Silencers are for Guns Not People

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece called "Another Poster Child for the NRA" in response to a horrific and disturbing account of a young police officer, in a small town in Wisconsin, who apparently went insane, out of jealousy, and killed his girlfriend, and several friends. As one who has the utmost respect for law enforcement, what I found so shocking was that it was a member of the force who committed this crime.

It was never my intention to rant against the National Rifle Association, or law enforcement, but instead call for a closer look at a national ethos which enables, and legitimizes, the use of weapons, and deadly force in lieu of dedicated problem solving.

No sooner did my piece appear than I was besieged with hate mail, most of which came from National Rifle Association members, some from law enforcement, and the military, all of whom mistakenly seemed to think that I was targeting them with my comments. To the contrary, it is the intellectual climate, rife with fear and prejudice, one that provides safe haven, and immunity, for paid assassins while locking up protestors who belong to Code Pink. This newfangled militarism makes one nostalgic for the culture of narcissism.

So, by way of rejoinder: for openers, no one in their right mind would blame any one person, or group, for the outrageous escalation in violence in American society, much of it involving hand guns, in recent years. About a decade ago, then President Bill Clinton said "Every single day there are 13 children who die from guns." How many more children are dying from guns today? Yet, there hasn't been any gun control legislation since 1994, and those who defend their right to bear arms are ostensibly unnerved by the prospect that their friends, the hunters-in-chief, are leaving town.

Why this egregious absence of legislation attempting to stem the proliferation of assault rifles, hand guns, and illegal firearms in the past several years? A virile, righteous, and omnipresent gun lobby has successfully managed to silence their opposition, as has a vice president who, while he may not have the best aim, is himself a devout hunter, and a foreign policy which caters to the hunter ethos. Silencers aren't only being used for firearms; they're now handy ways to stifle dissent, too.

Indeed, the gun lobby has never been in better shape in Washington than it has been under the tutelage of President George W. Bush, so not a peep has been heard from those whose custom it is to speak out against guns, and the rash of violence in our nation's public schools; schools like Columbine, Virginia Tech, in our nation's inner cities, cities like Compton, East Los Angeles, in our nation's workplaces. We've not heard a peep from the usual suspects who would be active in speaking up for more stringent laws to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of our youngsters.

Increasingly, in a world in which the American flag has become synonymous with another four letter word "duck," and yet another "bomb," this is not time to mince words. These folks who equate what they think of as their constitutional empowerment have, for the past several years, had a free ride, but now that a changing of the guard is in sight, they cling to their illusions of entitlement like a leper clings to what little skin he has left. And, to parody the Dylan Thomas poem, it's as if every gun-toting Tom, Dick, and Harry decided not to go "gentle into that good night," but to "rage, rage, against the dying of the might."

The gun lobby has managed to exercise that might religiously, and faithfully, to quiet their opposition, over the past half dozen years, because they have been the vocal majority, but that may be about to change, and they may well lose their leverage once the hunters, and Bible-thumpers, leave town. And, faced with the prospect of another Clinton in the White House, and the real prospect of yet again having to defend their right to bear arms, those who extol the virtues of the Second Amendment while ignoring the First and Fourth Amendments may be scared, scared of losing their leverage, scared they may be slipping. Violent crime isn't slipping, though.

We're experiencing what may be called a renaissance in violent crime, and can anyone not ask how it is that a youngster in high school can amass an arsenal in his bedroom which would rival any one might expect to find in a bunker in Baghdad, and how it is that moms and dads are giving Johnny his first gun for Christmas, as well as access to the kind of cache that could decimate an entire schoolyard? Why does it take a shooting at Columbine, or Virginia Tech to wake people up?

No one is suggesting, for a moment, that even if guns were to be eliminated from the face of the earth, random, and heinous crime would disappear with them. Where there's a will to do grave bodily harm, there's always a way.

