I think carrying guns to protests is entirely counterproductive. Indeed, I'm not sold on the general virtues of protesting, which worked for Gandhi and the civil rights marcher, but has a dismal track record on other concerns. But I think people have a perfect right to do it, including with guns, though I also think the secret service is within its rights to ensure that they don't have a sight line on the president.
But the hysteria about them has been even more ludicrous. Numerous people claim to believe that this makes it likely, even certain, that someone will shoot at the president. This is very silly, because the president is not anywhere most of the gun-toting protesters, who have showed up at all sorts of events. It is, I suppose, more plausible to believe that they might take a shot at someone else. But not very plausible: the rate of crime associated with legal gun possession or carrying seems to be very low. Guns, it turn out, do not turn ordinary people into murderers. They make murderers more effective.
So perhaps unsurprisingly, when offered the opportunity to put some money down on the proposition that one of these firearms is soon going to be discharged at someone, they all decline. It is starting to remind me of that C.S. Lewis quote from Mere Christianity:
Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.Which is, sadly, starting to sound all to much like our current political environment.
I suspect that, like the notion that Obama is not a US citizen, or that George Bush either planned the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen, this is for most people what Julian Sanchez calls a symbolic belief. They don't really believe that these people are thugs intent on murder--not in the sense that they have, with careful thought, arrived at a conclusion that they are willing to defend vigorously. But it is pleasurable to tell yourself you believe terrible things about your enemies, and so you don't examine the thought until someone says, "Well, how about $500 on it, then?" and you think about how much it would hurt to lose $500 on, and realize that you don't actually have any reason to believe it's all that likely.
Unfortunately, these sorts of fun pastimes are horribly corrosive to civic society.
megan, this whole weird bet thing is really beneath you (and beneath a compelling argument). of course it's more likely than not that nothing will happen. assassinations (not just of political figures) are thankfully rare. most trips to the store aren't going to end in a car accident, but we still ought to do all we can to make it even less likely. and as the holocaust museum, the late-term abortion doctor, the UVA shooting, and on and on demonstrate, guns are indeed used by psychopaths. it may be that the psychological profile of the people who think it's cute to parade around with an assault weapon is generally more bark than bite, but i just can't fathom why, on balance, anyone would think they're good to have around.
people are going to eventually look back at our society's relationship with guns the way we look back at, say, 18th-century-brits setting lethal booby-traps around their properties.
I wasn't asking them to bet on assassination, just any discharge at a human being other than in self-defense. And I offered this bet to people who said it was now certain that this would happen.
It is true that psychos have used guns. But psychos can use guns whether or not legitimate protesters carry them. Psychos also use the web, but we don't castigate bloggers for doing so as well.
As you'd know if you read the links above, very few gun crimes are committed by people legally allowed to own guns. Given how low those numbers are, there's little good reason to believe that legal gun owners legally carrying their guns have any effect whatsoever on the level of violence. They are at least as likely to lower it, by deterring those who would like to get busy, as they are to raise it.
Your personal prejudices about guns, or ability to imagine why people would like to have them, are not a relevant guide to public policy. To borrow a phrase from the abortion rights movement, if you don't like guns, don't carry one.
a weirdly nasty response, but i guess that's the web.
i would prefer that neither psychos nor proud patriotic americans be able to carry assault weapons, and this -- taking them away altogether -- would, i think, have an effect on the number of crimes committed with guns. but i guess my personal prejudices about public policy are not a relevant guide to what i think about public policy.
Can you define "assault weapons" in a meaningful way?
And what is worse about "crimes committed with guns" than crimes committed with knives?
How would you go about "taking them away altogether"?
Frankly dgf3, the founding fathers didn't much give a fuck what you'd prefer.
That's why they're called "rights." So that when power-mad dolts like you come along and "prefer" to take our means of self-protection away from us, we can tell you to go piss off and if you try to take our guns we can defend ourselves.
He isn't likely a "power-mad dolt"; Most people who favor gun conrol are just stupid, they've never actually thought for themselves in their lives, and all their opinions come from the TV news.
You don't have to be aware of the power you're assuming to be power mad.
Indeed, some of the most blatantly power-mad people I've seen say they're entitled because they are "powerless."
Do you see how they're personalizing it, Megan? You're being Alinsky'd.
They're isolating you. Targeting you. Twisting your words - putting words in your mouth (assassination bet) that you never said.
They want to hurt you personally because it's more effective to hurt you than to hurt the institution that is The Atlantic.
They're watching every. single. thing. you. write.
Oh paranoia!
A hilarious post...
So, by McArdle logic, we should assume that allowing a larger number of people with guns near the President will have no impact on the chances of him being assassinated? Do you even know how many presidents have been assassinated in the US? Could you for once stop peddling libertarian ideal world dogma - and think through what you've just said? As for your views on protests, I can only thank God that nobody who cares about democracy would take them seriously. As for Gandhi, the suffragettes, civil rights - surely those few cases alone would refute your claim that protests don't work.
It may well lessen the chances of a president being assassinated.
How many assassins - successful or not - have openly displayed their firearm prior to using it? Any? Any at all?
I believe the answer is a resounding "zero."
Assassing conceal their weapons, always.
Megan was clear, and correct, in saying that parading around with a weapon on display - regardless of whether that weapons is an antique flintlock pistol or an AR-15 - is counterproductive. It's inflammatory and dumb.
Wearing a Bowie knife would also be counterproductive, inflammatory, and dumb. Carrying a disarmed hand grenade, same thing.
We can debate the merits of threatening someone's political views, which is basically what a protest does. Threatening someone's safety, otoh, is dumb >99% of the time. The only exception, which Megan also points out, is self defense.
What these guys did was legal, but stupid.
And what happens when you have the one crazy in a crowd of rightwing idiots with guns - and everyone is accustomed to gun-carriers been around the president? How do you expect the Secret Service to watch everyone? And no, it does NOT lessen the chances of the president being assassinated. If you ban all guns except those in the hands of the security forces from presidential events, you'd have a much better chance of the president serving out his term. Yes, I know this would disappoint some of the conservatives on here, but the majority of Americans elected him - and we would prefer our President alive, thank you very much.
(replying to kadzimiel @12:03 here as comments only nest finitely)
So, you think it's okay for privileged people like the president and other powerful members of the political class to have all of the guns and gun-toters they want, but the rest of us have to suck it? Unlike you, I'd rather stand up for equality over privilege.
(responding to kadzimiel)
Here's an idea: what if the President of the United States said "I am holding this meeting in a private venue. As with all private venues, I can require that you check your firearms at the door. That is my privelege, since I am paying for the room."
That's what freedom loving citizens do.
As I said before, I still think it's a very stupid idea to brandish a weapon unless you are at a gun range, hunting, or in a dangerous situation.
I'm not quite willing to make it illegal, however, inasmuch as it's a RIGHT.
A bit of common sense, a bit of creativity, and a bit of respect goes a long way here. If the secret service doesn't want Obama around people carrying guns, or anti-Obama signs, or knit hats for that matter - get a private room. You can set the rules when you're paying the bill.
(@kadzimiel 12:03) Do you really want to set the terms of the debate based on convenient bogeyman that are invented on the fly? I can come up with a few of those myself, and you might discover your talents are not at the top of the competitive marketplace after all. Otherwise, I suggest sticking to facts.
(@RobM1981 12:24) Might want to double-check your terminology. "Brandishing" has a specific element of threat in legal terms and is usually a form of prosecutable assault. Open carry of a firearm is not "brandishing" in that sense, even if a few shrinking violets decide they should feel threatened by it.
Responding to RobM1981,
Your comment has got to be the dumbest I've heard all day. He is the president of the united states. He isn't a private citizen, as such, wherever he goes, he's going to need intense security. And it isn't his job to protect himself, again, completely idiotic solution to the problem of nuts carrying guns to public events. I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment, but I do have a problem with nuts with guns around the president. But I am not all that worried about the POTUS, b/c if it comes down to the POTUS and the nut, I wouldn't put my money on the nut leaving the scene standing up :)
responding to symposia:
So tell me, then, what law do you propose? "No gun within 1,000 yards of the president?" What about when he is moving via motorcade? If he comes within 1,000 yards of my house and I happen to have legal firearms, have I just committed a federal offense?
Or is it "guns in plain sight" that are the issue? Do we say that you can't have a VISIBLE gun within 1,000 yards of the president? What about 1,100 yards? Am I allowed to take a .50 Barrett out, as long as I'm more than 1,000 yards away?
How many people in that same crowd had legal concealed weapons? Any guess? This was AZ we're talking about. How many people had 2, 3, or more firearms on their person - all concealed.
So what do you propose we do about that?
I don't envy the Secret Service their task, and I (again) believe that displaying a firearm at ANY non-firearm related event is a very stupid thing to do. I don't care if the speaker is the President of the PTA, showing up with even a Red Ryder slung over your shoulder is inflammatory, provocative, and stupid.
BUT, if you're in a public area and it's legal, it's legal.
And, btw, just because the POTUS is a public figure does NOT mean that anywhere he speaks is a public forum. His administration can, absolutely, rent a facility and make the rules.
What, you think that the halls where the conventions are held can't require you to check your firearms at the door?
In memory of the last Kennedy brother, let's recall that the gun that shot President Kennedy was easily and openly purchased by Oswald at a Chicago sporting goods store using a discount coupon from the NRA's magazine "National Rifleman." Thanks, NRA. One less jackbooted government thug.
As to the odds of public mishap, well, the 30 students shot at Virginia Tech were also killed in a public setting with legally purchased guns. But of course that shooter was angry, unstable, and easily provoked, unlike those calm, Socratic types at the town hall meetings.
As for the $500 bet, how about that same amount that "the majority of guns that have killed U.S. presidents were legally purchased?" Or maybe even $500 that "the majority of the guns that have killed 104,000 American children and teens since 1979 were legally purchased."
Admittedly, a trick bet, since virtually all of the guns used in U.S. homicides were "legally purchased" at some point. Criminals, psychos, and Christian avengers don't make their own, after all. They are armed by a multi-billion dollar industry aided by pliable legislators and laissez faire sophists.
And really.... If you don't like guns, don't carry one? Personally, I have nothing against guns. It's the people who carry them that worry me. I suspect them of poor verbal skills, hidden fantasies, and short fuses.
Not to quibble, but...
"In memory of the last Kennedy brother, let's recall that the gun that shot President Kennedy was"
JFK wasn't the last Kennedy brother. Bobby was. And he was killed by a radical muslim named Sirhan Sirhan.
I don't know if Sirhan had a permit to carry in L.A. I'm guessing that he didn't.
And if some of those VaTech students had been carrying guns, there wouldn't have been 30 killed.
Not to go off track or anything, but the University of Texas also had a crazy gun-toting shooter once. Only on that campus, the students also had guns, and held the guy off until police arrived, then gave the police cover while they went in for him.
I think that's the point Ken Magalnik was trying to make above when he said, "It may well lessen the chances of a president being assassinated."
In general, in places where people carry, guns stop the crazies from killing.
@ RobM1981: "JFK wasn't the last Kennedy brother. Bobby was. And he was killed by a radical muslim named Sirhan Sirhan."
