Probably the best thought out gun op-ed I have read yet.

[gejohnston]

not that I think that is a hard thing to be, given the quality of rants on the issue lately. Yes Jones and Morgan, I'm talking to both of you.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2012/12/31/why-the-us-is-not-like-the-rest-of-the-world-on-gun-control

America is not the only place in the world with violence perpetrated by people with serious mental illness. It happens everywhere—and comparing incidents serves primarily to highlight the reality and ever increasing severity of those with untreated mental illness in modern society. And, they do their twisted violence with guns, knives, bombs, arson, and vehicles driven into crowds of innocent people. However, what Americans can or will actually do about gun violence from the mentally ill is a far more complex issue than it is for the rest of the world—this for a number of reasons not understood by most foreigners and some Americans.

Until now

To begin with, if you're an American, how you think about guns is usually related to three basic factors: what part of our country you grew up in; what you learned from your parents, relatives and friends; and whether you served in the military. Whether you or your family may have also been a victim of violence can have "pro" or "con" effect on your view on guns, and it's easy to understand either reaction.

I have no idea his personal politics is, never heard of this guy before, last I checked US News was a pretty middle of the road publication. But I think it is certainly worth reading.

[Loudly]

1. None of his "perceptions" have anything to do with the Constitution.

The Constitutional argument is rather confined to the question of whether your State was courted with an implicit right to cecede.

If it wasn't, then you don't have any Constitutional argument at all.

Go away and be quiet!

[gejohnston]

3. I didn't see anything about a right to secede

or anything else about states, other than explaining tidbits about our federal system.

[Loudly]

4. Look for the captial letter in "State."

It says all you need to know.

[gejohnston]

8. don't see it, you will have to point it out

but if so, the context is the same as "Crown" to a Canadian or Brit. Simply another way of expressing the federal sovereign. For example "separation of church and State.'

[Berserker]

9. WOW a capital letter

hey good find, it really kicks ass on the context of the article. That's all you got to whine about?

[spin]

2. Excellent read. Thanks. (n/t)

[virginia mountainman]

5. Thanks for posting, a good thoughtful read..

And refreshingly clear of emotionalism.

[Control-Z]

6. Seriously? Only three?

"To begin with, if you're an American, how you think about guns is usually related to three basic factors: what part of our country you grew up in; what you learned from your parents, relatives and friends; and whether you served in the military. Whether you or your family may have also been a victim of violence can have "pro" or "con" effect on your view on guns, and it's easy to understand either reaction.

[gejohnston]

7. can you think of any others?

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:37 AM - Edit history (1)

I can think of rural vs urban.
But those factors do play a dominate role in ones outlook for the most part. Speaking for myself, growing up in Wyoming where most people had at least some guns, had a school rifle club, schools closed for the first day of deer season etc. All of our guns were unloaded and locked away (other than my brother's police revolver. He unloaded the duty gun when he came home, and loaded the off duty one, and vis versa. Both of my brothers were cops.) and gun violence was almost unheard of. Come to think of it, so was knife violence. I grew up target shooting and hunting. Contrast that with someone who witnessed a murder in a large city at a young age or lives under the thumb of gangs and piss poor police service in any large city. Their view of guns are going to be different than mine. My views on single payer, tax policy, or anything else political is independent of that.
My wife grew up in Detroit and Tampa Bay. The idea of me going off in the sticks with a loaded gun, at ten, to hunt dinner was irresponsible and looney tunes. You probably agree with my conservative, big city PILs who thought that was nuts. But that was my culture.

[lastlib]

10. yeah, I can think of a few from my own experience...

1) Seeing JFK murdered with a gun;
2) Seeing Martin Luther King murdered with a gun;
3) Seeing RFK murdered with a gun;
4) Seeing John Lennon murdered with a gun;
5) Seeing Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin murdered with a gun;
6) Seeing a dozen kids at Columbine High murdered with a gun;
7) Seeing Gabby Giffords almost murdered with a gun; seeing several of her constituents including a nine-year-old girl and a federal judge murdered with a gun;
8) Seeing a dozen people in a theater in Aurora murdered with a gun; a bunch more almost murdered with a gun;
9) Seeing a whole lot of people in a VA Tech classroom murdered with a gun;
10) Seeing twenty six-year-olds and six teachers in Newtown murdered with a gun;

I think you can get the picture from here........if you can't, I can get you a few more to help.

Don't you gun freaks get tired of all this??!?

[gejohnston]

11. I can see where you are coming from

of course, I can make a long list of people who would be severely beaten or dead without one. I can also make a long list of people murdered by other means. Would any of those murders taken place if guns were not invented? No. Life back then really sucked and Europe made Mexico look peaceful. Did the invention of the gun change that? No. Some social scientists think the development of table manners did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. was that last jab really necessary? was it conducive, in tone, to intelligent discourse? really ??

think about it, please.

[DanTex]

13. LOL. More right-wing propaganda. Do you know what the George C Marshall Institute is?

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:48 AM - Edit history (1)

It's a right-wing think tank perhaps best known for global warming denialism. And it shows. The idiot who wrote this article is obviously well practiced in denying reality. Gee, how shocking that this kind of garbage is getting rave reviews from the "pro-gun progressives" here.