It isn't use of a weapon, per se, but the abuse of weapons, in general, and the lack of oversight that requires our attention. It's not an issue with an occasional bad apple, in law enforcement, that requires our attention, but a culture in which intellectual lassitude is a way of life. Anyone possessing even a modicum of reason, whether they be a member of the NRA, or the AARP, can see there's a need for all of us to sit down and talk about the proliferation and abuse of legal and illegal firearms, and how to keep guns out of the hands of those who can least handle them, even if they've been deputized to do so.

If it's true, as we hear, that guns don't kill people; rest assured that ignorance does. Awareness, and education, are essential steps in the direction of finding a solution, not sweeping, under the rug, all those who dare to speak up in violation of a code of silence that is as outmoded as it is deadly.

From the beginning of time, the forces of darkness have somehow managed to overpower, and silence, the forces of light. This explains the phenomenon of extinction. And, if things continue at this rate, we, too, will be staring down the barrel of an existential shotgun. One can only hope that it isn't loaded.

Follow Jayne Lyn Stahl on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaynelynstahl

Comments

[NYCexile]

Wow!

Thanks for not publishing my comment on this very contentious issue. Signing up for your site was easy and very fast, and I looked forward to some spirited discourse on the subject.

Too bad you killed it. Since it clearly offended you guys, think about the debate it would have engendered. Maybe would have opened an eye or two, not likely, but possibly.

Since you don't think this is worthy of semi-public discussion, let me speak directly to you, the mods, since that is the way you want it:

Bleating about firearms is a total waste of time. As a practical matter, nobody is going to take away anyone's guns. Why? Because along with the guns, most folks have cartridges, too, and no reasonably sane police officer is going to orphan his children to further a social agenda. Sorry, but that's the basic truth here.

Another basic truth is about us Democrats: we're terrified of having to share our cities with armed Black populations. Why? Because that would transform them from Welfare Queens to Equals, and we're just not cool with that. Better to distract them with the modern equivalent of bread and circuses.

One more thing: all those politicians who are for Gun Control. They and their friends can get all the firearms they might want, but none for the rest of us. Why don't they trust us? Why have none of you ever asked that question? And, on a more personal level, what makes you think that you will always be in their good graces? After the assault on the Fourth Amendment that we have witnessed over the last fifteen years, a successful dismantling of the Second will leave your right of free speech and expression exactly where?

Being a pro-gun Democrat has already given me a taste of that. Believe me, you don't want that. Having comments and whatnot attacked, deleted, or as in this case, not published at all, is nothing compared to being indicted and brought to trial. And that is why I own guns.

[vinniemak]

Why is it that most people who call for stronger gun laws know little of current laws and less about guns. I have trouble respecting advocates who have not spent the time to find out anything about what they are advocating. It would be refreshing to engage in “reasoned discourse” with someone who could tell the difference between a machine gun and a BB gun(that “arsenal” that you mentioned above was a couple of BB guns, some toys, and 1 pistol with a long barrel and a stock”). The long lamented “assault weapons ban” banned such thins as bayonet lugs. Why? Was there a raft of drive by bayonetings? “If it's true, as we hear, that guns don't kill people; rest assured that ignorance does. “
What have you done to alleviate yourself of this ignorance?

Your words: “Awareness, and education, are essential steps in the direction of finding a solution “.
Put up or shut up as the saying goes. I have no problem playing on a level field. If you are willing to make an HONEST EFFORT most of the gun owning population would be happy help you get the FACTS. Me included. Yes, I am literally offering to give you the ammunition to use against us.

[fsilber]

If the NRA has been able to silence its critics, then how does Miss Stahl account for her ability to post this article? But my support for your right to speak is contingent upon your recognition of my right to bear arms.

BritPaxJax, yes, England has a low murder rate (though not so low as before it had gun control). But your former colony Jamaica also has similarly prohibitive gun laws, and it's murder rate is as bad as America's worst inner city ghetto (neither of which is "industrialized") -- over five times that of America as a whole.

