Eric is my niece Sonnet's main squeeze. He's a sweet-natured young man who proudly states that he owns 11 guns. I took this alarming admission in stride, because Eric is a military veteran and a skilled hunter, well versed in firearms safety. He's not dangerous.
However, in justifying his private arsenal, Eric casually articulated a dogma that's been perpetuated by the National Rifle Association and its allies on Fox News -- that the Federal government is dead-set on carrying out (sometime -- who knows when?) a secret, lightning program of universal gun confiscation. When it comes, he apparently plans to either hide his ordinance or start shootin'.
This anxiety is consistent with the limited-government conservatism (LGC) of its proponents. But it betrays an underlying -- and fairly crazy -- contradiction. After all, a bedrock conviction of the LGC community is that the government can't find its own ass with 1,000 hands. As the government grows, it becomes less efficient, less competent to carry out its stated policies and functions.
Here's the cognitive dissonance: On one hand, as big government gets bigger, it becomes more and more inept. On the other hand, this bloated ectoplasm of bungling bureaucrats possesses the surgical dexterity to somehow ferret out, swiftly seize (without resistance), and magically vanish 200 million private firearms from 315 million people in a nation covering 3,790,000 square miles.
The absurdity of this concept is all the more dazzling in light of the fact that no legislator in history has ever formally proposed either the seizure of anybody's guns or the repeal of the Second Amendment. No one. Ever.
Nonetheless, the NRA annually raises and spends millions of dollars based almost solely on this exquisitely cultivated myth of prohibition. The delusion persists despite the reality that no American -- and hardly anyone, anywhere -- has ever seen prohibition work, except in tiny, isolated communities.
Indeed, prohibition of some things -- like murder and rape -- is a great idea. But, although we execute some murderers and rapists, others keep murdering and raping, sometimes just to prove that "nobody's gonna tell me what I can't do!"
Of course, the great American example of prohibition was the Volstead Act, the banning of all alcoholic beverages between 1919 and 1933. As we know now, the passage of the 21st Amendment, ending Prohibition, concluded one of the booziest, most lawless 15 years in US history. It seemed that the more people were told not to have a little drink, the bigger grew their thirst.
Also, there's smoking. We've never tried an outright ban on smoking everywhere, but we've done all we can to prove that smoking is deadly to the smoker and dangerous to everyone else. But 20 percent of Americans still smoke, and always will. Every year, millions of young people -- who refuse to be told what they can and cannot do to their own bodies -- start smoking. So there!
America's 30-year War on Drugs has expanded exponentially the value of illicit narcotics, created fortunes for drug lords, turned dopers into criminals, and spread the plague of addiction into vast new territories. It's the Volstead Act on steroids. Today, there are millions of ruined people injecting poison into their veins solely because the government has told them they're not allowed to inject poison into their veins. So there!
Prohibition can't even get rid of measles and chicken pox. We thought we had it wiped out until a fresh bunch of zealots, even more ignorant and paranoid than the NRA, decided that vaccinations cause autism.
The prospect of official prohibition doesn't have to be true, or even credible. Even if it's just a political ploy, it triggers a primal fear. People resist compulsion, instinctively. I know I do. But sometimes, this resistance is a denial of reason that boils down to sheer bullheadedness. And sometimes, as we seek to prevent some great tragedy that's never going to happen, we invite a real tragedy even worse than our deepest fears.
Well, there is a good possibility. If I try to reasoning about it taking as a starting point the question "why would somone would keep a gun at home?", and then I connect some dots, I have to come up to that conclusion. That leads to another question: why wouldn't citizens rely on the police for protection? There is always a reason behind a fact, right?
Yes, I know about some of those volunteer programs. I have a friend there who took a course as a law enforcement volunteer. Maybe I could ask him, too.
It would be interesting to see data about the level of corruption and crime in different areas in comparison with the number of guns. For instance, you mentioned that in your area most of the people don't own a gun. So I deducted that most likely your area has to be a quite safe area, with less crime, and less need for self-protection. Maybe the local police acts faster, and more efficiently, too.
@Susan Now I never thought of it quite this way, but now that you bring it up, it is possible they think of it as a form of self-sufficiency that parallels some of the other community's efforts to help in an emergency. There are organizations for volunteer EMTs and even roadside assistance in New York precisely because the standard ones available take so long to get there. Perhaps they view guns in the same way, a self-service solution when it takes too long for the police to arrive to rely on them for protection.
The bit I commented on from the article was about the total amount of guns in the country. But it is certainly very nice that most people in your area don't own a gun. That also means that they feel safe, and there is no trouble.
I wonder if the fact of buying guns to feel safe has also something to do with how people feel about the police?
Yes, that's an excellent question. As I said, there has to be responsibility and common sense when deciding which public data goes in print, in which one could cause damage to the individuals if it goes in print, like this case of the Google map of gun owners. It's like sending an open letter to the burglars with all the addresses and details they need to go and do "their job".
@Susan Where I live, I don't think I'm in the minority. I believe most people around here do not own guns. I have heard of some people who do own guns a couple of town over. I believe they obtained them because there was quite a bit of crime there, and they believed they needed protection. But those were just a handful of people.
It's very interesting what you found. If all or most of the data concerning guns is secret data all or most of the conversation around the topic is mostly based on assumptions, or in speculation. Oh, well.
I find the following quite alarming: "According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2009 there were an estimated 310 million firearms in the United States (not including weapons on military bases), of which 114 million were handguns, 110 million were rifles, and 86 million were shotguns. The current population of the United States, according to the Census, is around 314 million."
This only means that you are part of the little 4 million who don't own a gun of some sort.
@Susan Yes, I believe that he saw there was an implicit threat to those households whose addresses would be published. And that is something to consider: is all information that is considered public to be publicized in print?
I agree with Dennis Sant here:" "In Putnam County I have over 11,000 pistol permit holders, and I refuse to put their lives and their families' lives in danger," County Clerk Dennis Sant toldThe New York Times, regarding the The Journal News' request for the public information."
The fact that some information is public doesn't mean that the ones in charge of it don't have to be responsible, and act according to some common sense according to the individual situations.
I understand that county office that refused to reveal the data for the gun map. Not easy topic. As much as I am not for guns, I believe a gun map helps no one but burglars. Maybe to go and steal them, as you mentioned below, yes. Gee! What a mess.
@Susan as for the problems with accurate data, though who has a permit for a gun is a matter of public record, publicizing that fact is a different matter. That came up recently when a paper did publish a map of gun owners. As I mentioned a few comments back, guns are often stolen by burglars, and it is possible that the homes that contain arms would be more tempting as targets. One New York county office refused to release that information to the Journal News that wished to publish it. TechCrunch carried the story here: http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/02/ny-county-defies-law-refuses-to-release-gun-permit-info-for-controversial-google-map/
Like the casual baseball fan who doesn’t understand the infield-fly rule, normal voters – with bigger fish to fry – don’t enjoy the arcana of politics.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.