A friend on facebook reposted a statement that struck me as both important and flawed.
From @DanaVivianWhite, it states " Vote, yes. But there is no amount of voting that the liberals or the left can do to quiet the intensifying rage and radical action of white nationalism. This will not be resolved by voting Trump and other conservatives out. I feel like no one is saying that plainly."
The overall point is absolutely true, that even if a majority of Americans vote conservatives out of power, the hatred boiling in our country doesn't disappear. That is a horrible truth, but the author is right to point it out. It is vital to acknowledge that we have a hate problem in our country. It is worse than useless to lie to ourselves that this problem only showed up because of our garbage president. The hatred and fear has been with us as a nation, but it tended to live further below the surface before Trump became president. His blatant, loud, and constant stream of racism, misogyny, and intolerance has massively impacted the way people carry their hatred. His prominent hatred, and the lack of consequences he has faced for his hatred, emboldens and enables people to express their own hate and fears; to act out on their own worst impulses. Making a bad situation worse, the republican congress has apparently made the decision not to try and correct the situation, but to milk it for every possible political benefit. The GOP generally, and particularly party leadership, have made the decision to be complicit in Trump's influence rather than oppose it.
This is all tightly interconnected, but still somewhat separate from, the encouraging of division and polarization in general. That is a problem with its own very significant set of consequences.
All that said, here is where I think the original post is flawed: the country voted our way into the current situation, and while we certainly cannot vote away the fear and hatred that underlie a mass shooting at a church, mosque, or synagogue, there is something very important we can do with our vote. We can vote for better people. People who won't model misogyny or racism to their constituents. We can literally empower women, people of color, LGBTQ folks, or people with a variety of religious backgrounds. We can give these people control in our federal, state, and local governments. We can at the very least elect someone who is ready to oppose the hatred of our executive, and the complicit actions of the current GOP leadership.
It is a much longer, more difficult game than the idea that a big blue wave election will suddenly end white nationalism in our country. That's an attractive idea - I wish that could happen.
The road away from the rage and empowered hate groups, though, does require a show by the country that we are not going to stand for it. It is a step - removing Trump and his dumpster fire of an administration is another step - toward addressing our nation's hate problem.
So while voting will not solve the problem directly - my vote won't take away someone's racism - I think that sending a clear message with our votes is a necessary step to moving forward toward a future where we as a nation first admit there is a problem, and second commit to addressing it. We can't go back to a place without racism or hatred, because it has been here since before our nation was founded, but we can try to go forward to a place where we speak openly about the problem and do something about it.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Shootings and arguments and priorities
It is fantastic and depressing that high school students are taking up the mantle of the fight for rational gun control. Fantastic because their energy is impressive and inspiring, their fearlessness in the wake of trauma is amazing, and it is all delivered with truly age-defying confidence and poise. Depressing because the battle they are fighting still must be fought, despite the dozens of horrific school shootings, mass shootings, the thousands of gun deaths that should have spurred our leadership and our country to take responsible measures years ago.
So many memes fly by, so many comments, ideas, thoughts, and perspectives, that it gets a bit overwhelming. I watched a video of a man destroy his own AR-15 because he wanted to be rid of it and make sure it would never be responsible for a human death. It was poignant, and that man was making a bold choice that I admire him for. However, it also provokes a sort of despair, because as admirable as his choice was, to destroy his own weapon with no rule or law compelling him to do so, the problem cannot be solved that way. We cannot rely as a society on people to always be responsible in that way.
The arguments against rational gun control are stale and, frankly, stupid. It is fact that the NRA, driven in large part by gun manufacturers, gives huge donations to the people making our laws, and it is beyond obvious that the funding buys them the votes they need to maintain weapon sales.
"We should arm teachers"
I can hardly even ... this is just stupid. The solution is to put more guns into our schools? NO! There have been several impassioned messages flying around about this, from trained marksmen saying that its a horrible idea to teachers saying its a horrible idea. I don't want my children going to a school where there are guns in the building. That makes the situation LESS SAFE. How many accidental gun deaths occur in homes without guns compared to homes that own guns? Where there are guns, there is the chance of an accident, and gun accidents can be lethal because they are weapons designed to kill and wound. I'm not even touching the 'too expensive' side of this argument, because its not worth it. This is the WORST solution. Firemen do not put out a burning building with fire. We do not treat a bacterial infection with more bacteria. More guns is not the answer unless you are trying to sell guns (or are brainwashed by those trying to sell guns).
"Guns are not the problem, _______ is the problem."
Other countries with rational gun control laws also have _________, and they do not have the mass shootings that we have in the USA. Guns are the problem. We may have to do something about ________ IN ADDITION TO gun control. Next argument.
"Schools need better security. Armed guards, fences, metal detectors, etc."
This is only slightly less stupid than arming teachers. There was an armed guard on hand at last week's school shooting. Our schools do not need to be made into military institutions, we just need sensible gun control. Aside from that, mass shootings have happened at concerts and theatres and churches, and if we follow this logic our country will turn into a war zone of walls and fences around every space where people need to go. No.