CriminallySane, look at http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm about at article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that disproves the notion that gun laws are correlated with murder. Also note that no lubricant helps bullets penetrate kevlar vests. In fact, any bullet can penetrate a single sheet of kevlar; it takes a dozen sheets to stop an ordinary pistol bullet. It would take many more sheets to stop a much faster hunting rifle bullet, but that would be too heavy and uncomfortable for cops to wear. Steel-core pistol bullets can also penetrate; the NRA helped write the legislation banning them. Such lies as you were taught by people who had every opportunity to know better are the reason I, in reaction, became an NRA member and then a gun owner (in that order) in 1994.

When police in England can guarantee its people mugger-free streets and burglar-free homes, and can do so in a way that does not violate their privacy, then I'll reconsider the need for the individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of shooting muggers, rapists, burglars and carjackers.

The lives of teenage gang members (and the neighbors who tolerate their existence), and the method of death chosen by people who kill themselves, is a lesser priority with me.

[Thirdpower]

CriminallySane:

Would you care to source your claims that the NRA is advocating for fully auto firearms or "Cop Killer" bullets? Could you tell me what a "lubricant coated round" is?

Howabout the "Ever-rising tide of gun violence"? It seems that crime dropped over 60 percent from it's peak in '92 and just recently showed an increase.

I'm sure I'll keep waiting for the evidence.

[Poli]

Criminally Sane wrote:
"They [NRA] seek to legitimize any and all sorts of firearms, including full-automatic weapons, lubricant-coated rounds that can penetrate Kevlar (The "cop-killer" bullets), and more."

Wake up! Fully automatic weapons have always been legal to own. One needs to get a Class III license from the BATF and meet any state or local laws to own a fully automatic gun. Any long gun (a.k.a. rifle) caliber can penetrate police body armor. The only exception being the .22 LR and .17 caliber rifles. Police body armor is referred to as "soft body armor" because it is intended to stop ammunition fired by handguns since that is what most police will face if confronted with an armed criminal. True armor (steel armor) piercing ammuntion is restricted by federal law and is tipped with tungsten or depleated uranium.

The author of this article whines against guns and the NRA demanding gun control, then goes on to admit at the end that it will do nothing to stop violence. So what's your point? It's the criminal, not the gun. Violent criminals understand one thing: the use of force. When you disarm lawful citizens who are not a threat to society against violent criminals who do not obey laws, who is being protected and who is left vulnerable? The answer can be seen by examing who was killed at gun free zones like Virginia Tech and Columbine.

[DemandTruth]

We have now become a police state. In my town of Gainesville, FL, the police have just been exonerated from using excessive force in the tasering of innocent political activist Andrew Meyer. Plus HE's the one in trouble. A year's probation and a fine and he has to quit this semester of school. The police are protesting, saying if we take the tasers away, they'll have to go back to using fists and clubs that could "do damage".

Good. I say bring back the fists and the clubs. That way, when the police abuse you, you'll have the marks to prove it. Basically, what they're saying is they want the right to torture you for no reason at all, and they can do it with impugnity because it won't leave a bruise. Great.

So the police in this town spend their time NOT catching the guy who broke into my car, and pulling me over and harassing me for LEGALLY passing a car that was swerving and going 10 miles under the speed limit. But I'M the one who gets pulled over. I know why. It's because I'm a young girl, and they know they can intimidate me and push me around and I won't fight back. Go after the innocent instead of the guilty because it's easier.

Police state. And all the people in this town just seem to be fine and dandy with that. All the people who can flash a business card at the police or a 100 dollar bill and get out of trouble, that is...

[bmcafee]

I would just like to point out a few flaws in your tirade.

"Every single day there are 13 children who die from guns." How many more children are dying from guns today?” The answer is: Fewer! Not more, but fewer children are dying today. According to the CDC, http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.htmll) child deaths by firearm have actually been dramatically decreasing each year for which data is available.

“There has been no gun control legislation since 1994.” You may remember the recent strengthening of the NCIS instant background check that was passed to make it better able to screen out people who have mental problems. There have been more, but one is sufficient to prove your assertion false.