Moron! The last Kennedy brother died yesterday. If you learn to read english you'll understand Nelson's reference.
Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian Christian who while living in the U.S. attended Baptist and then Seventh-Day Adventist churches.
Seriously, you brain dead loser, do you think that because a person is born in the middle-east and has a name you don't like then they must be a Muslim????
Numb-brained idiots like you are the reason America needs stronger gun regulation.
I'll take that second bet. And then I'd act like Eric Cartman in the Scott Tenorman episode and lick your tears as you lost $500.
@RobM1981 "Not to quibble, but...
"In memory of the last Kennedy brother, let's recall that the gun that shot President Kennedy was"
JFK wasn't the last Kennedy brother. Bobby was."
You're incorrect in your quibbling. Bobby wasn't the last Kennedy brother. Teddy was. He was born last and died last. The poster was saying in memory of the Kennedy who just died, let's look back at another Kennedy.
"And he was killed by a radical muslim named Sirhan Sirhan."
Wrong again. He was raised in a Christian Palestinian family, and as an adult Sirhan Sirhan also attended services at a couple of Christian denomination (Baptist and Seventh Day Adventist) typically considered to be conservative.
"I don't know if Sirhan had a permit to carry in L.A. I'm guessing that he didn't."
I'm not a fan of the lack of intellectual rigor involving in guessing. And are you trying to say that you favor laws requiring gun permits?
Your borrowed phrase is absurd in this context. Your having an abortion (if I oppose them) doesn't affect me. Your having a gun at a public place where I happen to be (if I "don't like guns"), might affect me.
Also, the argument that the notion that other people in the crowd are packing might deter a would-be assassin is similarly ludicrous. The would-be assassin knows that the Secret Service are armed. Sirhan Sirhan knew he was surrounded by guards with guns. It didn't deter him. One could even argue that the kind of person looking to assassinate a public official is not amenable to deterrence at all.
What open carry does deter is the ability of the Secret Service to monitor the crowd. Every openly-carried gun in the possession of a law-abiding citizen functions as camouflage for the (legally-carried) gun of a killer. A Presidential public appearance is not just one more outdoor event like a Little League game or a company picnic. It's disingenuous to pretend that it is.
I think your comment belongs in a previous thread. Megan's link doesn't go to the guy who was open-carrying near where the President was speaking; this is a different protest event.
Possessing a gun does not affect you. Aiming it at you does, but if you are so gun phobic that seeing one being carried by someone else scares you, that's your problem.
I wasn't asking them to bet on assassination, just any discharge at a human being other than in self-defense
Seriously? Because that's absolutely disgusting. The possibility of someone being shot is not something to bet on, even in jest. Jesus.
these sorts of fun pastimes are horribly corrosive to civic society.
Also corrosive to civic society: intimidating people by carrying weapons in crowded public places, especially to meetings where civic debate is supposed to happen.
". To borrow a phrase from the abortion rights movement, if you don't like guns, don't carry one." This is an amazingly stupid statement, since for nearly anyone, the problem is that OTHER people are allowed to carry guns. It really is a shame that you don't bother to think.
And I've read the other supid comments on this thread about how 9/11 might not have happened if people on those airliners had been carrying. I don't know the extent of how poor your judgement is about letting every Tom, Dick and Harry carry a firearm onto a plne that has a pressurized cabin, but I know I wouldn't get on the plane with anyone carrying one.
Sorry, carrying a holstered or not-in-hand gun into a crowd, except in an emergency, is recklessly irresponsible. Just pain stupid.
It is well known that bullet holes will not cause an airliner to explode. The interior pressure won't even perceptibly change, as the cabin air outflow valves in the rear of the aircraft will adjust automatically to compensate for the leak. Air marshals and many pilots fly with pistols nowadays, with the blessings of the FAA.
But we don't do all we can to make car accidents less likely. If we did, we'd've banned cars. Or required every car to have a man walking in front of it carrying a red flag.
But we do mandate airbags, we have speed limits, and penalties for drunk driving. What do you think we have these measures for, if not to reduce the number of car crashes, or to mitigate their impact?
Philosophic equivalents already exist on gun sales, ownership, and handling. Can I correctly presume that all of your objections (and those of dgf3, if as it appears, he is targeting a similar line of argument) are thus met and answered?
Or were you about to angle for some additional restriction, and if so, would it lend any credence to your opponents' belief that gun control advocates are intending to spray oil on the slippery slope to prohibition?
Actually, there's some evidence that mandating seatbelts increases the number of accidents, but decreases their severity--at least to the driver wearing the seatbelt.
Hey, I found some actual political violence: http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13199902
Nah, dgf3, you're wrong on that one and illustrating Megan's point. The guy at the holocaust museum, the guy who shot Tiller, the guy who shot up UVA, were ALL murderous, mentally ill people, and guns made those murderers more effective. The two men in the article Megan linked to were protesters, not murderers. To equate the two is to demonize all people who carry guns or care about their second amendment rights as mentally ill murderers.
I part ways with Megan in one respect, though: I think it shows spectacularly poor judgment to carry a gun at a political rally. Depending on the jurisdiction it may well be legal to do so, but just because it's legal doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn people who do it. This is foolish, immature behavior. And while these men are unlikely to be dangerous in and of themselves, unexpected, dangerous situations can arise at a political rally, and putting a gun into those situations is a recipe for disaster. People (like me) who own guns need to ALWAYS be respectful of their ability to kill and to exercise tremendous caution when using them. I'd fail both of these guys from any gun safety course I was teaching.
But Megan's core point, about symbolic beliefs poisoning our politics, is one of the most important insights I've heard. This needs to be said and resaid until we are all blue in the face. We need to stop assuming the worst about our political opponents, stop assuming bad faith on their parts, and engage in the much harder work of finding common ground on the issues of our day. They're big, important issues (healthcare, climate change, energy, education), and if we don't solve them we will suffer.
good points. and, as should be obvious, i am not someone who has ever or would ever use a gun, so take this as you like. but here's what i don't get:
if you put on one side of a scale all the harm that guns do (thousands of annual deaths, etc etc) and then put all the good that guns do on the other (hunting, a feeling of cultural solidarity, etc.), it seems so incredibly clear to me that the harm is hugely more weighty. what am i forgetting to put on the keep-guns-legal side of the scale?
(and yes, of course i'm aware of the 2nd amendment. but i don't regard the founding fathers' wisdom as being handed down from on high, or necessarily as applicable to 21st century america as it was to 18th c. america. i'm talking about what i wish were legal, not what is).
Let's say I'm sold; are you willing to disarm the military and police first?
You are forgetting the number of people whom were able to defend themselves with their firearms. The number of would be rapes, muggins, home invasions, and murders that did not happen far exceeds the numbers that are actually killed.
The true value of a firearm is for self defense. We could do without the hunting and cultural solidarity, if we had to, but we could not do without people being able to protect themselves.
There is fundemental difference in vision here. I think you see an "advanced", "civilized" society as one where normal citizens do not own weapons. Others disagree with you, their utopia is armed, and it is a utopia because it is armed. The people who say "and armed society is a polite society" actually mean it.
Whats amusing is that this attitude gets completely reversed on both sides when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Not everyone treats nukes differently. I saw several essays during the 1980s and 1990s that said the existence of nuclear weapons is the main reason we never had WWIII, or any other major conflict since WWII.
Like I wrote earlier, just stupid and lets the TV news do his thinking for him. Just the possession of a gun by the victim of a crime prevents more, by some estimates several times as many, criminal attacks than are aided by guns.
Joshua, playing wordgames with important issues hardly makes a good impression. Are you so blind that you can't see the difference? Are you suggesting that we disarm the military in the face of.. oh, alQaeda?
No, I'm coming from a position where people having a right to bear weapons and make a proportionate response to violence used against them. I just find it unjust to say that the powerful may have armed guards but the weak may not have the means to defend themselves.
In face of a proposal to disarm the citizenry in the face of . . . oh, AlQaeda?
Because alQaeda could be stopped by the shotgun toting citizenry? I think not.
On what grounds do you make that assertion?
If we had had armed citizens on planes on 9/11, things could have been different.
Stop equating two things that are clearly not the same. It's utterly disingenuous and not particularly cute.
Here's what he's saying; while it certainly is legal to openly carry firearms at a health care discussion (by the way, think about how absurd that statement is), it's spectacularly poor judgment. In fact, this fairly large lapse of good judgment makes lots of people question why you're allowed to possess a firearm in the first place.
Let me use an analogy; I have the right, as a citizen of the United States, to show up to a health care rally dressed in a banana hammock and high heels (I'm a male). My belly can swing over the top of it and my unshaven legs and feet can hang out in heels. This is a right of mine, as a citizen. However, I would rightly be ridiculed and any points I were to make would be forgotten and ignored, because I clearly didn't take the discussion seriously, and, in appearing in the manner I did, clearly wanted to make the discussion about me and my own beliefs, rather than about the discussion being had.
Now, look at it from that perspective. The open, flagrant and obnoxious display of firearms simply because you can makes me inclined to doubt the protester's sincerity. Any contributions to the discussion are overshadowed by that protester's need to make the discussion about them. These are not people I take seriously and they don't deserve to be taken seriously. They deserve to be ridiculed as attention-seeking dimwits who don't actually have anything relative or constructive to contribute to the public conversation. And that's my right.
Flagrant disregard for equality makes me regard most of the posters here and others of such ilk as lacking in sincerity. I'm completely serious: real ethical and moral positions possess the quality of universality, so if there is a real reason to not bring arms to a protest it applies to everyone, even if the state puts them in fancy blue clothes.
Let me take another stab at this: I'm equating things that are clearly not identical because I think they are equal in at least some meaningful way; that is, I'm arguing for equality of authority and equality before the law (and also extending the later in to sub-legal forms of judgment).
So, look at it from this perspective: would you not think that if President Obama showed up at a serious political event in naught but high heels and a banana hammock, despite his comparatively fit figure, he would be rightly subject to ridicule? Does not the Emperor actually Have No Clothes even though he is the Emperor? Wouldn't you discount his opinion, even as you claimed others would discount yours if you were similarly attired?
By contrast, what if George Tiller were still with us, and decided to attend a rally with whatever men and materiel he considered to be prudent for his safety? What if, having been assaulted yet again, this time in his church, he decided to carry a weapon openly? Would he not have the same fundamental right protect himself so as the President?
My point in bringing up Tiller is that you can't claim extraordinary insight into someone's motives for being armed. You imply, without evidence, that people are going to political events with armament for no reason, as others ascribe to them purely sinister motives. But if it's fair for you to infer without evidence that about them, is it not fair for me to imply that about others? Should we not give both the benefit of the doubt?
Also, FYI, rallies and ersatz "townhalls" are not meaningfully "discussions"; they are political theater. And carrying arms, or deploying sniper teams and secret service agents, makes good theater, no?
Guns are very dangerous.
They make Josh Marshall get all wee wee'd up in his pants.
Yes, but what about when the Zombie Bankers finally arrive? What then, if not guns?
