The Radical Centrist™

Think for Yourself!

Gun Control

Radcen Goes Against One Aspect of Mass Shooting Responses

By Leave a Comment

I’m going to be the contrarian… again.

The issue is mass shootings, and I am as sick of them and all the excuses as anyone else, and I am seeking a WORKABLE response, but as a Centrist (and small-L libertarian, still) that doesn’t mean I am willing to grasp at straws or buy into anything hoping something will be the answer (because we all know once an ineffective law is enacted it pretty much never gets acknowledged as a mistake and gets repealed).  Throw shit at the wall and hope some of it sticks, in other words.  I’m not going to go into all the ideas and proposals, other than to say some I see as reasonable and some I see as total crackpot wishful thinking.  What I will talk about here is the idea of holding gun manufacturers liable for shootings and/or deaths.  A lawsuit has already been filed against the gun manufacturer in the Robb Elementary shooting, and you can read about it here.

I’m sorry, but I do not approve of this, the liability factor.  The product is legal, and legal is legal.  Period.  You can say all day long until the cows come home what the purpose of a rifle is, and that’s legit, but that does not change the fact that the product is legal and the manufacturer has absolutely zero control what the customer does with it.  Ze-ro control.

I know, I know, Sandy Hook is a precedent and the legal system is allowing it, but I believe it is wrong, and actually goes against the morals of what our nation is supposed to be about… consistency of convictions over expediency.

Where your real effort should be focused, instead of suing manufacturers for something legislators allow, is to put pressure on legislators to do something in response.  Maybe make the manufacture of said items illegal, or whatever.  But as long as lawmakers allow it to be legal, it’s legal.  Maybe we should be electing lawmakers with better morals, but I digress.

And yes, I feel/felt the same about tobacco lawsuits, so there!

Gun violence: It’s not as one-sided as you may want to think

By Leave a Comment

Procrastination is the bane of my existence.  That’s my official personal motto.  That, plus I tend to think about things longer than most people to the point that when I do say something it’s already outdated and ‘old news’.  Other people have moved on to something else.  I guess I write for later when people will stumble on this months or years after the fact trying to gain an understanding or perspective.

So now that I have that out of the way, we’ll get into the meat of the topic. A few weeks ago there were two high-profile mass shootings.  One in El Paso TX and one in Dayton OH.  The majority… the vast majority… of what I see in reporting and commentary and social media posts (which do have value, sorry to say), our mass shootings are pretty much all white men as perpetrators, and pretty much all conservatives and/or white nationalists/supremacists, and so on.

I mentioned social media having value.  I know it’s not trendy to say so, but I believe it does.  There are a lot of thoughtful intelligent people out there, and they give these issues great thought.  Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are in between, so the conclusions will vary, but it has value.  Our opinions are no less valid than anyone else’s.  That being said, there are also a lot of knee-jerk poorly thought out conclusions out there, too, so we have to learn to separate the two.  In this vein, some of the memes placing all blame squarely on conservative white men are overwhelmingly common… and irresponsible and wrong.

To this end, the Washington Post, hardly a conservative propaganda rag, published an opinion piece a few days afterward titled, If Trump is responsible for El Paso, Democrats are responsible for Dayton that made some very interesting points.  Did you know that the Dayton shooter was most likely a left-wing radical?  That’s ‘left’, not ‘right’.  It appears so, take note of this per the linked article…

But if Democrats want to play politics with mass murder, it works both ways. Because the man who carried out another mass shooting 13 hours later in Dayton, Ohio, seems to have been a left-wing radical whose social media posts echoed Democrats’ hate-filled attacks on the president and U.S. immigration officials. The Associated Press reported on Monday that a Twitter account that appeared to be his “showed tweets labeling himself a ‘leftist,’ bemoaning the election of President Donald Trump, supporting Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and encouraging people to cut fences of immigrant detention centers.”

Now, the mostly liberal media isn’t outright lying about the motivations, per se, but while they’re quick to point out the motivation of the El Paso shooter they’re pretty much silent on the motivation of the Dayton shoot.  In other words, they’re not mentioning it at all.  Must be inconvenient, eh?  To me that’s lying-by-omission.

There’s more examples than just that, read the whole article, but this should serve as a reminder to any person claiming to be objective that these incidents are not all one-sided in motivation.  Knee jerk reactions and bias confirmation don’t serve us well.  The world is complex.  Stop.  Breathe.  Listen.  Consider objectively.  Sleep on it before you react (though maybe not ten-plus days like I often do, like I did here).  There’s been enough shootings that you can already be decided about gun control in general.  That’s fine.  That’s not what I’m talking about.  I’m talking about when you consider and discuss the causes and motivation behind each individual incident, because they’re not all the same, in spite of your bias wanting them to be all the same.

