Every time a mass shooting occurs in the U.S., new life is given to discussion of gun control, even if the only consequence is a reiteration of tired and unnuanced arguments on both sides of the debate. It is sad that we seriously discuss gun control only after mass shootings, because the vast majority of gun homicides do not occur in mass shootings, but in individual tragedies that kill far more people in the aggregate while attracting far less public attention. I always feel a sense of hopelessness and pointlessness when I write about the issue, since virtually nothing meaningful is ever done to reduce the frequency of such attacks, and no death count is ever high enough to give gun enthusiasts doubts about the awesomeness (in the commonly used sense) of the weapons used.
It is suggested that it is not the weapons, but how they are used. By this logic, an AR-15 is better than a handgun, since it will more easily stop a killer. Yes, someone might have used a weapon of that type to kill the Orlando shooter, during which time they might have also killed some people by accident. In any case, wouldn't it be better if the shooter didn't have such a powerful weapon to begin with? You might say that this is fanciful, but there are many countries in which mass shootings of this kind rarely or never happen, and if this is not because those countries have far fewer guns than we do in the U.S., some very convincing alternative explanation is called for and has not been provided.
I am convinced that few gun-rights proponents will ever concede this point; there are always plausible ways to deny it. Yet even if gun-rights proponents cannot be convinced to accept any new gun legislation, perhaps we can at least identify the problem of gun violence precisely and get the arguments right.
I was tempted to say that I hate guns, but that is not exactly true. I am not interested in them, and, yes, I wish that they did not exist, but I have nothing against people who enjoy firing them for sport, hunting, or self-defense, even if I find it hard to believe that some of the extremely powerful weapons being defended by gun enthusiasts are truly necessary for any of these purposes. So I do not hate guns, but I do hate the way that the fanatical devotion to guns colors people's beliefs about gun control. I hate the mass paranoia and delusion regarding any limits on the sale of firearms. I hate the fact that absolutism and extremism prevents the enactment of laws that could reduce the number of people killed by people with guns.
I am not picking on gun enthusiasts. I detest absolutism in general, and absolutism is not limited to the right wing. Absolutism is essentially the denial of any need for trade-offs or compromise, even when important competing values are at stake. Absolutism is the denial of the very idea of competing values; there is only one value, and that is _____. Some people are free-speech absolutists; others are civil liberties absolutists. Like gun-rights absolutists, they are not bothered by the fact that their absolutism can mean massive loss of human life. All that matters is that the government should not limit their freedom in any way.
Suppose that we decided to reject gun-rights absolutism. Suppose that, as a country, we were serious about gun control. What measures would we take?
Background checks are not enough. Guns used in mass shootings are often purchased legally, with background checks. Of course, we should require background checks for all gun sales, but we should do so knowing that such a measure, even joined with other moderate gun legislation, would still leave us with a uniquely (among wealthy democracies) high level of gun violence.
Banning assault weapons would not be enough, either. Most gun homicides are committed with handguns. Of course, we should save as many lives as we can, but if we were serious about reducing gun violence, we would have to eliminate handguns as well.
It is true that bans would not necessarily prevent people from getting guns. But a ban would limit the supply, making guns more difficult to obtain, thus reducing the quantity of guns purchased, including by criminals.
It is also probably true that a gun ban would leave some law-abiding people defenseless when facing armed criminals. But there would be fewer armed criminals. Gun-rights proponents tend to speak of criminals as though criminals were a group of universally brilliant, clever people, who would be able to circumvent any laws, no matter how well-enforced. It is more likely true that like any group of actors, some criminals are better at what they do than others, so some would be able to get the weapons they seek, while others would have to resort to less-powerful weapons. Countries with fewer guns also have criminals, but those countries still have less gun violence. It is possible that those countries have less gun violence for reasons having nothing to do with the absence of guns, but the absence of guns seems at least plausible as a factor. But being fanatical in one's devotion to guns appears to make it impossible to realize (or, at least, acknowledge) this.
While I detest the paranoia and delusion regarding any kind of gun control, I also must acknowledge that, if I had the power, my actions would probably justify that paranoia and prove the delusion to be prophetic. Indeed, I would stop the sale of handguns and assault weapons. I would do as the governments of the U.K. and Australia did--not only stop sales, but collect and destroy the guns already in existence. I would not take away all firearms, but I would restrict the ones most commonly used to kill innocent people.
This is almost certain not to happen. We have not even been able to get universal background checks or a renewal of the ban on assault weapons. It is illogical of gun enthusiasts to suppose that, after gaining just enough support for these measures (in the most optimistic scenario for gun-control proponents), gun-control proponents would then succeed in the much less popular goal of banning all guns. Slipperly-slope arguments are questionable as a rule, but especially so in this case, since support for gun ownership is widespread and fervent, while support for total confiscation and prohibition is limited. It might be possible to overcome the NRA's scare campaign and enact some sensible gun legislation, and, even if the odds are small, we should get on with trying.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Thursday, June 9, 2016
From a Sanders Supporter, an Enthusiastic Endorsement for Clinton
Like many other left-leaning people, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. But more people voted for his rival, Hillary Clinton. This is true regardless of the valid complaints against the undemocratic nature of the primary process--the superdelegates and such. The fact remains that more people voted for Clinton than Sanders, so Clinton rightfully wins the nomination.
Now that this has been decided, it is important that left-leaning people fully recognize the choice in front of them. The next president is either going to be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. No one else has enough people willing to vote for them to actually win the electoral vote. There are some people on the left so hostile to Clinton that they would withhold their support from the Democratic nominee even if doing so meant placing Donald Trump in the White House. I will not even attempt to be diplomatic in my response to this attitude: it is irresponsible and dangerous.