Megan,Megan... It's not about assasinating the president, the SS worries about the ones that are not in the open. The real problem with taking guns to a protest, as any cop will tell you, is that protests are by definition confrontational, hurling insults is the whole point of them, and crowds quickly turn into mobs and as Terry Pratchet said, the IQ of a mob is the IQ of the lowest individual divided between the number of members.
A single guy with a gun is not really a problem, a group of armed get's a much trickier, individuals in a group tend to get much wilder, and if there is a rival group counter-protesting that refuses to get intimidated and shows up armed as well, then you have a really dangerous situation.
Forget your NRA rating, would you really stand between those two armed groups as they shout their slogans and insults to each other??
I agree. I see it as similar to guns not being allowed in bars. You're introducing a wild card into a possibly explosive situation where there's a lot of people in one (possibly) small space.
Are there a bunch of drunks at the protests? Probably not. Are there a bunch of people *acting* like a bunch of belligerent drunks? From what I've seen, yeah.
And really....I can only imagine what my gun safety instructor -- let alone my Dad -- would have said to 14(?)-year-old-me if I stuck my hand up in class and asked if it was a good idea to be carting around an AK-47 in a crowd of people.
What I really don't get is about the whole thing is how are concerns over 2nd amendment rights at all relevant to a discussion about reforming health insurance policy? Seems like folks are looking for an excuse to act like irresponsible jerks because they want to blame the "other" for whatever -- the other being in this case "the gummint" and/or the differently complected as represented by our President.
If violence is that likely, I wouldn't walk between two such groups whether they were armed or not. The average urban or suburban street, and the crowd occupying it, are both endowed with many ordinary objects that can become weapons of opportunity, some of them quite dangerous. See also: LA Riots, Paris Riots, West Bank...
However, the fatal flaw in your reasoning appears to be the assumption that this level of violence is normal or even likely amongst two groups of US political protesters. Have you got any evidence to offer for that claim? Because my recollection of recent US history is that such violence is anomalous.
> However, the fatal flaw in your reasoning appears to be the assumption that this level of violence is normal or even likely amongst two groups of US political protesters.
Easy one: anti WTO demonstrators in Seattle and elsewhere. While most of them were peaceful, some of them took the opportunity to kick in store windows and such, to which the cops present overacted and pepper-sprayed with abandon.
Also a gimmee: violent anti-abortion protests. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm)
Let me ask for counter-proof: I can't recall any previous protests where folks were carrying around AK-47s, waving signs promoting euphemistic assassination ("watering the tree of liberty" blah-blah), and putting on racist little blackface shows (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/26/terry-moran-town-hall/). Can you? I think the ugly at these things is such that you can't assert "since it didn't happen before, it ain't gonna happen know" with confidence.
This, to me, looks more like the anti-desegration crowds in the 1950s than, say, the picture of the girl handing the National Guardsman a flower.
Three points:
1) You cite one 10yo event, and then note (correctly, to the best of my recollection) that "most of them" were, in fact, peaceful...which weighs favorably toward my claim, as far as I can tell.
2) Some of the protestors started the smashy smashy, some of the cops responded with pepper spray. As far as the spectrum of political violence goes -- particularly that being warned against by the anti-gun crowd in this thread -- that's pretty tame, isn't it?
3) The cops will always have their choice of weapons and will receive the greatest deference in matters of discretionary judgment regardless of what else may take place in the crowd.
Oh, regarding the abortion example: Yes, that has happened, but primarily amongst a violent fringe. The average mainstream group of abortion protestors usually sticks to signs, chants, and literature. I really fail to see how the healthcare protests are so much different, and I really fail to see how we are reflecting the 1950s in these events. If that's your gut feeling, then you are certainly entitled to it, but personally I would just take an antacid and see how the afternoon shapes up following that.
Attempting to compare black-hankied anarchist douchebags with the current round of tea-party protesters is pretty sad on your part.
Josh Marshall has reported that the wackos organizing the effort to bring guns to protests have been tied to the Ok City terrorist bombing group.
It was also reported in the comments to that story that Barack Obama has been tied to an actual home-grown terrorist who bombed the Pentagon long before Al Qeada ever thought about doing it.
His name is Bill Ayers. He's a convicted terrorist bomber. Obama is friends with him.
Barack Obama is also the first President to ever release terrorists back into society. He "convinced" the government of Palau with a $200 million payment to allow a group of Chinese terrorists to be released into their midst.
Being detained and tortured by Americans at Gitmo doesn't necessarily mean that the Chinese Uighurs are terrorists. Their release would seem to strongly imply that they are not terrorists and that like most of the detainees, they were innocents held on trumped-up charges.
As for Megan's post, I think she misses the point. The purpose of bringing weapons to protests is to intimidate other people. melwrc has it exactly right.
Detained at Gitmo, yes; tortured? Rilly? Got any evidence of that, or are you just assuming anyone held there must have been not just interrogated, but tortured?
> Detained at Gitmo, yes; tortured? Rilly?
Rilly.
Start with the CIA report released yesterday and work backwards. Being waterboarded is being tortured. We do it to our own SEALS *to give them practice being tortured*.
We adopted specific torture techniques used by communist China, by the Khmer Rogue, by the Gestapo, by the NKVD, and used them on people. Denying we tortured folks is just mouth music.
0whole1,
That doesn't say what you claim it does. I'm talking about the Uighurs (spelled various ways), not anyone else. And yes I know about the training US forces undergo, that's not the issue. Were the Uighurs tortured by Americans at Guantanamo, as hangdog claims? Because I can't find any evidence of it.
@ Shelby:
From http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/111/pin071609.pdf
"Prior to the interrogations, the Americans “softened up” the men by denying them sleep
and in some cases food.…They were also subjected to stress techniques such as forced sitting for many hours in a cold room, bound and shackled. Some of this mistreatment appears to have been administered at the instruction of the Chinese. All of this would not be possible without the support and cooperation of the United States."
And as we all know, Movie, the story was spun that way by a small group of hard-right whack-jobs. Please, try a little harder.
Carrying guns to political events (or polls) is about intimidation. If someone fires a shot, it won't be from those psychos, but they will be partly to blame for causing the distraction that made it less likely for someone to notice the shooter.
I'm all for hunting, though leases have gotten too expensive down here in TX. I'm all for concealed carry licenses. I just think we shouldn't use the 2nd amendment as an expression of our 1st amendment rights, which results in scaring people out of their own 1st amendment rights.
"A single guy with a gun is not really a problem, a group of armed get's a much trickier ..."
It's not tricky at all. In fact, these proud Americans arranged ahead of time to receive police protection.
Weeks in advance of their protest they liaised with local police so that there would be no "misunderstandings." The police worked with these people so that the protest would go off without a hitch; so that there would be no lefty provocateurs infiltrating their group.
If you want to see political violence, perhaps you should attend a meeting of the WHO in Seattle sometime.
It's not tricky at all. In fact, these proud Americans arranged ahead of time to receive police protection.
Wow, you have to admire those brave freedom lovers...
Listen, if you ask for police permission and protection is not a protest is a parade.
Did they liase with the opposition? It isn't just people on the right who are heavily armed... Some on the Left are pretty heavily armed, too. Many of us have military training, too.
Gun violence statistics don't capture every interaction.
On a long drive recently from North Carolina to New York, my wife and I and our 2 kids (3 + 5) stopped off at a playground in a state park in Richmond, Va. Turned out we ran into a gun party in the gazebo in the little kids playground. More than a dozen adults and kids of all ages. Everyone above the age of 13 was carrying some serious firepower.
My wife and I left- the public state park- immediately.
Thanks Virginia, and f-u too!
How many people died at this rally?
On behalf of the entire state of Virginia, I heartily return your f-u. I also have a suggestion: next time you want to drive from North Carolina to New York, why not avoid Virginia and all other permissive open carry states? As you will see from the handy color-coded chart on this Wikipedia page
, that includes Kentucky and West Virginia as well as Virginia, so you'll have to drive through the full length of Tennessee, parts of Missouri, the southern end of Illinois, the full width of Indiana and Ohio, and some part of Pennsylvania -- the full length of it, if you're heading for New York City rather than Buffalo or Rochester. But it will be worth it to prove what a superior human being you are, unlike those Neanderthals you saw exercising their legal rights in a public park. (Since it was a state park, my tax dollars, not yours, helped pay for it.)Whatever you do, make sure to keep your precious little tikes out of Vermont - you know - the state with no controls whatsoever.
What exactly is bringing guns, loaded or not, to a health care protest meant to accomplish?
Well, concealed and loaded weapons are obviously there for self-defense. But of course we have no idea how many people, on either side of the debate, fall into that category.
The openly carried ones, I don't see the point, unless it's sort of a general pro-gun or pro-libertarian statement.
But of course I can't speak for the people actually doing it; I never would.
Wow, the above comment really got put int the wrong place, didn't it?
Sorry. Will repost.
The guns and the men who carry them are meant to show opponents and the press how tough the right wing is, and why it's risky to cross it. This kind of thing happens every time a liberal Democrat is elected following a period of conservative dominance. In the 30's we had several domestic fascist groups and Father Coughlin's radio rants, in the 60's the John Birch society and the very ugly right wing mood in Dallas preceding the Kennedy visit, and in the 90's the militia movement, culminating in the bombing in Oklahoma City. Since Obama was elected we've had several political killings - George Tiller, the abortion provider, the guard at the Holocaust Museum, the massacre at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, Richard Poplawski, who killed three police officers in Pittsburgh because he was afraid of losing his guns - along with violent mobs at Congressional Town Halls. Part of the right wing in the US, a very small part, I hope, has a Brownshirt mentality. It pains me to see Megan trivializing this kind of stuff. It isn't trivial.
"The guns and the men who carry them are meant to show opponents and the press how tough the right wing is, and why it's risky to cross it."
Nah ... look just because you're scared when you see a real, live armed person, doesn't mean they're threatening you.
The guns and the men who carry them are meant to remind our elected officials who holds the power in this country - and it's not them. This is by design. Our entire way of life is built around this concept.
If they forget that, we'll defend ourselves. That is the clear message, and it's the reason why our forefathers were intelligent enough to guarantee this right in the document that founded this country.
If you wish to live in a country where nobody is allowed to carry arms, then you should move to Great Britian. We separated from Great Britian so that we could carry firearms and we do so today to remind people like you of this fact.
Yes, only Great Britain though.
Every other country in the world allows it, except the Brits.
"In 1994 the US had the highest annual gun-related deaths among the 36 richest countries (see: http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html ). Thus the following US Center for Disease Control data on gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05."
Way to go movertypeguy, you're number 1! Congrats on your superior way of life.
And of fall those countries you named, which is the most heavily armed? In that country, virtually every male citizen between the ages of 18 and 55 has a fully automatic - a very real assault weapon - in their home. What's the country?
Same stupid statistics:
1) Gang members don't use legal, registered weapons - they are criminals and by definition don't care about the law. Since the US is completely unable to stem the flow of illegal drugs and illegal people, what makes you think it the government could stop the flow of illegal guns?
2) Gun crime in the UK, while still relatively law, has tripled since the Dumblane shooting and subsequent banning of all handguns.