Can we talk?

By Leave a Comment

No, really, serious talk?  Can we talk, reasonably and rationally, about serious topics?

No, we can’t.

Abortion used to be the big topic that was always devoid of rationality.  You could pop in and out of abortion forums over several years and it was always the same few people screaming the same points at each other.  I know, because I did that on Usenet (remember Usenet?) roughly 15 to 20 years ago off and on over several years.  Nothing ever changed, not the people, not the arguments, and especially not the results.  The same people still held the same opinions.  No one ever really heard a single word that people on the opposing side ever said.  Abortion has always been the great wasteland of intelligent discourse.

But that was a long time ago, oh, say, 15 to 20 years ago.  Today, it seems everything has become so hyper-partisan that we can’t discuss anything anymore.  Immigration, taxes, race, gun control, and now gender issues and sexual assault.  Hell, even “taking a knee” has people virtually screaming at each other.  It’s never ending anymore.  It’s understandable when people say they’ve had enough of politics, even though the issues are vitally important.

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I characterize the current atmosphere.  People are literally starting Facebook threads by telling people in no uncertain terms to unfriend them if they don’t agree.  I get that the issue(s) are important, both to you and in fact, but this isn’t helping.  All you’re doing is widening the divide.  You’re not shaming people who disagree with you, as I believe you think you are, you’re ensuring that we will not be making any progress anytime soon because conversation has been cut off.

Not that we’d be making any progress with everybody blindly and stubbornly digging in their heels, anyway.

We’d all do well to keep the following rules in mind, if we truly and honestly want to make progress on the serious issues of the day…

I’ll admit this can be tough.  We’ve all been conditioned to do this as a matter of course.  If you follow all of these ten commandments, then how do you debate?  Well, one thing is to argue the issues and not the other person.  If your position is righteous, it will stand on it’s own.  No need for debate parlor tricks.

And please, stop with the name calling.  That’s pretty much a concession of defeat.  You have nowhere else to go.

What, exactly, is a “mass shooting”?

By Leave a Comment

We need to define precisely what a mass shooting is. As a starting point. One might claim this is deflection, or marginalizing, or some other less-than-honorable tactic to deviate from the task of enacting a solution, but what this post is about is NOT which solution would be the most or least effective. No, this post is quite the opposite. It’s about finding a solution and taking the necessary critical first step. Anyone who knows anything about negotiation knows that nothing will ever come of it as long as the various sides aren’t speaking the same language.

The squishy definition of ‘mass shooting’ complicates media coverage

The political debate about strategies to prevent mass shootings might dominate news coverage in the coming days, but there is no agreement on what “mass shooting” even means.

In this country, in the last 20-ish years, mass shootings have been on the increase. To state the obvious, this is not good. Good people may have differences of opinion regarding which measures would be effective in countering mass shootings, but pretty much no one believes they are a good thing and should continue unabated… and to characterize people on the other side in dehumanizing terms is inherently dishonest and unfair, but I digress…

Anyway, some of the various definitions that I’ve seen, official and unofficial, include…

  • A mass shooting involves four or more people injured or killed in a single event at the same time and location.
  • Three or more killings in a single incident.
  • Some include the shooter if killed, some do not.
  • Some include terrorism, or drug deals gone wrong, or gang conflict, or family murder-suicides as “mass shootings”.
  • Some include only deaths, some deaths and/or injuries.
  • I’ve seen a couple people say as few as two deaths, which is technically legit in a base definitional aspect, but absurdly broad in a contextual meaning, which is what we should be concerned with here.
  • Hell, we can’t even agree if they should be called a ‘shooter’ or a ‘killer’.

Some counter that making a big deal about semantics is…

  • …meaningless talk, action is what’s needed!
  • …one is too many.
  • …and the ever-popular always-ridiculous, “Tell that to the people who died.”, emotional deflective claptrap.
  • …and so on.

Do you want to help people in the future avoid similar situations, or not? You do? Good. Then don’t play emotional games. Strive to make progress. Take it one step at a time.