“Why this egregious absence of legislation attempting to stem the proliferation of…illegal firearms in the past several years?” Because illegal weapons are already illegal. What an illegal weapon is I do not know, but I think you might mean weapons owned by illegal possessors. More laws aren’t the answer, enforcement is.

“how it is that a youngster in high school can amass an arsenal...which would rival any one might expect to find in a bunker in Baghdad” Because all but one of his guns were toys (airsoft). http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/10453397.htmll) You really need to check your facts. Now, I’m not defending the kid. He did have homemade bombs and was clearly dangerous, but the presentation of all his toy guns on television was a misrepresentation of the facts, and you bought right in to it.

Lastly, of course we gun rights activists are clinging to our rights. And even though there are people like you saying we should do away with the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, I would never say that we should revoke your freedom of speech. Although, I will still point out where you are wrong. It helps people to see that you argue from the standpoint of emotion, not fact, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

[sarge]

I went to hit reply, and accidentally flagged this comment. Sorry.

Now, for my comment. I don't find anywhere that Jayne said "that we should do away with the rights guaranteed by the second amendment". Perhaps that was an emotional argument on your part.

Also, Elayne Boosler once made the excellent point: "And why do you always forget the words, "well regulated militia"?"

[BritPatJax]

You tread much too softly Jayne as I am appalled at the killing here. In my daughters city of Birmingham England one million people hardly ever hear of gun crime in their whole lives. Petty crime and burglary yes. Occasional knifings yes. Three Police killed in 12 years in the whole nation of Britain with 30 million and there were 4 killings just on Florida/Georgia night here in Jacksonville. Not to do with the game. I did not realize when I came her six years ago how relieved I would turn out to be that my two daughters live without guns in a country without guns and where there is national mourning if a policeman is killed. Even the Police manage to do their jobs without guns. Go figure?

[fact finder]

When an armed thug kicks in your front door to rape and kill you and your family throw your car at them. This thug probably did not get his or her gun legally anyway. Guns can be bought in Mexico very, very easily. The solution is CRIMINAL CONTROL not gun control. Enforce and strengthen existing laws concerning violence.

For instance if a person uses a gun to commit a crime then that person makes little rocks out of big rocks for the rest of their lives with no chance for parole PERIOD.

[CriminallySane]

The NRA is in large part to blame for America's ever-rising tide of gun violence. They seek to legitimize any and all sorts of firearms, including full-automatic weapons, lubricant-coated rounds that can penetrate Kevlar (The "cop-killer" bullets), and more.

They proceed from the false premise that more guns will make us safer. Look again at firearms ownership and murder rates worldwide and see if this is so.

The one thing they are very effective at is mobilizing their membership to write (not call, not email, WRITE) to elected officials. They understand that the letter is what's taken seriously in those circles.

I blame the NRA and their fellow-travelers - they have the blood of many, many Americans on their hands, and I am not afraid to say so.

[molonlabe]

"Look again at firearms ownership and murder rates worldwide and see if this is so."

We don't even have to look worldwide. Let's look within our own County...

Washington DC- Civilian gun ownership BANNED. Highest per capita murder rate in the country.

Hum......

[oldpotsmuggler]

The Utah legislature repealed age limits on hunting small game. A nine year old was in a duck blind with his father and uncle last week, and was armed. Mercifully the newspaper does not detail the accident, but the end result was that the kid killed the uncle. This death was not especially foreseeable, but death was.

Utah also allows persons from foreign countries to get a Utah Concealed Carry Permit without leaving home, and the permit fee doesn't even recoup the cost of administering the program. This permit is honored in 33 other states, and the applicant is not even required to fire a weapon as part of the application qualification. Go figure.

Anyway, the battle in this whole area is either going to heat up or cool off in the foreseeable future. At least it should. The Supreme Court is hearing a case this term which should be the first time The Court has ever seriously defined the scope of the Second Amendment "right to bear arms". Unless The Court punts, the NRA will have either its biggest victory or its biggest defeat ever. With the stakes so high in reviewing the legality of District of Columbia gun restrictions anything other than a wait and see approach is probably premature.