3) What is the difference between suicide by gun and suicide by knife, car or tall building?
Before restrictions were placed on handguns in the UK New York had more gun murders than London. After restrictions this remained the same.
Gun violence is best explained by cultural norms, not laws. I feel much safer in gun-toting Colorado, where concealed weapons are allowed, than here in DC where there is a de facto ban. (yes, even post-Heller guns are still quite difficult to obtain)
@ed
That country would be Switzerland. A country with universal heathcare, high taxes, a citizenry highly trained in the use of their weapons (mandatory training paid for by the government) and a lack of angry right-wing thugs.
Remove all cities where open carry and/or shall issue CC is not legal and their respective populations. We'd easily drop below France, if not lower. For that matter, just remove all black fatalities and population from the numbers, again we'd drop like a rock in the rate. Guns do not cause cultural issues. For that matter, gun deaths are irrelevant, only the overall murder rate matters. Not to mention that half that number is suicides in the US, which is not predicated on guns being available.
If they aren't carrying their guns as a show of force or a veiled threat then why do they bring their guns to political protests? Are they afraid of liberals? I thought liberals were pussies.
Father Coughlin? The man who complained that FDR didn't go far enough?
Re: "violent mobs at Congressional Town Halls"
All of the violence committed at Town Halls (or at least all the violence that has been filmed, or for which anyone has been arrested) has been perpetrated by pro-Obama union thugs. The worst was at the Carnahan rally in St. Louis, which had five or six SEIU goons beating up one anti-Obamacare guy, who ended up being hospitalized.
In this state, and I assume in all the others, being beaten by five or six burly union meatheads would put a reasonable person in fear of suffering death or grievous bodily harm, and thus would justify shooting any or all of them to stop the attack. Therefore, I support bringing firearms to any event at which union thugs and bullies can reasonably be expected to show up also.
I would also point out that there is a distinction in law between carrying a weapon and brandishing it. Carrying a weapon safely in a holster or on a sling is perfectly legal in most places. Aiming it at someone, waving it in the air, fingering the trigger, ostentatiously racking the action, or otherwise unjustifiably manipulating it in such a way that a reasonable person would fear being shot-- that's brandishing, and that's illegal, being a form of assault. If it had been done at any of these events, the person doing it would have been immediately arrested, if not shot by a Secret Service sharpshooter.
There also seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about where these symbolic protests are taking place. People are not milling around the foot of the stage with guns. The Secret Service sets up a perimeter around any venue where the President is speaking or staying, and local law enforcement typically does the same with Congressional meetings at schools and the like. People entering the perimeter may not bring any kind of weapon within, and this may be enforced with a search. All of these armed protestors are on public property outside the venue perimeter.
Legislation to expand the perimeter may or may not be appropriate, but you can count on some people to stand just outside wherever the perimeter may be, and publicly to exercise their Second Amendment rights, just as you can count on left-wing artists to try to push the bounds of the First Amendment. It may be instructive to think of this bold, transgressive political street theater as "Piss Christ" in reverse. It certainly seems to be getting the same reaction from liberals that we recall seeing from outraged conservatives.
"I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils."
I found the section before this somewhat insightful but this just seems like boiler plate slippery slope reasoning. What indication is there that they'll take the second step if they take the first. If we all disregard the law by going 10 miles over the speed limit are we then condemned to take 10 more steps and murder our parents for the inheritance now that we're comfortable disregarding laws. Political discourse has always been rough and dehumanizing to the other side. At every point in history it has always been worse "now" that it was "back then".
I'd take Megan's point a step further. Arguments that assume the opposing political side is made up of a dramatically different kind of person -- mentally ill, very stupid, animated by some vice that one's own side doesn't share -- are nearly always wrong. And ineffective at changing minds. They make the people who present the arguments look bad, and they turn off people who haven't yet picked a side.
So there's a pragmatic reason for rejecting them, as well as a philosophical reason.
This doesn't mean you can't criticize an individual politician for specific positions or for corruption. Maybe a specific politician DOES want, deep in his heart, to starve the poor and lock up gay people. But it's a bad idea to attribute that motivation to anyone who disagrees with you about ordinary policy decisions.
Megan,
I think you're correct that anyone who says they think the odds are greater than 50% is probably full of it. But the unwillingness to take your bet shows nothing if they say the odds are 10%. Are you willing to give 10/1 odds? If not, that says something about your probabilities too.
As to whether a gun toter's "position on healthcare changes the likelihood that he will discharge that weapon", I think the answer is that it can. If that person believes Obama's plan will decrease pharma innovation, then probably not. If they believe that Obama's plan involves euthanizing their grandmother and down syndrome child, then yeah maybe. Not to mention if that person also believes that Obama is the anti-christ.
Have you forgotten about the van full of white supremacists with automatic weapons who were arrested on their way to an Obama event during the election? Was their action just symbolic?
I'd really prefer, when I'm at a shouty emotional demonstration, where my opinions are strong and the other guy next to me has equally strong views in the opposite direction, and both of us are getting excited, if neither of us is carrying on his hip a tool designed only for killing human beings. Somehow I get the nagging feeling it's not going to help us learn to get along.
"I'd really prefer, when I'm at a shouty emotional demonstration, where my opinions are strong and the other guy next to me has equally strong views in the opposite direction, and both of us are getting excited, if neither of us is carrying on his hip a tool designed only for killing human beings."
Our founding fathers were intelligent enough to be able to look into the future and see that there might, one day, be someone like you, who might prefer that nobody have guns.
So, they wrote the Second Amendment; because they didn't really much give a fat rat's ass what you prefer. Our rights aren't doled out to us based on what you folks on the left prefer.
movertypeguy, playing a never-ending game of whack-a-mole with thoughtful conversation.
movertyperguy, you assume something I didn't say and don't think. I come from the gun culture of central Georgia. I like shooting stuff off of fences in the woods. I don't bring weapons to a political debate. But thanks for the insulting and incorrect leap of logic.
Hey Lane, I'm from the upper midwest gun culture. I like lining up cans in the sand pit and shooting them. I also like partridge, pheasant, and venison. I also don't bring weapons to a political debate.
When I was traveling in Alaska, I stopped in numerous roadhouses with signs at the door telling you to leave your guns in the car. Wonder why they ever came up with that rule. How could they possibly let a little common sense stand in the way of 100% dogma?
Clearly, no such reality check required on this blog. I'm shocked, shocked, that no one took up the original bet.
If having guns at a rally is so terrible why do we let the secret service do so?
I'm not really affraid that one of the gun-toters will actually shoot up an event. It's just chilling to me that they seem to be threatening violence if their desired policy outcome does not occur.
As an anarchist, I'm not too afraid that one of the state's gun-toters will actually shoot anyone at a rally, it's just chilling that they seem to be threatening violence against me if my desired policy outcome does not occur.
Joshua, your sense of self-importance is showing. They aren't threatening you. You are irrelevant.
BTW, what policy outcome does this self-described anarchist desire?
Of course I'm being threatened, laws are backed up by enforcement, nyet? Just because I'm not singled out for personalized threats doesn't mean I'm not subject to systemic intimidation and violence.
The end of archy, of course. If you want something more specific, google my user name on the Atlantic.
Ah, anarchism, the Schrödinger's cat of political views. What you want is as impossible as Communism or Objectivism.
(replying to ravenshrike @1:51 here as comments only nest finitely)
Luckily, it's slightly less impossible than just statism.
Chilling or liberating . . . depends on your views of what happened in Concord on April 15, 1775?
Yes, I'm being facetious. But behind the comment, there's a serious question over what you think the 2d Amendment means today vs. when it was drafted.
Yes I understand the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow for militias that could overthrow an oppresive government. But they're seriously threatening revolution over health care reform? It's downright nutty if you ask me.
Has any government ever admitted that people wanted to overthrow it for good reason?
Re: Yes I understand the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow for militias that could overthrow an oppresive government.
This is often stated, but it's almost certainly not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for. The Founders did not create a new government with the intention that it should be overthrown by some violent armed mob. Their attitude toward the French Revolution establishes their thinking on that sort of thing.
The reason for the 2nd Amendment is more subtle. The Founders did not want a large standing army. Some wanted no army, period. Armies, they knew from history, can be used to oppress the people, and can also be comandeered by ambitious generals to overthrow the government. So in order to provide for national defense at the local level (against Indians, pirates and border raids) the Founders endorsed the concept of an armed citizen militia, under the control of the states. Hence (they hoped) no need for a large standing army. Yes, the Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms, but certainly not for the purpose of asassinating political leaders, or intimidating those who you disagree with.
Like the New Black Panthers at the polling station - you know the ones that Eric Holder declined to prosecute? They were brandishing weapons (not guns, but still weapons) for the clear purpose of intimidating voters and the DOJ seems to think that was A-OK.
movertyperguy says
"The guns and the men who carry them are meant to remind our elected officials who holds the power in this country - and it's not them. This is by design. Our entire way of life is built around this concept."
He's proving my point. Yes, due to my unmanly characteristics, I'm much less likely to express my views if people who disagree strongly with me are carrying guns. That's why they carry the guns. I thank him for clarifying the issues.
They don't carry guns to silence you.
They carry guns so you can never be silenced.
That you are scared of them is your own mental health issue. Don't project your fears onto them and assign to them motives that are untrue.
Oh Irony!
Accusing others of mental health issues, that's projection my friend.
But you are being watched. It's not paranoia.
The gun carriers are projecting their fears on others. You'd fail Freud 101 with flying colors.
Freud wasn't very scientific and propagated a lot of nonsense, but even he recognized that a fear of weapons was pathological.
The president commands the most powerful military ever to exist and nuclear weapons, yet still I disagree with him and am willing to express that disagreement; perhaps, none the less, he should be banned from expressing any views so long as he holds control over such might.
I thank you for clarifying the issues. Equality of Authority: ain't it a stinker.
ITT: internet tough guys.
I don't think these guys are dangerous, but I definitely find it very odd. It's the equivalent of furries or people dressed as their favorite anime character showing up to a political protest.
AC ... that's part of the reason people are deliberately being provocative. It's to get you to stop and think.
You believe it's "odd" that people would bear arms. There's a reason you think it's odd, and that is the prior 50 years of gun control have taught you to believe that arming yourself - providing a means to protect your family and your property - is wrong.
It's precisely because you think this is odd that people are deliberately wearing their weapons out in the open. It's to desensitize you and force you to think about your rights and responsibilities.
Yes, they are there solely as a philosophical exercise to enable thought.
MPG - they're behind you!
What gun do you have btw?....never mind, just checked your record.
It's political theater, and it's having the same effect on spluttering left-wingers that Piss Christ and the elephant-dung Madonna had on conservatives a few years ago. I find it hilarious.
There is a discussion taking place concerning serious issues that affect all of us. If you have a point, make it, and let the other participants in the discussion judge your point on the case that you make. In this context, the display of a weapon serves to do what exactly?
The weapon is simply an implied threat, and not even remotely directed toward "our elected officials". "Reminding" an elected official that the power is held by the electorate, by way of a display of weapons is an overt threat and a felony. Try showing up at any official's office with your vintage Mannlicher-Carcano and see how they respond.