First, understand that not all “solutions” apply to all scenarios. That’s why all sides need to agree on semantics, so they can speak the same language at the negotiating table. What, EXACTLY, is an “assault weapon”? As just one example. Don’t be vague. Be precise. Nail it down. Once you’ve cleared that up, you’re one step closer to what resembles a true overall solution.

Here’s my definition, which is close to the CRS’s 2013 definition, and it is largely concerned with the intent of the shooter(s), which fits with what we are actually dealing with here… motive means more than any other single factor… and helps suggest a possible effective countermeasure rather than throwing some easy-button crap against a wall and hoping it will stick.

Radcen’s ‘Mass Shooting’ Definition:

“A ‘mass shooting’ is the attempt by a person or persons to inflict wholesale death and/or injury to large numbers of people who are essentially unknown to the shooter(s) and for whom the shooter(s) have no otherwise emotional attachment to, or grievance, against, and from which the shooter(s) will receive essentially no tangible benefit.”

The number of casualties is actually of lesser relevance. Wholly irrelevant, actually. Not only who are they targeting, but *why* are they targeting them? Terrorism is a different animal because terrorists are targeting groups of people for who they are, a perceived enemy. Terrorists are also more likely to use any convenient weapon, so gun restrictions alone would be shortsighted. Drug dealers and gang bangers are usually targeting specific people and really not interested in hurting people unknown and/or uninvolved. Handguns are usually the weapon of choice, not rifles. A ban on Ar-15s would be pretty much inconsequential. Family murder/suicides are wholly personal, and again prone to use any available weapon, though guns are probably most common. Even a “school shooting” where a guy goes in and kills his ex-wife only might be technically a ‘school shooting’, but does not fit the criteria we have seen in school mass shootings, and as such the solutions to thwart future instances would be entirely different, and should not be categorized the same.

All of the above scenarios need to be addressed, most certainly, but all of these have differing motivations, and as such will have differing solutions. In other words, one size does not fit all. This is why semantics matter.

No, it’s not the guns

By 1 Comment

After every mass shooting comes the inevitable cries for gun control. Mostly from the left, of course, but not exclusively. Some want to “keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people”. Some want background checks. Some want bans of automatic and/or semi-automatic weapons. And some, despite their protestations to the contrary, want to ban guns outright altogether.  And to be fair, I believe these people honestly believe that’s the solution.  I don’t question their sincerity.

Supporters of gun control will point to studies that “prove” gun control works. But they don’t want to talk about places like Chicago that have some of the strictest gun bans in the country and also some of the highest murder rates. Or, that some of the recent mass attacks in France were done with weapons that are outright banned. How did that happen? For every anecdote and study on one side, there’s an equal anecdote or study opposite.

Here in the US we do have mass shooting more often, but we are in no way as unique as we want to believe. France, Norway, etc., all have had large mass shootings. This has been shown throughout the world. Take guns away, and people who wish to do great harm will find other methods. For every Las Vegas mass shooting in an open weapons society like the US there’s an Ariana Grande concert mass bombing in a place that bans guns. For every November 2015 coordinated shootings in France… where 130 people were killed, more than double Las Vegas… a country that severely restricts weapons there will be an Oklahoma City bombing of a government building. Plug a hole, a new leak appears elsewhere.

So, what is causing the increasing rates of mass violence? And that’s really the issue… mass *violence*, not just mass shootings. Focus on the motivation, not the tools. Guns have been a large part of our society for over two centuries, even kids routinely carried guns in some times, and until just the last 20 years there was never the problem with mass shootings that we are now experiencing.  Focus on why these incidents are *increasing*.

These are MY thoughts, based on observation, reading, listening, research, etc. One caveat for this blog post, I am going to concentrate primarily on mass violence in the United States, not so much elsewhere, except for occasional comparison purposes. Ok, I believe that the increase in mass violence comes down to one primary factor, with some sub-factors…

Constant media attention

Yes, the media is driving this, primarily. I don’t think consciously, or as part of some grand conspiracy, or anything, but as an unintended consequence of the information age and the constant unrelenting barrage of information about everything that happens everywhere in the world. We can’t escape it.

As recent as 20 years ago, if there was a murder/suicide in your hometown, you heard about it. If it happened in a town 100 miles away, you maybe heard about it, and if you did it was in passing without much information. If it happened across the country you never heard about it (unless it had some celebrity aspect, or something). Fast forward to today and you hear about everything everywhere. This feeds the feeling and sense of hopelessness that crime is increasing when it’s actually not. The general trend has been that crime is going down over the last couple decades.  So, how does this constant unrelenting barrage of dire information affect mass violence? Here’s my thoughts…

(*) By presenting pretty much every violent act that happens everywhere, people get a sense of hopelessness. People on the edge, or sane people with an extreme agenda, may feel the need to do something desperate, either for them self or their cause.