Here's a clue: if someone repeats NRA talking points ad nauseum, it's probably a right-winger. Especially a guy who works for a right-wing think tank and writes for the Washington Times.

The search for the elusive "pro-gun progressive" continues...

[gejohnston]

15. In other words,

you didn't read the article, since I did not see any "NRA" talking points. Since you seem to know all of them, please point them out.
or, equally as likely, you can't answer anything he said.
Using your logic, putting in National Guard troops at school is a great idea because Barbara Boxer introduced the bill but would be fucking stupid if some Republican did. I think it is fucking stupid either way.
You probably think paranoid religious bigotry is OK as long as it comes from a progressive like Mike Papantonio? Sorry, that made him no different than Glenn Beck in my opinion.
Can you speak to the content?

[DanTex]

16. The content?

OK, let's start here.

America is not the only place in the world with violence perpetrated by people with serious mental illness. It happens everywhere

Great start! There's violence everywhere, true. You know what the difference is? In other developed countries with sane gun laws, the violence is very rarely committed with a gun, which means that it is much less likely to result in homicide or mass casualties. That's why homicide rates here are much higher than everywhere else.

Now, I wonder why this George C Marshall Institute guy doesn't mention any of this? Hmm. Why could it be? Ya think maybe it has anything to do with the fact that his job is to write right-wing propaganda that denies science? Just maybe?

You see, the only people who go out of their way to avoid the fact that gun crimes are more lethal than non-gun crimes are right-wing crazies. That's it. I have seen zero examples of intelligent, well-informed progressives who believe that "a gun is just a tool", and that guns have nothing to do with gun violence.

And this is why you and the rest of the pro-gunners keep linking to and heaping praise upon articles from teabaggers and global warming deniers.

[gejohnston]

17. don't they also have better mental health systems?

theirs are with shootings too. What is "developed" have to do with it? Mexico is a "developed" country.

[DanTex]

18. Do you ever wonder why you can't find any progressives to echo the NRA talking points?

This is a serious question. I have no idea whether you knew what the George C Marshall Institute was, but I'm pretty sure that as soon as that guy started pointing everywhere except for guns as an explanation, we both knew he was very likely a right-winger.

Do you ever get sick of all the right-wing sources? Do you really think that guns are the one issue where up is down and black is white and FOX News is right and the scientific community is wrong?

[gejohnston]

20. in other words, there can be only one explaiation

Do you ever get sick of all the right-wing sources? Do you really think that guns are the one issue where up is down and black is right and FOX News is right and the scientific community is wrong?

Since the "scientific community" you speak of does not include criminologists free of grant restrictions. Like I told you several times before, I doubt you actually read or understand any of those studies.

Ultimately, it is a mental health issue. To suggest that trigger pulls the finger is the sign of an unthinking ideologue.

[DanTex]

21. Aha. Back to making false statements.

Every time you get backed into the corner you start making things up. C'mon gej, you're better than that! Answer the question!

Why do you think it is that, even on this supposedly progressive gun forum, the "pro-gun progressives" can't find anyone except for right-wingers to push their agenda?

[gejohnston]

22. no corner, no false statements

since you are pulling out the personal attacks, I'm guessing you are in a corner and have nothing.

[DanTex]

23. No answer? C'mon gej! You posted an article by a right-winger from a climate-change-denial

think tank on a progressive message board. I think you owe an explanation as to why you are pushing an agenda that is apparently only supported by right-wingers who don't believe in science!

[gejohnston]

24. it isn't a climate science article

and it isn't from that think tank. So, I don't owe shit.

supported by right-wingers who don't believe in science!

kind of a broad brush there. Of course you don't like science when you don't like the conclusions.

How about you come back with a coherent discussion on the op ed. That is what this is supposed to be about. One oped that is half way rational on the issue. It also addresses the cultural issue at large, which it is really about.

Does that mean I should apologize to Mike Papantonio for calling him a religious bigot? Not happening, he is.

[DanTex]

26. In the words of Paul Krugman, I have a structural hypothesis here...

“I have a structural hypothesis here,” Krugman told ABC’s Christiane Amanpour Sunday. “You have a Republican ideology, which Mitt Romney obviously doesn’t believe in. He just oozes insincerity, that’s just so obvious. But all of the others are fools and clowns. And there is a question here, my hypothesis is that maybe this is an ideology that only fools and clowns can believe in. And that’s the Republican problem.”

Just replace "Republican" with "pro-gun": my hypothesis is that only fools and clowns (and right-wingers and global warming deniers) can possibly believe in the pro-gun ideology. That's why y'all keep posting right-wing editorials.

What's your explanation?

[gejohnston]

29. not the same thing

it is a cultural difference. Republicans, who probably don't care about guns or abortion, capitalize off of cultural issues held by rural working class.

You have yet to mention anything about the content of the oped.

[DanTex]

31. Pretty similar though.

The cultural difference thing doesn't explain why pro-gunners keep linking to right-wing sources (i.e. fools and clowns). If it was just a rural/urban thing, then instead of posting an article from a global warming denier, you would find one from a rural progressive.