The point of a democracy is decisions are made via UNCOERCED debate and referendum. The only thing one CAN do with a gun is discharge it or THREATEN to discharge it. You bring a gun to a discussion because you are afraid the sissy liberal types are going to bully you into silence, is that what you are saying movertypeguy? And you need to show them that their numbers and organization won't stop YOU, is THAT what you are saying? (can you even spell democracy?) Just a suggestion... go read some history of fascist movements before you post again.
Megan, movertype, et al are clearly disengenuous and wish only to put lipstick on a fascist pig.
I'll support a social norm of forbidding weapons at political events if and only if it is universal: applying to the political class as much as the rest of us.
"The point of a democracy is decisions are made via UNCOERCED debate and referendum"
You mean like the liberal union thugs who beat up the anti Obamacare protester in St. Louis?
You mean the liberals who called for a boycott of Whole Foods because the CEO wrote an article with alternatives to Obamacare?
You mean the leftwing group, started by one of Obama's White House advisors that pressured advertisers to pull advertising from some Fox News show because the shoe's host
You mean Obama himself, who said he wanted opponents to "shut up and get out of the way"?
I guess I could go on for several pages, but you get the idea. The "liberals" who so pronounce their allegiance to "UNCOERCED debate", actually mean ONE WAY debate - theirs.
"uncoerced" means without coercion regardless of who the perpetrators are. I did not specify "uncoerced from the right" and for you to imply that I meant liberal coercion is ok, and coercion from others is not, simply shines a light on YOUR worldview.
But except for your example of the protestor, your examples are NOT examples of coercion. A boycott of Whole Foods? That's "numbers and organization". For the record, I disagree with it, think it's stupid. But within the context of democracy, that IS how things are influenced. "Leftwing group"? (dude, seriously, your invective is being lost in your spittle) That too, is how people with a viewpoint, influence the conversation. See that emphasis on CONVERSATION? i.e. NOT going to the advertisers offices with a Glock .40 in your waistband, "just to talk". "Shut up and get out of the way"? 'Oh man, the President said to shut up, I guess that means everyone who wants to not do anything about healthcare is hereby silenced..." See?, again an OPINION, voiced, but yours to take it or leave it. The President said to SHUT UP, did you? do you feel THREATENED? There is a manifest difference in our conversation when I have the ability to kill you, and you do not have the same ability to do the same.
I suspect that, like the notion that Obama is not a US citizen, or that George Bush either planned the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen...
I am getting tired of people tossing off the Birthers and Truthers as though they are roughly equivalent groups on opposite sides of the idealogical divide.
The Birthers may have a large number of conspiracy whackjobs among them but I don't know that since I am not going to trust the press to present them accurately when they seldom present their complaint accurately.
What I do know is that there are huge differences between the groups all of which make the Birthers far more reasonable than Truthers.
(1) The severity of the charge.
If I had a friend who it turned out he wasn't a U.S. citizen but had lied about it for years, we would still be friends. It's not like somebody died or something. Classic victimless crime. If on the other hand it turned out he had helped plot the murder of 3000 people, well we wouldn't be friends anymore to say the least.
You have to have a deep seated hatred of Bush to ever seriously consider the Truther charge. The Birther charge on the other hand doesn't require hating Obama. One could actually understand if the charge is true why he or his parents (or grandparents) did it and admit that we might do it ourselves in the same circumstances.
(2) Size of the conspiracy
For the Birther theory to be true, how many people have to be in on it? 3 or 4?
For the Truther theory to be true? A dozen? Two dozen?
And keep in mind all the people in the Birther conspiracy are Obama family with possibly a friend as well and what horrible secret is eating away at them?
For the Truther one, you have to have many conscienceless automatons covering Bushs back and happily aiding in the deaths of thousands of countrymen. Also you have to have found all these maniacs without ever approaching anyone who would spill. In other words, pretty unlikely.
(3) Falsifiablity
Obama could easily silence the Birthers main complaint by releasing his birth certificate. Whether he won't because there is something on it that is embarassing or because he wants to keep the conspiracy alive for political gain isn't the point. He could end it if he wanted to.
How is Bush supposed to disprove the Truthers? He is faced with proving a negative and nothing he says will ever satisfy them.
Put it all together and I just don't see how you can compare the two groups. One group believes in a huge conspiracy with many ruthless players of nebulous motives and they will never be dissuaded. The other group believes in a small conspiracy with understandable motives and has a specific demand they want met to disprove it.
And the "Truthers" get (rightly) ridiculed while the wacko "Birthers" get (wrongly) prime time spots to discuss their moronic views. That's another area on non-equivalence.
Agree with Megan. The whole thread is proof positive why it's not smart to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights when discussing political issues: The guns-are-icky crowd only focus on the guns.
There's a powerful bit of psychology that your readers aren't getting here, Ms. McArdle.
I have a concealed-carry license for my firearm, and have been known to strap my gun on when I'm headed into a rough part of town, or when I'll be out late at night.
One night, when returning from my local geeky game store, I got into a confrontation with a guy. I'd accidentally bumped his car while parallel parking. Totally my fault, and he came unglued at me. I'm trying to apologize, and asking what I can do to make the situation better, but he just wants to scream at me.
I'm also carrying a revolver in a shoulder holster.
Let me tell you something, from the perspective of someone who's been there: That's a powerful stabilizing force. I can shoot the guy dead if I want. Y'know, I really don't want to. Not only that, but I know that if the situation escalates it could get really ugly, really fast.
When you're toting lethal force around, you have a powerful incentive to de-escalate the situation. I like my concealed carry privileges, and want to keep them. Not only that, but I'm carrying the trump card. My opponent may not know it, but I can shut down any threats in a big hurry.
That means I'm the responsible one. And don't think that gun owners don't know it. They know if they shoot someone, or heck, even if they threaten someone, the cops are going to show up and question everyone, and take you away if you did something wrong. And then your gun ownership rights are out the window.
Guns don't turn people into screaming, angry maniacs. Quite the opposite. They make you quite aware of the power and responsibility you're carrying.
Guns don't turn people into screaming, angry maniacs. Quite the opposite. They make you quite aware of the power and responsibility you're carrying
It may be you. I have known plenty of guys that just feel the power and get very cocky because they are armed, my father included (he realized that and stoped). I been personally in a couple situations where guys were ready to escalate situations, to protect their "rights and honor" for me pointing out that they were jumping the line on a gas stations, or driving in the wrong lane. And in both cases they weren't criminals they were off-duty police officers.
Guns don't turn people into screaming, angry maniacs.
True, screaming, angry maniacs were that way before they buy their guns.
Off duty police officers seem to think that a different set of rules applies to them in regard to gun incidents than to the rest of us. I've seen the very attitude you describe a few times myself.
The sad thing is that often times they are right.
No, they don't. YOU are a sober, reflective, responsible, individual, licensed for concealed carry. YOU already ARE that person. MOST gun carriers are NOT you. Most gun discharge incidents are not initially "crimes" apart from the weapon posession and discharge. Most are conflicts where one party has a gun and shoots it at someone in anger. Not licensed, not legal, just armed. That is the reality.
Most gun carriers are not sober, reflective, responsible individuals? What exactly are you trying to say? Or is it that most gun carriers are doing so illegally? This isn't very clear.
That said, Ulysses nyh, you seem to be making sweeping generalizations about what is "the reality". Are they based on more than just your personal impressions?
Do you have any evidence whatsover for this version of reality you claim to inhabit? Or is it at least possible that gun owners are ordinary people from an ordinary spectrum of personalities who are merely carrying a tool, and some misuse their perceived capabilities of that tool while others do not?
I still want to get a bunch of pro-health reform people to show up at events with colorful plastic squirt guns. We could have water fights after the gas bags are through gassing.
The great Dick Tuck, Democratic prankster in California, once brought a hundred people with cheap bamboo canes to a campaign speech given by a candidate who had feigned a knee injury to dodge the draft during WWII. The pranksters waved their canes in the air and feigned sword-fighting with them during the hapless politician's speech.
While normally, I would agree that guns at protests show poor judgment, it seems to be a fairly rational response to de-normalization.
To recap. Someone in the anti gun lobby came up with a brilliant idea. Let's treat carrying a gun as weird. Let's repeat that as often and as loudly as possible, so that more people would think that it is weird to carry a gun. And then people will not want to carry guns, because they don't want to appear weird. It's a very simple and very smart strategy. Unfortunately, many people disagree with its goals.
So how can one possible oppose it? How does one influence public opinion the other direction? The simplest way is to show that carrying guns is normal, not weird. Show that lots of people can carry guns at all sorts of situations and nothing bad happens, and that those people are successful members of society and not a bunch of inbred rednecks (or some other offensive stereotype, pick your own). And it there for follows, that if you want to attract attention to people legally carrying guns, its best to do so in a setting where attention will be given, such as a political protest.
Its a tactic that could backfire wildly, should things go badly, but if they don't, then it might do its job of combating de-normalization.
Hear, hear.
What really bothers me is that the proponents of the denormalization of arming for ordinary people so often seem in favor of having it be normal for a privileged class.
To be fair, that is not entirely true. Most proponents of de-normalization are not in favor of privileged class carrying weapons. They support their bodyguards carrying weapons. The logic goes, that bodyguards are trained professionals, and thus are qualified to carry a gun, much like police and military. I disagree with the logic, but i do not see the hypocrisy.
But the class of bodyguards is then privileged, right?
Admittedly, the hypocrisy is not universal, but given that favoring restrictions on the right to bear arms often runs with support for equality of outcome on other issues a significant subset of the proponents could be accused of hypocrisy on the basis that their policies produce the result of ex-post inequality of armed protection.
Somehow I always find myself defending opinions I disagree with.
Put it this way. To many antigun people, a gun is a dangerous tool, too dangerous to be given to just anyone. However it is a necessary tool (at times) and so should be given only to those that qualify. Basically, they want to license gun use, in much the same way we license driving cars or flying air planes. While I do not believe they are right, I don't think its all that unreasonable.
Basically, they are saying that everyone that carries a gun needs to be trained and screened actively before hand. Not just passively screened as we do now (Has that person committed a felony?), but actively screened (is there anything about that person that makes them unlikely to handle stressful situations well). To me, our constitution seems dead set against them, but they disagree.
Constitutional arguments aside, I disagree because in my experience operating a gun does not require extra ordinary skill (operating a vehicle is much more demanding in my opinion) nor does it require an extra ordinary judgment to know when to use a firearm.
However, if you assume, arguendo, that the mere possession of a gun makes most people act out power fantasies, act in ways they would not otherwise, etc, and that the only way to avoid mass vigilantism is screen people for this tendency, you can follow that reasoning to precisely where most anti gun advocates are.
The short and sweet version is that a great many "antigun" people are not against guns, they are against treating gun ownership (or rather carrying guns) as a right, and would much rather treat it as a licensed privilege.
Let's say we frame this as a blacklist/whitelist argument and decide whitelisting is the prudent course. Wouldn't fairness (that's vague, lets say "equality of authority") or reasonable regard for equality of outcome require that getting on the whitelist be readily possible for the average citizen, much like the licensing of drivers and shall-issue concealed carry, to the extent that access to the whitelist is essentially pro forma unless one would qualify for a presumptive blacklist?