Those who would refuse to support the Democratic nominee should recall 2000, when Al Gore lost the presidency by a few hundred votes in one state. (He won more votes than his opponent in the country as a whole, but, appallingly, that is not decisive.) If even a small percentage of those who voted for Ralph Nader had instead voted for Al Gore, we would not have had a war in Iraq. We would have had a president who took some action on climate change. We would have had a president who took steps to extend health insurance coverage to millions of people. We would have had greater tax revenues and thus more funds to support social programs for the poor. We would have had two more moderate-to-liberal justices on the Supreme Court instead of two more right-wing ones. Instead, we had George Bush and Dick Cheney, who gave us the Iraq war, justifications for torture, complete inaction on climate change and health care, tax cuts for rich people, a Supreme Court more hostile to the weak and vulnerable, and many other things far more unwelcome to a progressive mind than what Gore would have delivered. That is, we saw a devastating refutation of the idea that there was no value in having the Democrat take the office instead of the Republican.
The stakes are even higher now. George Bush, at least, had some government experience. He did not seek to persecute immigrants or build a wall across the border. Compared to this year's Republican nominee, Bush appears to be an exemplar of reason, tolerance, and restraint. This is serious. If you are a fellow left-leaning person (and perhaps even if you are not) you do not need me to tell you the details of Trump's bigotry, misogyny, willful ignorance, and gross irresponsibility. We need to keep him out of the White House.
In my essay endorsing Sanders, I stated many reasons for still respecting Clinton. Among other liberal actions, she championed universal health care and challenged sexist expectations for a first lady. Even if all of the facts that constitute the progressives' case against Clinton are true, the hostility toward her is still too severe. She is a well-credentialed, experienced, and knowledgable candidate, and yes, she does represent a liberal philosophy, even if it is not liberal enough for some. I, too, am suspicious of her hawkish inclinations with respect to foreign policy; I, too, am disgusted by her collecting a $675,000 speaking fee from a big corporation. But by any sensible analysis, a Clinton presidency would create a far friendlier environment for progressives than a Trump presidency.
I understand that people want a more progressive leader in the White House. But until that is a true possibility (and as long as Clinton has the support of most left-leaning people, it is not) the priority needs to be keeping the Republicans (especially this year's nominee) away from the office. Entertain fantasies of a progressive third-party president if you will, but there are simply not enough votes right now to elect one. Keep working on it, by all means, but for now, please, vote for the more liberal electable candidate. That is, the one who does not want to exclude people from the country because of their race or religion. That, alone, is sufficient reason to prefer Clinton to Trump; of course, there are many other reasons. If even one of those reasons matters to you, you have motivation enough to accept Hillary Clinton as the price for keeping possibly the worst presidential candidate in the nation's history out of the White House.
Now that this has been decided, it is important that left-leaning people fully recognize the choice in front of them. The next president is either going to be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. No one else has enough people willing to vote for them to actually win the electoral vote. There are some people on the left so hostile to Clinton that they would withhold their support from the Democratic nominee even if doing so meant placing Donald Trump in the White House. I will not even attempt to be diplomatic in my response to this attitude: it is irresponsible and dangerous.
Those who would refuse to support the Democratic nominee should recall 2000, when Al Gore lost the presidency by a few hundred votes in one state. (He won more votes than his opponent in the country as a whole, but, appallingly, that is not decisive.) If even a small percentage of those who voted for Ralph Nader had instead voted for Al Gore, we would not have had a war in Iraq. We would have had a president who took some action on climate change. We would have had a president who took steps to extend health insurance coverage to millions of people. We would have had greater tax revenues and thus more funds to support social programs for the poor. We would have had two more moderate-to-liberal justices on the Supreme Court instead of two more right-wing ones. Instead, we had George Bush and Dick Cheney, who gave us the Iraq war, justifications for torture, complete inaction on climate change and health care, tax cuts for rich people, a Supreme Court more hostile to the weak and vulnerable, and many other things far more unwelcome to a progressive mind than what Gore would have delivered. That is, we saw a devastating refutation of the idea that there was no value in having the Democrat take the office instead of the Republican.
The stakes are even higher now. George Bush, at least, had some government experience. He did not seek to persecute immigrants or build a wall across the border. Compared to this year's Republican nominee, Bush appears to be an exemplar of reason, tolerance, and restraint. This is serious. If you are a fellow left-leaning person (and perhaps even if you are not) you do not need me to tell you the details of Trump's bigotry, misogyny, willful ignorance, and gross irresponsibility. We need to keep him out of the White House.
In my essay endorsing Sanders, I stated many reasons for still respecting Clinton. Among other liberal actions, she championed universal health care and challenged sexist expectations for a first lady. Even if all of the facts that constitute the progressives' case against Clinton are true, the hostility toward her is still too severe. She is a well-credentialed, experienced, and knowledgable candidate, and yes, she does represent a liberal philosophy, even if it is not liberal enough for some. I, too, am suspicious of her hawkish inclinations with respect to foreign policy; I, too, am disgusted by her collecting a $675,000 speaking fee from a big corporation. But by any sensible analysis, a Clinton presidency would create a far friendlier environment for progressives than a Trump presidency.
I understand that people want a more progressive leader in the White House. But until that is a true possibility (and as long as Clinton has the support of most left-leaning people, it is not) the priority needs to be keeping the Republicans (especially this year's nominee) away from the office. Entertain fantasies of a progressive third-party president if you will, but there are simply not enough votes right now to elect one. Keep working on it, by all means, but for now, please, vote for the more liberal electable candidate. That is, the one who does not want to exclude people from the country because of their race or religion. That, alone, is sufficient reason to prefer Clinton to Trump; of course, there are many other reasons. If even one of those reasons matters to you, you have motivation enough to accept Hillary Clinton as the price for keeping possibly the worst presidential candidate in the nation's history out of the White House.