After a mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school claimed 28 lives, Pres. Obama and other politicians said that there was finally political will to do something about gun control. But then incrementalism reared its ugly head once again. Now members of Congress say that the only thing we can expect out of this session will be legislation governing the number of bullets that go into the magazines used by semiautomatic weapons. You still end up dead. But you might get to have an open casket funeral.
Incrementalism on the March
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
8 Comments. Leave new
I’ll believe the increment when I see it.
The question is simple: When will these killings end?
The answer is equally simple: Shortly after one of the crazies shoots up an exclusive private school, or a high-end jewelry store, or a plastic surgery center in Beverly Hills. Once the deaths stop being middle class people and start taking out the top 1%, gun control will suddenly happen.
Alex is right – until it affects someone who has some real power or influence, it is unlikely that much will be done other than a bit of excrement being tossed into the mix – much like the bits of excrement being applied towards banking reform, getting our military-industrial complex to discontinue its constant activities, and getting any real action to improve or fix our economy. The simple fact is that people our apathetic ignorant society is more focused on gettting more stuff or mrerely getting by.
The empty diet coke cans pile up, but the weight stays on.
We do, of course, have gun control, or there would be more front yards adorned with functional four inch naval guns. Nevertheless; in the spirit of filling in some blanks in any debate there are two things I’m not seeing discussed. One is that despite arguments that the 2nd Amendment is about the National Guard or overthrowing governments (both rather ludicrous, actually) the fact is that it was the 2nd Amendment that kept the Japanese from launching harassment attacks on the West Coast during WW2 as, in the stated opinion of their Chiefs of Staff, it would be impossible to consider as there “would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”. So some top level support for guns in America is not theoretical but based on historical experience. Another thing is that we are talking about crazy people who commit the shootings being considered, so the possibility of them going after a crowd with a katana, ax, or baseball bat cannot be dismissed and the idea that firearms are SO much more effective than other weapons is questionable. Although “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a cliché, attention on gun control diverts attention from the existence and nature of “crazy”. And it is “crazy” that is responsible for these shootings, not the existence of firearms. (Note the argument that firearms make it somehow “easy” is based more on the false impression of a gun’s effectiveness given from movies more than an survey of school shooting’s kill ratios, as driving a car through a crowd generally scores somewhat higher for ease of execution and effectiveness, as an example.) Now even though the famous “Thud Experiment” took some wind from the sails of psychiatry, the transmutation of frustrated primary drives into aggression and perverted secondary drives is well established – and any chained and abused junkyard dog may serve as a case-in-point to the insightfully inclined. The problem is that to begin effectively dealing with “crazy” the negative, potentially soul-crushing consequences of the authoritarian, patriarchal family structure and the suppression of sexuality is to be grappled with and that is something that Sigmund Freud said would be “like putting your hand in a wasp’s nest”. I’m suggesting that what to do about controlling guns further is not the right question and the real question is very much more challenging and necessarily revolutionary than any legislative band-aid about commerce (note any banning of firearms and accessories would only effect LEGAL trade in such artifacts – and the War on Drugs might serve as a caution here) is apparently able to imagine. But, notwithstanding, it is the question of human fulfillment and the daunting challenge of evolving a society that takes that as a value that I feel we are up against in this issue. It has been said that history does not repeat itself; rather it is stuttering over an issue it has not yet addressed – that of individual human freedom. Thanks for listening.
Those guns behind every blade of grass simply could NOT have been held by US military troops?
Note: on certain parts of the US west coast one can still see concrete cannon (for lack of more accurate word) emplacements.
Any links on the latest 20-child massacre effected solely by baseball bat?
Otherwise, some good points, WordPressure, aside from pathological reverence for and deference to guns.
I especially like the one about any ban affecting LEGAL activities. The broader application of this “logic” is the expenditure of more than 50 of US tax revenues on a global system of perpetual war … and it’s “collateral” effect on an otherwise innocent “culture of life.”
@ falco –
*The broader application of this “logic” is the expenditure of more than 50 of US tax revenues on a global system of perpetual war ….*
Huh?
Pity that some people feel compelled to cite bogus «quotes», like that purporting to come from Yamamot Isoroku, without checking the sources (cf https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto). But of course, if one’s desire is to purvey a bogus interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, then any old bogus quote will do….
Henri
@ mhenriday –
But for the link you provided, I might have fallen for the bogus quote. Instead, I went a step further and found this site: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
There it is stated: “We make no argument either for or against gun ownership. But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.”
Thanks!