Friends like these...

Wayne LaPierre, spokesman for maker of poor quality first person shooter games the National Rifle Association, articulated something yesterday that is similar to what I've been analyzing here in suggesting that the solution to school shootings is putting an armed, trained security officer in every school. Said LaPierre: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The media was quick to point out, contra a claim I came across, that armed security personnel don't exactly have a perfect track record in stopping school shootings. As the Huffington Post notes, an armed security officer, Neil Gardner, was present at Columbine in 1999. HuffPo quotes from from the police report noting that

Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy. 

After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."

Some reactions:

First, as I noted in a Facebook comment

back at the time of Columbine, most police departments (including Littleton), officers and security personnel were trained to handle mass shootings in progress like hostage situations: establish a perimeter, help the innocent and wounded and wait for the SWAT team to show up. That changed post Columbine to what's called the 'Active Shooter Protocol' in which any law enforcement or security personnel on the scene immediately converge on the location of the shooter and attempt to neutralize him. There is strong evidence from many subsequent mass shootings that mass shooters -- unlike say terrorists or hostage takers -- tend to surrender or take their own lives when confronted by law enforcement. That was the case in Newtown, for example.

I suspect the author of the HuffPo article and others know this, and not including that relevant fact in the reporting is disingenuous. Doing that does not contribute to an informed debate on the issue. Even if you think the police in schools thing is a bad idea, and even if Wayne LaPierre is an odious human being, omitting relevant facts so you can more easily dismiss what might be a reasonable position out of hand is a poor and dishonest rhetorical technique. Also, even if the track record of police in schools on stopping mass shootings isn't perfect, that isn't the right thing to consider. The right things to consider are 1) if having police in schools is better on whole than not having police in schools and 2) if it is, is it a good thing to implement as a matter of policy?

Secondly, as I noted in a subsequent comment

Also, hitting a target at 60 yards with a hand gun while taking fire isn't a sure thing by any means. All of... [the above] helps contextualize why the officer in the story fell back and called for backup and why neither he nor [an]other officer who was close by pursued the shooters into the building. That's exactly what they would have been trained to do at the time and would never happen today.

Well, would never happen today if it was a trained law enforcement officer.... seems more likely that it would still happen today if it was -- and I'm just speculating here at random -- a schoolteacher or an everyday citizen with a gun as opposed to someone with modern police training.

In other words, at Columbine, the trained security officers acted in a manner consistent with their training, even if the methods of training have now changed. The best methods the professionals currently have call for the good guys to rapidly converge on the shooter, at great personnel risk, and try to stop him, possibly in the face of superior firepower. That's an extraordinarily brave and difficult thing to muster the courage to do and I'm sure to actually do successfully. It strikes me as quite a big thing to ask of school personnel or the general public, and so I'm skeptical of that as matter of security policy and would reject it if put forth as the sole or ideal solution. I'm not about to ask a teacher to risk her life like that, nor would I be comfortable staking my child's (or any child's) life on her ability to do it successfully, even if there are some who are willing to try, as the heroic and unarmed principal at Sandy Hook did.

To be fair, Mr. LaPierre is not calling for that. He's calling for trained professionals. Police officers not only train and practice frequently to handle these situations, they have also accepted the professional responsibility for defending the general public and the risk of harm or death that comes with it. However, even if the police are willing and able to face those situations bravely and with full knowledge of the risks, that doesn't mean it's a good thing if they actually have to. I don't want cops being shot at by bad guys if it can be avoided and I don't take the prospect of a police officer losing his life while protecting me (or my child) against a bad guy with a gun lightly.

If Mr. LaPierre is right that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, that seems like a persuasive argument for asking the question of how to prevent bad guys from using guns against good people in the first place. Newark Mayor Cory Booker articulates some 'common sense' gun control measures that mostly seem to me to be reasonable, prudent and respectful of the general right to gun ownership framework I talk about here. He also claims they are supported by the overwhelming majority of the public and NRA members. He is quick to point out that none of those measures would likely have prevented a mass shooting like Sandy Hook, but I think most of us would prefer that criminals shoot less innocent people in general.

