Unless, of course, you were talking about literally disproportionate big hitters. Just one look at Barry Bonds's head in 2001 showed everybody that when it comes to producing disproportion and big hitters via medical means, nobody comes close to us. Nobody.

[hildigunnur]

Please, just please watch this vid: http://www.upworthy.com/the-nra-thinks-more-guns-are-the-answer-bless-their-hearts-then-watch-this?c=upw1

[Mike Peterson]

Someone had posted that vid on Facebook. It's a great demonstration for anyone sitting on the fence, but there are still people who think they could have slipped under Muhammed Ali's guard and knocked him out, and that, if they'd been on the Titanic, they'd have swum to safety. Nothing will convince them, and, if they do end up shooting a friend, it's always a flaw in the gunsight or the sun was in their eyes or the friend was being held hostage in the wrong position.

Walter Mitty is pretty invincible.

[hildigunnur]

Yeah, 'fraid so :( No talking sense to some ppl!