Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The Weekly Screed (#593)

After every massacre, machismo prevails 
by David Benjamin

BROOKLYN — Predictably, my three most macho high-school friends — Roger, Dan and Jerry — objected fiercely last week when I responded to the Aurora massacre by suggesting ways to shrink America’s vast and bloodsoaked national arms bazaar.

How macho are they? Suffice to say that any one of these men — all Wisconsin natives — could survive a winter in the woods of Iron County with nothing but a toothpick and a pair of swimming goggles. Jerry’s so tough he’d probably emerge in the spring with a potbelly (from feasting on wolverine carpaccio) and a golden tan.

First, let’s consider ol’ Rog. His Facebook page depicts him with a gun. Well, a rifle actually — probably with sufficient firepower (more than .30 caliber, or 7 mm) to swiftly dispatch the dead deer that shares his portrait. Knowing Roger, I know he’d never hit the woods with an AR-15, like the puny theater-sweeper that James Holmes leveled at the crowd in the Aurora Century 16. The AR-15, firing .223 caliber ammo, is useless to bring down a deer, even if you empty a whole clip into the woods. Holmes proved the the AR-15’s lamentable firepower when he hit 70 targets but only scored 12 kills.

I doubt that Rog, an honorable sportsman, owns any automatics or semi-automatics  — an Uzi, say or a Kalashnikov — at all. If he does, I’d guess he keeps this ugly toy locked under glass — like a stuffed tarantula — without a functional firing pin.

Also, I’ll bet Rog has never mail-ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo — or even a thousand — because he’s an actual hunter. If you take pride in your marksmanship, your aim is to get your deer — or moose, or bear, or rhino — with one clean shot, center-mass, right through the ticker. The idea is to drop the noble beast instantly, respectfully and with a measure of mercy. Long ago, I used to hunt squirrel with my dad, who would chide me for wastefulness if I fired four times and came home with only three squirrels.

Jerry, a hunter-gatherer like Roger, lives on a rugged island in Lake Superior and roars around Wisconsin’s highways on a Harley-Davidson hog. Jerry was a 97-pound weakling in junior high, but now he’s the manliest man I know. If he were any more testicular, he’d be wearing a buckskin loincloth and living under a log. Fortunately for humanity, Jerry married a woman who has charms to prevent Jerry’s inner Neanderthal from bursting forth and gnawing the neighbors.

In my idealized vision of her, Janet is sweetly tolerant of Jerry’s deer rifle and his varmint-hunting .22; also, maybe a scattergun for partridge, and a .38-caliber S&W in a padlocked steel box on the top shelf in the garage. And she accepts Jerry’s Harley as a sort of huge, oily binky. But that, I suspect, is Janet’s limit. If ol’ Jer starts stocking up grenades, mortar launchers, .50 cals and nuclear warheads for a siege by the ATF, FBI and DHS, he’ll have to build his bunker on the next island over — without Janet.

Now, Dan, a city boy, says he used to be a policeman. This renders his defense of universal access to assault weapons a little confusing. Like most cops, Dan probably never fired — or even unholstered — his handgun. If he had, he would’ve had to fill out forms for a week and sweat out a board of inquiry. As a cop, he not only feared guns in untrained hands, he knew how easy it is for trained gun-handlers, like the police, to misuse their weapons under stress. I suspect, but don’t know, that Danny, now off the force, no longer goes around with a 9-mm strapped to his hip. If he does, he reserves it to rare occasions, and does so with every intention not to touch it, much less fire it.

None of these three guys is your Tim McVeigh survivalist with a militia troop in the forest. So why do they wax passionate when I suggest that a few of America’s 47,000 gun dealers should suffer a little public censure when someone uses legally bought firearms for mass murder? Do these three prudent gun owners honestly share the wide-eyed, peeled-nerve terror of the National Rifle Association that jackbooted G-men will sweep down — any minute now — in black helicopters to take away everyone’s guns?

If they believe this, here’s the irony: These guys agree — vehemently, and justifiably — that the government is America’s least competent organization. I mean, the government has been trying to take away our marijuana for 40 years. How’s that going?

The government’s been trying to tax our income since 1913. So, in 2010, you know who got away with paying NO INCOME TAX? General Electric, Boeing, Citicorp, Pfizer, Exxon/Mobil, Verizon, News Corp., Google, DuPont, Mattel… The list goes on.

And then there’s immigration. Today, we have 11 million undocumented aliens. In my experience, these folks are easy to spot. They’re fairly large; they walk around in public and shop at Wal-Mart; they mow your lawn and they look, well, Mexican! But we’re not getting rid of them! Here they are, year after year. If the government can’t gather up 11 million illegals, most of whom are right out in the open, how’s it going to even begin to disarm 150 million gun owners who have really good hiding places?