Given, guns may be conducive to power fantasies, but are they to an extent that is so disproportionate to that of cars?
In my opinion we give away driver licenses far too easily, and clamp down on guns far too much. But that's just my opinion.
I think in a way this ties into the difference between giving priority to the intent versus an outcome. Cars may kill more people than guns, but guns are meant to kill people, while cars do not. I always thought the outcome matters a great deal more than the motivation, but many disagree.
> The simplest way is to show that carrying guns is normal, not weird.
From where I'm coming from
a) I have no problem with competent folks carrying;
b) The behavior of a lot of folks at the protests leads me to think that a lot of them are *not* competent;
c) Toting AK-47s around in a crowd -- any crowd, but specifically the revved-up shout-poriums that the town halls became -- seems ridiculously irresponsible.
So in the specific case of these protests, if you're trying to normalize carrying by showing it's not weird, it seems to me that your fellow protesters are undermining your message.
Please be more specific about the behavior that makes you deduce they are not competent.
I've met a number of "gun totters" who had the attitude of "Well, if someone around here is going to be armed, I'd rather it be me".
While I suspect you would abhor this sort of attitude, you present something very similar. "I don't mind over regulating, as long as I'm the one doing the over regulating"
The point is that you are not in charge of deciding who looks competent. And just as you would not want me making those decisions, I do not want you to do it.
"You mean like the liberal union thugs who beat up the anti Obamacare protester in St. Louis?"
ed, are you out there? I condemn this kind of violence if it happened, but I'm not sure it did. I've seen internet references to this event on right wing blogs, but nothing in the press or on television. Can you provide me with links to newspaper articles, or at least tell me where to look? I'd also be interested if any of the "liberal union thugs" were charged with assault by the St. Louis police.
It was all over the St. Louis news - including TV. If you read about it on blogs, but were to dumb to be able to use Google, it's your porblem.
You mean the Kenneth Gladney whose terrible injuries required a wheelchair next day - and did just fine without it when being interviewed the same night on the rightwing yapfests? Kenneth Gladney, who mysteriously found a lawyer waiting for him, and began ripping off conservative fools for cash - despite the fact that Bill Hennessy who organized the event admitted that Gladney had insurance?
You mean the guy that really did get beat up by union pig thugs? Yep! I do.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/faking-victimhood-just-how-hurt-was:
"It enters the scene a bit late -- an SEIU member is already on the ground and appears to be injured, but we can't tell what the cause was. As he's laying there, other SEIU members come to his protection, and one of them pulls down Gladney; both men fall to the pavement. Both quickly get back up. There appears to be little to it. [A section of the video showing the supposed assault is in slow motion.]"
"Indeed, it's readily apparent that Gladney seems completely unhurt. He wanders out to the crowd, chats with the cameraman, flags down a cop, and saunters back to where police decide to handcuff the man who knocked him down. As you can hear, the man protests that he was just keeping Gladney away from his fallen friend."
According to some who were present, Gladney tried to attack the SEIU member. In any event, it seems clear he's exaggerating his injuries, if he had any at all.
So tell us, who are these people who declined to take your bet? Names, please. And contact info, so we can ask them the hell they didn't explain to you very, very gently just how deeply offensive your suggestion was.
I don't think it's more offensive than claiming that a bunch of people you've never met are looking to shoot someone.
I'm sure if we all sat down with the dude carrying the assault rifle and belonging to the militia that plotted bombing government buildings we'd find that he's a caring, sensitive soul. And if Megan encountered him at night in a dark alley she wouldn't for a second question whether he intended to use his gun or be nervous in the slightest. In fact, they'd probably have a nice chat about the second amendment and place bets on whether the president will be assassinated.
How dare people think the guy touting an assault rifle at a health care debate might be off his nut. How dare they indeed.
lame post.
just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. any justification, reasoning or argument on this feels more like a parsing of rules and laws. but above all that, the civic-minded protestors should probably ask themselves, when i enter into a heated event, one where emotions run high, you know what i wish i would have with me?
my gun? really? lame.
So you're all for people having freedoms, just not the freedoms to use those freedoms? If you grant people the freedom of speech, accept that they will say things you will not like. if you grant people the freedom to carry guns, expect them to carry them in ways you disagree with. That's what freedom means. It's not freedom if its "you can do anything you want as long as it is something I want you to do."
oh no ken, i fully support yours and anyone's idea to express their rights. i don't believe i said anything to the effect of what you are implying. what i am asking, or hell, saying, is that i do not understand why that is a good idea? what does it achieve? to me, i view it as an indication of, i am willing and able to escalate this. to me, i've never viewed guns carried in public as anything more than a deterrent. in a protest, what would they be trying to deter?
but maybe there is a dimension of gun-carrying thought that i do not understand, and if so then please educate me.
Well, it could prove that responsible citizens can carry firearms to emotionally charged situations, and still use them responsibly.
no, i am not asking whether or not they are being responsible. i am already assuming that they are responsible.
what i am asking is what are you trying to prove by bringing a gun to an emotionally heated event?
that you are responsible? seems circular to me.
It's not circular in the least. Just look at the number of people on this very thread that consider bringing guns by citizens to an emotionally charged situation an invitation to disaster.
It is to those people, and to people like them, that this attempt at a proof is being made.
After all, if you really believed that a common citizen is responsible enough to handle a firearm at an emotionally heated situation, why would it seem lame to you to carry one?
Lame comment; at the very least my critique from equality and Ken's marvelous comment on establishment of social norms still attain and are much more than semantic.
Megan,
What about carrying 2x4s to protests? Those could prove dangerous in unstable hands.
A few people with guns protesting in unison is not a problem. But get a few thousand people with guns on conflicting sides of rowdy protests and accidents are going to happen (guns won't cause fighting, they'll just increase the odds that someone gets killed).
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/st-louis-crime-beat/2009/08/12/st-louis-county-police-not-looking-for-others-in-gladney-incident/
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/0470FEB3219207458625760B001142AC?OpenDocument
Looks like it was mostly reported by the local news and not picked up by the national news. But the national news are the ones reporting on racist gun-owners who hate Obama... if they're covering up the race of men with guns, I am not surprised they haven't picked this story up.
Think of it this way. If the time comes when someone, maybe most likely not even a protester or counterprotester, takes a shot at the President, the Secret Service won't bother to determine who is and who isn't just exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. They'll take the action that they've publicly stated for many years and those protesters will wind up in the sights of the USSS and most likely end up dead unless they are really quick at dropping their weapon. In the end, they are accomplishing nothing productive, putting their lives and that of the President at risk, and making the job of the Secret Service that much harder.
If the job of the Secret Service was easy, the president wouldn't require their services.
I grew up on a farm, our only vacation was deer and elk hunting season after the harvest. I served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. I fully support the right to posess firearms.
BUT. Anyone not a police officer who shows up at a public meeting carrying a firearm, loaded or not, by definition qualifies as not normal.
AND. I have never and would never own an assault rifle, a hand gun or a short barreled open choke shotgun because the only thing they are designed for or any good for is killing people.
"The rate of crime associated with legal gun possession or carrying seems to be very low." I followed the link and it contains NO statistics related to the topic except that the incidence of gun violence per capita is low and that people in prison who had used guns mostly got them illegally.
Obviously you have no experience with guns. Do me a favor, go to a local gun club, rent a Glock and spend a half hour shooting holes in human form targets and then sit down and analyze the emotional responces you experience.
But why should police officers be specially privileged? Why shouldn't the rest of us insist that when they attend public meetings, even with an eye to keeping order, they do so without their firearms or stay outside? Certainly, if the use of lethal force becomes necessary either the police or other citizens could then retrieve their arms and proceed.
Uh. If the incidence of gun violence per capita is low and the people who commit the gun violence mostly got their guns illegally, then the incidence per capita of gun violence committed with legal firearms must be really low. No?
Earnest Iconoclast, when I went to the sites you provided I didn't see anything about "union thugs" or about convictions. The event you're talking about could indeed be a case of left-wing intimidation, in which case I condemn it. It could also be a fake case like the one during the presidential campaign in which a confused young women rooting for McCain manufactured something similar to the "union thugs" beating in St. Louis.
Regarding your statement about the national press refusing to print anything good about conservatives or anything bad about liberals, recall that the national press includes the Washington Times and Fox News.
I wasn't going to comment on this, but I'd like to say to my own (pro-gun) side here: pipe down. Calling people stupid and unthinking is not helping the cause out any more than carrying an AR-15 to a health care rally does.
The guns don't really bother me much. It's kinda weird, and almost certainly counterproductive (although Ken's norming argument makes some sense). But I don't expect violence; in all probability the rifles are unloaded anyway, and the fact is that even at a "gun free" protests, there are probably a bunch of licensed concealed handguns.
And I have greatly enjoyed the media's moronic overreaction.
But we could show a tad more respect to people who disagree here. No need to act like the crazed redneck they already think you are.
Civility I could agree with. Respect for people who want to tell others what constitutional rights they can exercise? Not so much.
Appreciate the call for civility. The question I have (and which I think several others have tried to articulate) is this:
What exactly is bringing guns, loaded or not, to a health care protest meant to accomplish?
Again, I don't question the legality of it. I question the point. If these were rallies against some new gun-control legislation, then I'd understand. But in the context of health care, it strikes me as intimidation. Of course, intimidation is perfectly legal as well. But it doesn't facilitate any sort of meaningful debate.
So, can someone explain the reasoning to this skeptic?
no clue, but amen brother.
I think whoever was arguing about the renormalization of guns had part of it. If you normally carry, why not carry where it is legal? Carrying is nothing to be ashamed of.
Now that it has become an issue itself, people that wouldn't have carried probably will since not exercising your 2nd amendment rights in the face of bedwetter criticism will grate.
I don't doubt some of it is intimidation but some of it is also to not be intimidated. You hear Obama saying hit back twice as hard and about union thugs attacking a guy and you might want some protection yourself as the buses pull in.
Whatever the reasoning, as long as they aren't violating the law, they are free to exercise all their rights.
Easy. Those people are not opposing the current version of health care reform on the basis of health policy, they are opposing expansion of gov't.
Congratulations Megan. You've finally won over the oft-sought after Alex Jones demographic.
What exactly is bringing guns, loaded or not, to a health care protest meant to accomplish?
Well, concealed and loaded weapons are obviously there for self-defense. But of course we have no idea how many people, on either side of the debate, fall into that category.
The openly carried ones, I don't see the point, unless it's sort of a general pro-gun or pro-libertarian statement.
I can't speak for the people actually doing it; I never would.
What exactly is bringing guns, loaded or not, to a health care protest meant to accomplish?
Well, concealed and loaded weapons are obviously there for self-defense. But of course we have no idea how many people, on either side of the debate, fall into that category.
The openly carried ones, I don't see the point, unless it's sort of a general pro-gun or pro-libertarian statement.
But of course I can't speak for the people actually doing it; I never would.
I'm having a bad day with comments, aren't I.
Maybe I should work instead.