It is my opinion that common sense gun control is good but not sufficient and that the deeper roots of the gun violence -- particularly mass shootings -- are cultural and require long term cultural change and solutions, as well as an honest examination by gun owners and non-gun owners of the risks and drawbacks of gun ownership in individual cases within a framework of protecting the right to bear arms. If Mr. LaPierre is going to repeat the tenuous claim that a cultural fixation on violent videogames contributes to actual gun violence, I have a hard time understanding why a cultural fixation on the actual guns isn't an appropriate candidate for examination.

Still creepy but...

Since I wrote this post (which you should read before you continue if you haven't already), I've had a number of very interesting discussions, chiefly (and somewhat surprisingly) on Facebook of all places. They haven't changed the essence of my position in the original post, but they have caused me to want to clarify a few things and in a few cases have caused me to evolve my thinking on some of the details.

The title of the original post

In the '...and we should tell gun people we don't think they're cool' part of the title of the post, the antecedent of 'they're' is ambiguous. Is the 'they' guns or is it gun people? In fact it was guns. I was not attempting to imply that all gun people as a group are not cool, not ok or deficient as human beings

'Creepy'

The main thrust of the post hinges on the claim that guns and various specific categories of activities, viewpoints and individuals associated with them are creepy. Though I think it's reasonably clear what I mean by that term in context, let me clarify. I use 'creepy' to denote something that I find odd, off-putting, suspicious and, as a result, probably best to avoid when possible. Some examples of things I find creepy are old abandoned mental hospitals, Ke$ha and people who would download this app.

My labeling something or someone as creepy should not be interpreted as a moral condemnation. It means that the creepy thing makes me uncomfortable and I deem it worthy of at least a moderately elevated level of attention when I'm in its presence for fear of some actual negative consequence materializing. I am not condemning all gun owners as morally or intellectually bankrupt. I am not suggesting their rights should be taken away or that they should be placed in concentration camps. I am suggesting that people with an affinity for death machines should face about the same level of baseline social sanction as a man who would download an app that simulates a pretty girl staring at him while he works.

The notion that guns are creepy in this sense is something we should recognize and should serve as the start of -- and a persistent background to -- the consideration of a number of issues around guns in our culture. From that starting point, we can discuss the fundamental right to bear arm; the legitimate roles guns have; if, when and how their use should be regulated; and whether it is a good idea for a particular person or class of person to choose to exercise their right to own one.

I can't believe that anyone -- including gun enthusiasts -- would find the notion that guns -- devices that are specifically designed to kill and maim -- are creepy to be controversial, but there is a persistent element in the party line pro-gun rhetoric that the mere notion that guns are creepy in this sense is not only preposterous but that articulating it represents both gross ignorance and an assault on gun ownership. A good example of this is the comment by a gun enthusiast in this article by my friend Louis Hochman that guns, when properly handled, are no more dangerous than socks. If you really put guns in the same class of benign objects as socks, then you're also creepy.

The main argument in the original post is that 1) we should recognize this 'creepy principle' and attach to creepy things like guns an appropriate level of social sanction; 2) there is a lack of recognition of the creepy principle in the mainstream pro-gun positons that is, itself, creepy; 3) those articulating pro-gun positions should face a burden of overcoming the 'creepy principle' and associated social sanction. I think those conditions are necessary (though by no means sufficient) to properly and responsibly frame a debate around guns. To cede to the pro-gun person that guns are fundamentally like socks (or cars, or baseball bats) does not accurately reflect the nature of guns and sets the discussion off from the wrong starting point.

Comparison to racists

In a couple of places in the original version of the post, I used the examples comparing racists and gun people. For example, in one place I said the following:

And while you have a right to do all those things [i.e. things I associate with the darker side of gun ownership] -- just as a racist has the right to write hateful garbage -- I'm going to voice my disapproval of your exercise of those rights and encourage other like-minded individuals to do the same.

I regret that comparison of the type of gun owner I was describing, which, seen in context, is a hypothetical super creepy one, to racists. Super creepy gun owners are super creepy. Not all gun owners are super creepy, nor are many even creepy at all (their guns and significant elements of their culture are). Racists are vile and evil. Creepy is not the same as evil. That's an unfair and unjust comparison.

Also, upon reflection, it's not really supportive of my overall position, which is about creating an appropriate level of social stigma around creepy gun culture in the hopes of marginalizing it and pushing the more reasonable gun owners at the margins away from the creepy positions. My hope is that this will reduce the overall presence of creepy and poorly considered gun ownership and lionization in this country, both of which I believe contribute to mass shootings.