And who’s going to run this government takeover? Not the government. Since 1994, Congress hasn’t passed one gun-control law — or even tried. We’re a nation of bipartisan Billy the Kids. Reversing just one of our cheesecloth gun laws, in one county of one state, would — at this stage — require years of propaganda, billions of dollars and a restoration of civic idealism that takes us back to 1961. During this campaign, every elected official in favor of that one measly gun-safety measure would be, at least, driven from office — and possibly riddled with bullets — by the rabid minions of the NRA.

As I wrote last week about weapons whose sole purpose is to kill lots of human beings as fast as possible, common sense dictates that most people should be prevented from acquiring them. But whatever I say, however often I say it, does not matter.

Roger, Dan, Jerry, why are you arguing at all? It’s bad form. It’s tacky. Makes you look like sore winners — because your side hasn’t just won. You’ve taken the ball and gone home. The all-or-nothing Shiites of the gun lobby — who (trust me) don’t need your help — are in charge. They’re holding a semi-automatic, speed-loaded, 33-bullet, pearl-handled, 9-mm Sig-Sauer to everyone else’s head. We’re not gonna move — we’re not gonna breathe — ‘til they take their thumb off the hammer and say, “OK, scumbag. You can go.”

Even then, we’re going to move real slow, ‘til we’re way out of range.



4 comments:

Peter said...

Because I have to, when the Germans invaded my country, Belgium, the Belgian Gendarmes came around to every house and confiscated the shotguns and blunderbusses we owned. People with guns facing a highly organized army, and the Germans appeared to be organized, was the safest way to avoid destruction of towns and the death of ignorant civilians. Belgian logic dictated that a single shot twelve gauge was not the best way to stop a cavalcade of 88s. The NRA would have disagreed, but they would have already taken out Swiss nationality to protect their right to make money. all the horses were confiscated also, but 4H society of Belgium did not have the power of the NRA, so away they went. This is just a long and tiresome preamble to saying, when the federal government, the radical muslims or any other crackpot conspiracy aremy appears I will hand over my vintage 30/30 and hope my neighbors do the same, no one wants to live next door to a crater and the slimy remains of Mike and Val and their two children. That is why I support gun registrations and the repeal of the second.

Danny said...

Benjie,
Unfortunately as a police officer my weapon was unholstered many times and, in at least one particularly tense moment would have been used to kill a man holding a rifle had it not been for my conscious decision to wait until he fired first. Fortunately I was able to talk him into putting the weapon down but let me assure you that had he not killed me with that first shot I would have emptied my 357 Magnum into him with no regrets.
Reality Benjie is that if guns exist AT ALL then there are going to be people that will use them. You cannot legislate it away because those who would use a gun in the manner in which it was used will do it regardless of legality.
I believe there are, at least currently, more sane individuals out there than not.Most will not arm themselves and believe that the police will come to their rescue in time of need. This is admirable al beit somewhat nieve.
To my brothers on the left who seem to believe in the perfect world of Haight /Ashbury, flower power, and love I say your goals are commendable but not achievable on this planet. Reality is so much more horrible than you are willing or possibly able to absorb. Man being so self enamored with his own intellect will ultimately strangle on it. One undeniable truth still stands regardless of what your religion may wish you to believe, we are animals and as such will act with baser instincts, whether it means using a gun or bashing your head in with a stone... perhaps we should outlaw rocks smaller than one ton.

David Benjamin said...

Danny:
Your cynicism — an apparently blanket belief in the irredeemable bestiality of all humans — is more naive than my belief in the idea that people can work together to improve the human condition. There is not one gun control advocate in America who wants to eradicate guns, especially rifles. There is such a thing as gun safety, however. In past times, the NRA promoted it. This was before they decided instead to promote unrestricted access to military ordnance. Explain to me why you need a .50-cal machine gun and a fridge full of live hand grenades to feel safe in your home, and I'll explain to you why I don't object to 90 percent of the weapons owned by sane, law-abiding grownups. The false dichotomy in this whole mad, unnecessary argument is that right-wingers like you insist that the only solution to massacres is to figure out who the crazy people are and prevent them from getting guns. And you believe that we left-wing flower-power faggots want to stop the crazy few by taking away every gun on the planet. The middle ground, which won't end gun violence but might ameliorate it, is twofold: a) better (even universal) medical care, mental-health care (which the right wing regards as sissy) to weed out some or most of the crazies, combined with b) the sensible reduction of the American arsenal — specifically weapons useless for either hunting or home protection. You can name these overkill devices as readily as I. I would include your .357 (in favor) of a pump-action 12-gauge. But I wouldn't take it away from you. Different strokes. But I'd prefer you to register it, and be trained in using it. Why am I unreasonable? What does this have to do with rocks?

Fritz logan said...

A lively debate, gentlemen. Danny speaks with authority about the baseness of human nature. Police officers see and deal with situations the rest of us don't and needn't. I share his view--although, sometimes, rarely, I wish I liked the human race / I wish I liked its ugly face / And when I'm introduced to one / I wish I thought, What jolly fun.