If you don't have a concealed carry permit, open carry is the only legal way. Better that than breaking the law.
Plot _this_ on your Government Grid:
X = How much control you want to have
Y = How much force you are willing to use
The Right to own weapons is the Right to be free.
If you cannot defend yourself, you have no Rights.
Granny, why do you carry that: To assert my Right.
A ballot not secured by force of arms is worthless.
It is great to remind your reps that "the people" are the ones in charge. It is OK to use those 2nd amendment rights. I guess one is allowed to pack heat to intimidate if you want.
Just not sure that emotionally charged protests are the place to do it....common sense and all that. Just because something is legal to do does not make it the right thing to do in all situations.
The problem with anything like this is that the first guys are sane and fairly normal, but soon the loonies who think that health care is a way to kill grandma, ration toilet paper and take away their freedoms will soon begin to think "well hell, I think I'll take my gun with me today".
You know, the type who shoots his uncle (who is younger then him) in the foot at the family reunion because they got into a fight over which is better; Lynyrd Skynyrd or Black Oak Arkansas.
The kind of guy who feels his manhood is wrapped up in his gun.
Please, I speak from experience since I live among these nutjobs who "want their country baaaaccccckkkk". Now they won't shot the President, but they just might shoot themselves or that dirty hippy who wants to make them a socialist or some gray hair protesting gov't health care while getting gov't health care.
There ARE morons out there who legally own guns....if only one had to take a "stupid test" to own a weapon.
Re: The incident in St. Louis.
From the video it is hard to tell if the guy was hit, bumped or fell over his own feet.
What you can tell is that in the beginning he is standing over the Rev. who is on the ground and who was roughed up by anti-reform folks.
The other thing is that Mr. Gladney looked just fine that evening. Fell down and then jumped right back up, walked around. Next time we see him he is in a wheelchair needing others to help him pay his health care bills....except he did not. I have a feeling he is a guy who needed some cash and realized that by allowing himself to be used by the anti-reform folks he in turn could use them. Hope he rides that conservative gravy train for as long as he can.
CAL - I hear you on that. But again, I don't think the answer really addresses my question.
Re: normalization - I can buy in to this argument, to some degree ("Maybe if everyone saw guns more, it won't be a big deal when we do.") But I would contend that there is a much better time and place. After all, these town halls are arguably more emotional than anything we've seen recently in American politics.
Seems to me the other argument really boils down to "they do it because they can." Personally, I don't think that's ever a good excuse to do anything (course, I don't expect anyone else to subscribe to that philosophy). Especially in circumstances where there are perfectly legal, but still adverse consequences. I think that's the case here. I certainly don't think open-carrying is illegal, nor do I believe the guns are making people less safe (which seems to be the point Megan was making). But I firmly believe that the presence of guns at these rallies heats the debate and the narrative, and therefore contributes to the extreme polarization that's made this whole process so uncivil.
Ken's, I believe, is a different approach. It's the "by any means necessary" (or as I call it, the "FOX News") approach: 1) We don't want government expansion, 2) therefore we oppose the healthcare reform efforts, 3) so we'll bring guns to the rally precisely because they will distort the narrative and make healthcare harder to pass.
I'm not a fan of this one because I'd rather this issue be debated on the merits....but it's working, so I guess I can't begrudge people for using it.
I'm rambling. Let me rephrase my original question: What, if anything, do the guns bring to the healthcare debate?
Also, I'd like to make the point that this applies to both sides of the debate. To the extent there are reform advocates out there toting guns (or weapons of any kind, really), this would apply to them equally.
I think you are making an assumption that might not be true. We don't know if these people always carry and we are just being made aware of it since they are at a townhall or if they specifically get their guns to go to the townhall. The latter might be construed as taunting or uncivil.
I disagree that guns are helping our side. (Unless it prevents another SEIU beatdown.) It gives the media something to talk about along with our swastikas and Brooks Brothers suits so they don't have to discuss how much people really hate the government plan.
As to what guns bring to the healthcare debate, that is obvious: bullets.
Megan:
Honestly, I think you’re starting to lose your mind. Maybe wean yourself off the Ambien CR (which, by the way, you’ve been snookered into believing is better than generic Ambien and quite frankly I don’t like paying higher insurance premiums so you can get that prescription at a discount).
First of all, you say “Guns, it turn out, do not turn ordinary people into murderers. They make murderers more effective.” Oh really? Isn’t that convenient? Are you telling me that you really don’t think that people have been murdered as a result of easy accessibility to guns who would otherwise still be alive today?
And what do you mean by “ordinary people”? Would you consider a person flaunting a loaded weapon and holding a sign that reads “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" at an event with the President of the United States to be an “ordinary” person? And what if this person was tied to a group called the “Arizona Viper Militia” that had plotted to blow up federal buildings in the 1990’s – still just “ordinary”? Or what about a person holding a sign at an event with the President that says ‘Death To Obama, Death To Michelle And Her Two Stupid Kids’ – is that an “ordinary” person? Or a person at a town hall meeting with a picture of the President defaced to look like Hitler who screams about Nazi policies at her congressman? Or a person trying to link the president’s healthcare logo to a Nazi party symbol – would he be considered “ordinary”? And what about person who would place a hanged effigy of a congressman outside his office building because he wants him to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation – is that just an “ordinary” person carrying out his fundamental right to protest?
Obviously, we disagree on whether or not guns should be allowed at events attended by the President of the United States. (Hell, I remember a time when individuals could get kicked out of events attended by George W. Bush for wearing the wrong t-shirt.) But quite frankly, you’re a little too quick to deem anyone carrying a gun at one of these events an “ordinary” person. Maybe you should take the lead in convincing Congress to allow guns in federal buildings too. Why shouldn’t they be allowed, right? Why don’t you see how many politician’s you can gather up to support that.
And do you not realize that allowing guns at these events actually scares some people away from attending them? Do we really want to live in a society where people may be too intimidated to come to a Town Hall meeting to discuss important legislation that may affect their lives? Aw, too bad for them, right?
Finally, you say people’s fears about weapons are not justified – and that talk is cheap. But quite frankly, you’re talk is sick. Maybe people don’t take you up on your little bet because it’s disgusting – because it’s nauseating that people in this world are so craven that they’d be willing to bet on whether or not the President of the United States will be murdered by a lunatic (or, if you prefer, an “ordinary” person). Maybe you could start looking for takers on bets on whether or not the next Space Shuttle blows up and all U.S. astronauts aboard are killed, too. Or maybe you could start taking bets on how many Americans will be killed in Afghanistan this year – and the closest number wins. Or maybe you could start taking bets on how many Americans will die as a result of the next hurricane to hit our shores.
Let’s look again at what you wrote:
“But it is pleasurable to tell yourself you believe terrible things about your enemies, and so you don't examine the thought until someone says, "Well, how about $500 on it, then?" and you think about how much it would hurt to lose $500 on, and realize that you don't actually have any reason to believe it's all that likely.”
Seems to me like someone definitely is taking pleasure in this debate. And that’s you.
Thanks for an excellent comment, Eric. Hope Megan gets a chance to read it and rethink such a ridiculous post. I've only recently started reading this blog, and while I disagree with Megan sometimes, I respect her arguments and learn from reading them. This, however, needs to be called out for what it is. BS.
>First of all, you say “Guns, it turn out, do not turn ordinary people into murderers. They make murderers more effective.” Oh really? Isn’t that convenient? Are you telling me that you really don’t think that people have been murdered as a result of easy accessibility to guns who would otherwise still be alive today?
A small portion of the people who have been killed with guns would still be alive today. Most of them would still have been killed by other means.
However, this amount of people 'saved' by 'magic unicorns disappearing guns' would be negligible to the amount of people who would not have lived without guns, who would have been killed but for the equalizing power of the firearm.
>Did you read the link? The question I am asking is whether you find it plausible that this fellow, who IS A DEMOCRAT IN FAVOR OF OBAMA'S HEALTHCARE PLANS, but also packing heat, is there to try to send the message that he plans to shoot anyone who disagrees with him. Or could he maybe just be demonstrating in favor of the second amendment? And if he is, is it plausible that other people packing heat might be doing it for the same reason?
megan, we are on the internet. This is a zone full of numbnuts who call each other names and don't really think.
just chill.
oh oh, here is another 'right-wing nut extremist' on why people have loved firearms:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/a-vote-for-gun-control-is-a-vote-for-thunderdome/
P.S. I'll give you right wing, but this man can speak clearly and appears to be intelligent and does not qualify for any of the conditions on the DSM-IV, currently the standard manual for psychiatric disorder.
Even from outside the US it is easy to see what it does accomplish. It is fairly common for people following the law and using open carry to be hassled by police, or just wrongly arrested.
There is two possible responses here, you can as an individual chose to break the law and put the gun in your purse or whatever to avoid that; or you can in an organized fashion do Open carry; so police will be informed by their departments (or prosecutors) about the law; and/or just read about it in their newspaper or see it on TV and that way be informed.
If you see a group of people in a park, and they all have hand guns; that is what they are doing (and if its gets into the media they are delighted). Same if you see guys walking around on TV with rifles on their back.
This is not a unique US problems, I know people who have been hassled when bringing their rifle home from the range, or going home IN UNIFORM from a military exercise (home guard members is supposed to keep their service weapon at home). This in Sweden, who up until recently had mandatory male conscription. In most of those cases in Sweden, police did not arrest anyone in the end, but more or less verbaly abused the citizens for doing legal and indeed rational things.
The answer to the general question posed in the headline is, "emphatically, yes." Combining two or more groups of people with passionate disagreements and adding firearms to the mix is dangerous. Common sense tells us that.
As to this blog post, I don't mean this to be as smarmy as it will read but I gave up after the second typo in the third paragraph (both still present, hours after the post went up). Blogosphere editing standards - never too high to begin with - are sinking lower and lower. What I want from Atlantic writers - whatever their chosen media - is evidence of thoughtfulness and consideration. Failure to proofread is evidence against thoughtfulness, and it calls into question the substance of the post.
(Hah - I will now wait for the inevitable pointing out of a typo in my post.)
Poor Steinglass:
http://trueslant.com/matthewsteinglass/2009/08/26/oh-yeah-wanna-bet/
Dude, just stop paying attention, she's mailing it in. RSS - unsubscribe!
It's not hysterical to note with intense dismay the weaponization of our political discourse. And once one side has armed, the arming of the other side is not a significant or unexpected development, though it is of course lamentable if not anywhere near as lamentable as the initial decision to arm.
And Megan's sad descent into Mickey Kaus land continues. Ludicrous rovocations is a growth industry I guess.
Megan writes:
"Numerous people claim to believe that this makes it likely, even certain, that someone will shoot at the president."
Let's break this one down:
Which scenario is more likely to involve someone shooting at the president:
a) when people have guns near the president
b) when no one has guns near the president
If you chose Option B your name is Megan McArdle.
And wow did this one bring the NRA nuts out in force.
Here's the problem, from my perspective: Let's say I go to a town rally where a guy has a gun visibly strapped on. He's also holding up a sign that's clearly factually incorrect, e.g. "Obama wants to kill my grandma!"