"2nd amendment rights"
So, I actually do hear this argument and I have to have a little bit of respect for it. Personally, I choose not to own or carry a gun, but I understand that our nation has the right to bear arms baked in. However, there are really important things that I feel are important to keep in mind when arguing about the 2nd amendment:
- 'well regulated militia' is often left out when people talk about the right to bear arms. It helps lead to think that our forefathers were not foreseeing a society where the right to carry weapons meant giving up bodily safety and accepting the reality of mass murder as 'the price of freedom'
- historical context: its a tired argument, but a valid one, that the weapons that existed in the late 1700s are radically different than modern guns. Shooting 300 rounds with a musket would take over 2 hours even if you were really good at it. An AR-15 can do that in minutes - less than an average emergency response time.
- The Constitution is a living document. While changing it should not be undertaken lightly, amendments are made and interpretations are updated over time. Clinging to the wording of any document at the expense of human lives is a dangerous proposition.
- The fringe variant of needing to be ready to fight against a tyrannical government is ignorant and ridiculous. If the US government intended to kill you, no gun will save you. No militia would stand up if the attention of the US military is turned on it.
Ultimately, the deeper response to the arguments about the right to bear arms is that we have to weigh the value and extent of the right to bear arms against the value of our lives and the lives of our children. Personally, I feel that the lives of my children should have priority over your right to own a military-grade weapon.
I suppose that's a good place to end this rambling stream of consciousness. That just about sums it up.
The lives of our children are more important than our right to own military-grade weapons.
So many memes fly by, so many comments, ideas, thoughts, and perspectives, that it gets a bit overwhelming. I watched a video of a man destroy his own AR-15 because he wanted to be rid of it and make sure it would never be responsible for a human death. It was poignant, and that man was making a bold choice that I admire him for. However, it also provokes a sort of despair, because as admirable as his choice was, to destroy his own weapon with no rule or law compelling him to do so, the problem cannot be solved that way. We cannot rely as a society on people to always be responsible in that way.
The arguments against rational gun control are stale and, frankly, stupid. It is fact that the NRA, driven in large part by gun manufacturers, gives huge donations to the people making our laws, and it is beyond obvious that the funding buys them the votes they need to maintain weapon sales.
"We should arm teachers"
I can hardly even ... this is just stupid. The solution is to put more guns into our schools? NO! There have been several impassioned messages flying around about this, from trained marksmen saying that its a horrible idea to teachers saying its a horrible idea. I don't want my children going to a school where there are guns in the building. That makes the situation LESS SAFE. How many accidental gun deaths occur in homes without guns compared to homes that own guns? Where there are guns, there is the chance of an accident, and gun accidents can be lethal because they are weapons designed to kill and wound. I'm not even touching the 'too expensive' side of this argument, because its not worth it. This is the WORST solution. Firemen do not put out a burning building with fire. We do not treat a bacterial infection with more bacteria. More guns is not the answer unless you are trying to sell guns (or are brainwashed by those trying to sell guns).
"Guns are not the problem, _______ is the problem."
Other countries with rational gun control laws also have _________, and they do not have the mass shootings that we have in the USA. Guns are the problem. We may have to do something about ________ IN ADDITION TO gun control. Next argument.
"Schools need better security. Armed guards, fences, metal detectors, etc."
This is only slightly less stupid than arming teachers. There was an armed guard on hand at last week's school shooting. Our schools do not need to be made into military institutions, we just need sensible gun control. Aside from that, mass shootings have happened at concerts and theatres and churches, and if we follow this logic our country will turn into a war zone of walls and fences around every space where people need to go. No.
"2nd amendment rights"
So, I actually do hear this argument and I have to have a little bit of respect for it. Personally, I choose not to own or carry a gun, but I understand that our nation has the right to bear arms baked in. However, there are really important things that I feel are important to keep in mind when arguing about the 2nd amendment:
- 'well regulated militia' is often left out when people talk about the right to bear arms. It helps lead to think that our forefathers were not foreseeing a society where the right to carry weapons meant giving up bodily safety and accepting the reality of mass murder as 'the price of freedom'
- historical context: its a tired argument, but a valid one, that the weapons that existed in the late 1700s are radically different than modern guns. Shooting 300 rounds with a musket would take over 2 hours even if you were really good at it. An AR-15 can do that in minutes - less than an average emergency response time.
- The Constitution is a living document. While changing it should not be undertaken lightly, amendments are made and interpretations are updated over time. Clinging to the wording of any document at the expense of human lives is a dangerous proposition.
- The fringe variant of needing to be ready to fight against a tyrannical government is ignorant and ridiculous. If the US government intended to kill you, no gun will save you. No militia would stand up if the attention of the US military is turned on it.
Ultimately, the deeper response to the arguments about the right to bear arms is that we have to weigh the value and extent of the right to bear arms against the value of our lives and the lives of our children. Personally, I feel that the lives of my children should have priority over your right to own a military-grade weapon.
I suppose that's a good place to end this rambling stream of consciousness. That just about sums it up.
The lives of our children are more important than our right to own military-grade weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)