(*) The media, intentionally or not, but in their zeal for sensationalism, glorifies mass shooters. I cannot find the sources right now, but I have read that most shooters believe they will become famous through their actions. They will be remembered. People will be impressed. John Hinkley Jr. thought he would win Jodie Fosters’ affection by assassinating President Reagan, for example. The two Columbine shooters were in it primarily for revenge, I believe, but also a desire for fame as mentioned below, and they and the attention they got brought in a whole new era of attention for one’s cause. The images of students fleeing is etched in our minds.

Shootings keep getting bigger and bigger, I believe because they want to outdo the previous guy and become more famous than that person. A perverse form of one-upmanship, if you will. And it doesn’t help that every media outlet I have seen after the recent Las Vegas shooting has repeated the “largest shooting in recent American history” mantra, with a special emphasis on “largest”. How can that not encourage future shooters to want to ‘do better’?

But think for a second. How many shooter’s names do you remember? I can name the two Columbine shooters, because that really is infamous. It shocked us into a new reality. But the rest? I can name maybe two. Maybe. And there have been dozens. For the most part the fame isn’t coming.

(*) Related to the one-upmanship mentioned in the previous point, the media… through it’s intense in-depth coverage… provides a literal “how to” for future shooters. Just watch the news and get some handy tips and tricks, some do’s and don’ts.

Bottom line: The media is morally complicit.

So, what can we do about it?

First and foremost, lighten up on the glorification of the shooter(s). I have gotten some harsh rebukes for this stance, but I stand by it. I am not suggesting burying the stories and not report them at all. That would be just as irresponsible. What I mean is not obsess so much on the shooter. Usually by about the third day after a shooting the news media’s newscasts are almost completely about the shooter. What they did, how they did it, speculating on their motivation, chronicling their history since birth, repeating their name over and over and over, ad nauseum. They can report responsibly without making the shooter a household name. That’s glorification. There’s no way around it.

I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t report. Not at all. We need to be an informed society. Just lighten up on the glorification. We can get meaningful information without repeating the name every other sentence, without essentially putting them on a pedestal. I am not even suggesting we keep the name secret. It’s appropriate the first day or two, in moderation. In print articles mention the name once in the story but not in the headline.  Whathisname can be called “The LV shooter” in the headline and the point still comes across.  Again, being an informed society is important.

I am also not suggesting a change in law, and especially not suggesting repealing any portion of the First Amendment. If it came down to that I’d rather do nothing. But, they can and should do it on their own. Self-policing. The media already, except in unusual circumstances, almost never reports on suicides, especially teen suicides, so the precedent has already been established. Out of respect for the families, but also… wait for it… to not encourages others to do the same. Novel concept, right?  Copy-catism is alive and well in the human species, and it’s happening here with mass violence as it would with individual suicides.

Consider this article from a couple years ago after Sandy Hook: The Media Needs to Stop Inspiring Copycat Murders. Here’s How.

After a wave of teen suicides in the 1980s, news outlets began reporting on these deaths more cautiously. Similar guidelines could help prevent more shooting sprees.

There’s also this Op-Ed piece from the New York Times from a couple years ago: What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers

“…rampage shooters have often been captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. “Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going to deserve?”, one of the Columbine shooters remarked.

(I removed the name.)

Final Thoughts

Please note that I am not saying that some tightening of gun legislation isn’t warranted. That’s fine. I am open to banning “bump stocks”, for example, though I believe we already have plenty of laws on the books that accomplish what we want to, just that some aspects aren’t thwarted by laws. People’s motivations will find a way. Unfortunately, politicians are never willing to simply enforce existing laws, they must pass more so that they can point to the new laws and show the people they’re “doing something”.

No, some gun law tightening will help, but having said that I sincerely believe that dialing back the glorification will have a much deeper and longer-lasting impact than gun control legislation will. The results wouldn’t be immediate, of course, it would take time for people to realize they’re not going to get what they want and they’d just die in vain.

Final final note: You will notice that I do not name any of the shooters or bombers by name. I refuse to do so. I refuse to give them anything even slightly resembling positive credit. No, the actions and the names of the incidents are enough. We know what they are.  An example that we can still talk in depth about these issues without dignifying the perpetrators.