I'd like to be able to talk to this guy, politely, maybe ask him how he came to that conclusion, ask him if I could give him some alternate evidence, maybe change his mind. And if he's mentally stable, and calm, we can probably have that discussion.
But what if he's like the above-mentioned Jim Adkisson, a man who wanted to kill all the liberals, and did in fact kill two of them less than 14 months ago? What if he's Scott Roeder, and he finds out I'm pro-choice--a baby-killer? What if he's Richard Poplawski, and thinks I want to take away his guns? What if he's Timothy Dale Johnson, and think I'm the reason he lost his unemployment?
There's been various mentions of vandalism and scuffles, but we're not talking about that. That's not the bar. We're talking about murder. Over the course of the past, let's be very generous and say, five years, can any of the conservative commenters here name:
1) A liberal who walked into a conservative church and killed two conservatives, expressly stating that this was a political act (Adkisson)
2) A pro-choicer who killed a pro-lifer (while said pro-lifer was in church) (Roeder)
3) A liberal who killed police officers because he was angry with a real or imagined policy of George W. Bush (Poplawski)
4) A liberal who killed a Republican State Party chairman (Timothy Dale Johnson.) And, my God, I'm trying to imagine how long you guys would've milked that one, if it'd happen to you.
That's four different murderers, killing seven people because of their political beliefs, in less than a year (July 08-May of 09). Once you go above, say, 2/year, it stops being isolated incidents. Given the amount of calls for violence that come from prominent conservative political commenters (Ann Coulter wants the New York Times building blown up, Bill O'Reilly thinks if Al-Qaeda blows up San Francisco, it shouldn't be rebuilt, Michael Reagan wants then-DNC-head Howard Dean hung from the neck until he's dead), it's hard not to come to some alarming conclusions about prominent conservatives being comfortable with direct calls for violence.
No, obviously, not all conservatives are violent. Only a small minority. But the fact that several conservatives have murdered liberals, because they were liberals, or murdered cops because they were angry over real or imagined liberal policies, factors into this discussion. We have no way of knowing if the person carrying the gun is like Jim Adkisson. And, because we don't want to be murdered as the two Unitarians were, we're not going to talk to him. Yes, the guns are functioning as an intimidation tool--why deny it?
And please stop asking if it's the same thing if the Secret Service have guns: it's their *job* to have guns. We're talking about non-Secret-Service people.
The point is, that guy openly carrying a gun is not likely to be like any of those people. I'm sure that if you talk to him, you'll probably end up saying "he's nuts"--but you'll mean it in the way that you mean it when you talk to any fringe group member, left or right, which is to say that their views are so far off yours that you find them almost incomprehensible. He'll be polite, and fill your ear with an endless, boring stream of talk about the second amendment, the American Revolution, the number of people who have defended themselves from crime with guns, etc. You will get bored and back away.
The crazy people who actually want to shoot someone behave differently. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying you're lumping together two very different class of gun owner. Both are fringe, but only one is dangerous.
I thought the country had settled this issue in the 1960s, when it resoundingly decided that the Black Panthers and other groups had transgressed the bounds of civil discourse by bringing rifles to political events. For those who forgot, the national consensus was that young black men publicly brandishing legal weapons to make a political point was inappropriate. Therefore, rallies and protests should be gun-free. It's just how we do things in America.
But apparently, now that a black man is president rather than a protestor, we all misunderstood that unspoken rule of how we conduct ourselves at public political events. We now see that white people (or the ubiquitous oddball black man who thinks perpetuating white supremacy would be a good idea) ARE allowed to publicly display their rifles, pistols, and knives to make a political point. Now we see that such actions aren't a threat to public peace and safety at all. It's not transgressive, or if it is, it's an acceptable form of protest. I have no doubt, now that the rules have been clarified, that no one will mind when progressives, including young blacks and latinos, also begin to appear at public events with weapons. I'm also certain that there will soon be tea parties at which these noble white protestors explain how wrong they were ever to demand the organized extermination of the Panthers and other groups for introducing arms into political debate.
Nice how you try to pretend the black guy with the rifle thinks white supremacy is good.
Honestly, the 1960's were before my time. Looking into the history of the panthers though, they were surrounded by a hell of a lot more actual violence than has been on display with health care protesters so far. Regarding the ban that was passed in california on open displays of weapons, I at least would say that it was in fact wrong.
Of course, like me, the protesters now almost certainly weren't involved with demanding the extermination of the Panthers or the bans. All you have at this point is guilt by association, with no proof of actual association.
Yes, the Panthers were surrounded by a great deal of violence, in the form of the FBI and local law enforcement assassinating them.
But let me re-state my points with less rhetoric, since my points are similar to those that Adam makes below.
First, let’s assume for the sake of argument that bringing arms to a public discussion about health care reform, with elected officials including the president, is an form of symbolic speech. It is a feature of symbolic speech that it can convey more than one message simultaneously. Whatever other message the bearers of rifles and pistols might be trying to communicate, I don’t think it’s seriously open to debate that the form of their speech carries with it a threat against those with whom they disagree. (One is free to disagree with that view, but I won’t consider anyone who does so to be engaged in the discussion in good faith.) Since the men in question have also said that they oppose health care reform, I don’t believe that it’s unfair to interpret their symbolic speech as including a threat against those who support reform.
Second, the presence of arms at public events actually has some history in this country. At a significant portion of such events, those who brought arms were involved in lynchings or efforts to terrorize. The open carrying of weapons at those events was very much intended as a threat against enslaved and free blacks and others who, depending on the time, supported abolition or civil rights or labor reform. It was also intended as a reminder to working class whites that their safety depended on racial solidarity, even if their economic interests might actually more closely align them with the reform efforts of the time. The public display of weapons for that purpose was, for a long time in this country, an accepted aspect of political discourse. When the Panthers, as an example, took advantage of the acceptability of that form of speech, the public view shifted. The public felt threatened, which was one of the points of appearing at political events with arms. As a result, laws changed, but there was also a change in what was considered a socially acceptable form of public discourse on matters of public policy. Of course there have been transgressions in the last forty years, which have received varying degrees of media attention and public condemnation, but for the most part, people have abided by the new rules.
Ms. McArdle wants to narrow this issue to whether or not the presence of weapons at a presidential event makes the event more dangerous. Since that can’t be measured, those of us who have concerns about it automatically lose. It’s a neat rhetorical trick. But I reject the premise that that’s the issue at the heart of public concern.
Instead, I believe that the concern about the presence of arms at health care town hall meetings is about some individuals taking advantage of what is legal to intimidate those who support reform, thereby preventing the full expression of support. Those carrying weapons are also linking themselves to a long history of others who thought it appropriate to use terroristic tactics to influence the outcome of public policy debates. By doing so, not only are they, by exercising their rights, frightening others into not exercising theirs, they are undoing a social compact largely resolved in favor of keeping weapons out of public discourse. Since they are, in many ways, also linked philosophically with groups who argued in favor of the removal of weapons from public debates when the weapons were in the hands of young black men, I find it curious that they support a re-writing of the rules now that they feel politically disempowered. But mostly I see it in its historical context and have no choice other than to consider it both rude and harmful to the quality of decisionmaking on important issue.
"So is this guy a terrifying threat to democracy? Or just a civic-minded citizen? If you think that his position on healthcare changes the likelihood that he will discharge that weapon, is this a rational belief?"
These are exactly the wrong questions. One can support the right to bear arms and still think that this right is not unlimited. It seems to me obvious that anyone who shows up to a public meeting that the president is attending and flaunts a gun is deliberately trying to threaten or menace others. And just as the right to free speech does not include the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, to threaten, to blackmail, or to libel someone, so the right to bear arms does NOT mean that gun owners are entitled to threaten or menace others, or, for that matter, be allowed to threaten the president. You emphasize probability here--will someone really take a shot? That is an absurd question: Just as we cannot prospectively know whether a verbal threat of physical injury is viable until it happens, so we cannot know if people menacing others with their guns is a viable threat. The reason for this is clear: Anyone who makes such a threat is plainly mentally unbalanced, and so all such threats should be taken seriously until proven otherwise.
That threatening others is not covered by the right to free speech or the putative "right" to bear arms (or maintain a militia) seems to me obvious.
Did you read the link? The question I am asking is whether you find it plausible that this fellow, who IS A DEMOCRAT IN FAVOR OF OBAMA'S HEALTHCARE PLANS, but also packing heat, is there to try to send the message that he plans to shoot anyone who disagrees with him. Or could he maybe just be demonstrating in favor of the second amendment? And if he is, is it plausible that other people packing heat might be doing it for the same reason?
"Did you read the link?"
I did indeed. There are now three issues here. First, in your posting as in your comment, you used this one person to make a generalization about others, and it seems to me a shaky one at best. Suppose he is just demonstrating in favor of the second amendment in addition to supporting universal health care, just as he says(at a public meeting, we should add, that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment). Even taking that for granted, I see no reason to suppose these motives are shared, and even if they were largely so, it wouldn't matter, for reasons that bear on my second point, which is this. The issue not whether people can own and use guns, but which uses are protected. Suppose owning a gun for self-protection and hunting are protected uses (as in my view, they are). It seems to me obvious that someone who brings a gun to a public meeting with the president has neither of these uses in mind, but something else. I think we disagree on that "something else". You talk as though guns were just symbols for a cause (the 2nd Amendment). But we have to ask: a symbol of what? In many cases, force. Such a show of force just is--by definition--a threat. Third point: My original argument was that the issue is not how probable it is that any one of these people will take a shot at the president, since the point of bringing a gun to a public meeting is--typically, I think--to threaten or menace others, and this is not a use of guns protected by the second amendment. To make this point, I made a distinction between free speech and other forms of speech as an analogy. E.g., even if it is not "probable" that most (verbal) death threats will be acted upon, some of them will, and we cannot prospectively know which are serious and which are not, and so all should be taken seriously. Likewise, someone who shows up to a public meeting with the president ostentatiously packing heat is making an implicit threat. We do not know who will follow through and who will not, but behaving in this way is not a right, anymore than we have a "right" to issue verbal threats. That is the argument, although admittedly I breezed by the second premise about guns at public meetings being a show of force, and so a threat. I suspect it is this equation that you will reject, but I'd like to hear why.
PS: Not all bloggers engage so extensively with their commenters, which is a lot of work. I think it's awesome that you do, and thank you for replying to my earlier comment.
Too easy: http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/another-reason-why-my-doctor-tells-me-the-nation-shouldnt-read-megan-mcardle/
My God, this is what our political discourse has become...a columnist in a major magazine defending the right of someone other than the Secret Service to carry a gun in the presence of the President...it is hard to understand why any supposedly intelligent person would even WANT to propose such a defense...and why stop at guns?...how about grenades or an M60?...nothing in the Constitution bans possession of those arms...hyperbolic, perhaps, but my visceral reaction to this insanity demands it...
P.S. That should read "Secret Service or law enforcement personnel"...
I know, right? I went to court to pay a traffic ticket last week, and the jack-booted thug at the desk wouldn't let me take my gun into the courtroom! What's up with that? What is this, Soviet Russia?