But no. Fools and clowns only.

You have yet to mention anything about the content of the oped.

False! I was thinking about trying to catalog all of the false statements you make, but I think I'd run out of hard drive space...

[gejohnston]

32. hardly.

but to list all of the false statements and personal attacks from you, I would have to buy several hard drives.

[DanTex]

33. Anxiously awaiting the next right-wing editorial that you bring to DU!

I wonder, is it going to be something conspiracy-ish like Glenn Beck? Or maybe junk science from a right-wing think tank? Or maybe something folksy like Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin? There's just so much to choose from!

[gejohnston]

34. I would never do such a thing

since I can't stand those people. I also can't stand Cenk denying the Armenian genocide, Pap's conspiracy-ish Mormon bashing, or Barbara Boxer wanting to put National Guard troops in schools.
The difference is my liberalism is based on a consistent philosophy, and I apply it equally.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. for the most part other places do have a better system for health care in general, as we watch

the economic system falter in Europe we are beginning to see some erosion of these policies. Britain is currently facing the issue:

Britain's National Health Service is significantly scaling back its National Programme for IT, a decade-old initiative to implement electronic health records across the nation of about 60 million.

Changes in the program come after spending about $10 billion on the $18.6 billion initiative. The program has been harshly criticized as heavy-handed and even dictatorial: A government agency selected teams--run by prime contractors without core competencies in health care--to implement government-selected EHR products in five regions across the country. The contractors rarely delivered products or services on a timely or quality basis, some contractors were fired and providers rebelled.

On Sept. 22, the National Health Service announced the obvious: "In a modernized NHS, which puts patients and clinicians in the driving seat for achieving health outcomes amongst the best in the world, it is no longer appropriate for a centralized authority to make decisions on behalf of local organisations."

Now, providers may select their own EHR products and vendors, and the government will work with a technology trade association "to explore ways to stimulate a marketplace that will no longer exclude small and medium sized companies for participating in significant government healthcare projects," according to NHS.

more at link:
http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/national-health-service-britain-ehr-43245-1.html

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. thanks for posting ... continuing on ... this portion is what I am in Total Agreement and have been

saying from day One that I entered this group:

Finally, the inescapable facts are that the Connecticut shootings—and most of those like it—are not primarily a failure of guns in society, but an even more serious and fundamental failure. That failure? Our "mental health system" of which there simply isn't. And, there hasn't been a "system" since we "decided" to put hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people back on our streets, hoping that they would somehow "take their meds"—assuming they even have them—which most didn't, don't and won't. This is the "real problem" and most everyone who can be objective about these tragic events realizes it. In fact, and as is too often the case, many who actually knew these shooters were not surprised by the evil they did—only that the shooters were not under some form of strict supervision. Why can't, won't, or don't we deal with our mentally ill? That's a whole separate set of issues—legal, medical, and resource centric. Is it simply easier—and cheaper—when reacting to gun violence done by the mentally ill, to blame guns than it is to keep mentally ill people off our streets? Many think this is the real motivation behind "gun bans".

Thank you, gejohnston, for always patiently posting facts and asking cogent questions. I admire your style and appreciate your knowledge on this subject.

[jmg257]

25. Best thought out???

"As a result, do we actually have what gun control advocates are calling "a whole new ball game"? Despite the totally understandable public outrage and anguish of the event, most of us know otherwise. This pragmatic consensus is based on the following reasons, which go much deeper into the fabric of American life and society than are realized or understood by most foreign critics....

•First, our Constitution assures us of the "right to bear arms"—
•Our attitudes toward guns are grounded by the basic constitutional right to have them...
•We had to fight for our independence and freedoms, and to this day have an extremely limited central government...The federally protected right to bear arms is also part of our sovereign state constitutional system...
•Our federal political system was designed—intentionally—to be inefficient and to prevent pockets of despotic power developing...
•The NRA and other organizations that are focused on preventing federal and state legislative action that infringes on our "right to bear arms" are very effective...
•Finally, the inescapable facts are that the Connecticut shootings—and most of those like it—are not primarily a failure of guns in society, but an even more serious and fundamental failure. That failure? Our "mental health system"..."

OR in other words,

"Why we hate Gun Control in the US (or should) despite all those gun murders:
•2nd Amendment
•2nd Amendment
•2nd Amendment & weak govt & 2nd Amendment
•weak govt
•NRA & 2nd Amendment
•Squirrel!" (just like Wayne says!!)


Yep - brilliant editorial.

edit excerpt quotes

[gejohnston]

27. best I found

do you have a better one? It's like the armed teachers/cops in schools rants. Are they written by security experts or firearms instructors? No. They are written by pundits who copy other pundits, who pull their ideas out of their ass because they don't know anything on the subject and are too lazy to ask those who do.

[jmg257]

28. Nope - nor would I offer one.

I find that most Op-Eds, just like this one, have an agenda. Or are just plain goofy.

While they may be interesting, or mildly amusing, I'd rather make up my own mind about things.

[gejohnston]

30. they are

often written by people who don't know what they are talking about. I didn't say it was great or even good. I just said it was the best I found. It is at least half way rational.