I have removed the statements in question from the post, with apologies.

Right to own a gun

As I think was abundantly clear in the original post, I am not suggesting that the right of  private citizens to own guns should be taken away. My position, which I think is consistent with that of the Supreme Court and the majority of Americans as evidenced by polling data, is that individuals should have the right to make a decision about whether or not they want to own guns within a framework that recognizes that possession of certain classes of weapons by civillians constitutes an objective threat of force and are, therefore, proper things for a government to regulate or prohibit. When making those evaluations, as I noted in a Facebook comment

I don't see anything objectionable about actually examining the safety considerations raised by [particular classes of weapons] and making a determination (through socially objective legal means) about whether such use is to be permitted. It might be reasonable for different communities to develop different standards around that at different times and that's fine.

Tactical nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, tanks and bazookas constitute examples of things that clearly fall within the class of objective threats of force if owned by civillians anytime anywhere. A handgun or bolt action hunting rifle kept in the home clearly do not. Walking through the forest carrying the hunting rifle during hunting season clearly does not. Walking through Times Square carrying the same rifle does.

The issue of whether certain classes of weapons that fall in between bazookas and hunting rifles should be subject to restriction or regulation is one that requires, among other things, specialized knowledge both of the weapons and of conditions in a particular time and place. As such, I think it is best left to local authorities to decide within the above framework. I tend to think that if a type of weapon (or weapon component or type of ammunition) is only legitimately used for offensive actions against people -- for example (I'm pretty sure) a fully automatic machine gun -- it is probably an appropriate candidate for regulating or restricting its civilian ownership (because private citizens don't have a right to engage in offensive military or police actions). But I don't claim to be an expert, nor am I particularly interested in debating or advocating for specific gun control regulations. Nor was this the focus of my argument in the original post. In fairness to gun owners, I think that many anti-gun types are insufficiently informed to meaningfully participate in this part of the debate. I think I am better informed than most and continue to take steps to become better informed but still don't think I am qualified.

So, to state it another time, I don't want to take your right to own a gun away. If the question is do you have a right to own a gun (within the above framework), the answer is an unequivocal 'yes'. If, on the other hand, your position is that the right to bear arms creates an unlimited right for you to own any kind of weapon you want anytime, anywhere provided you don't use if for criminal purposes, then I disagree with you. I also find people who hold the position that it is, in principle, a violation of individual rights for the government to prohibit you from owning an F-15 or RPG creepy.

Should you, in fact, own a gun

With that out of the way, we can ask a different question, which is should you, in fact, choose to exercise your right to own a gun given your particular circumstances. To be clear, I don't get to make that decision for you, nor does the government or any other private individual except you. But if you share your reasoning with me and I judge it to be unsound, it is legitimate for me to say so. If my verdict is 'I don't think your reasons for getting a gun are very good' or 'a fact you stated is not correct' or 'your logic is flawed', I'm allowed to render that verdict -- and you're free to disagree with it. But it seems to me that rendering a verdict on the question 'do you have a good argument for your owning a gun' is distinct from my answer to 'do you have a right to own a gun'. If I render a verdict of 'no' on the first question, that doesn't automatically entail a verdict of 'no' on the second any more than me rendering the verdict that the dress you're trying on makes you look fat is equivalent to me being some sort of weirdo who is saying you should be prohibited from buying clothing (or that your clothing should be confiscated by the government or that you should have to run around naked). More deeply, just because you can own a gun doesn't automatically mean you should own a gun. Just because you can purchase that dress doesn't mean that you necessarily should purchase it.

Seems obvious, but I have yet to engage a pro-gun person who gets these points fully and consistently. Instead, the right to own a gun is treated as an irreducible primary: that the fundamental rights to gun ownership and to individual freedom render a debate about whether your reasons for actually choosing to exercise your right to own one taboo. I disagree. We can discuss your reasoning and if it turns out it's sound, great. If it turns out it's unsound, then it's unsound. Same as the dress... well, maybe not the same, because dresses aren't specifically designed to kill people.

In general, we think people should have reasons for taking actions -- even when it is fully within their rights to engage in that kind of action -- and if they don't they are acting arbitrarily, capriciously or irrationally. I think you should have a good reason for crossing the street. For crossing the street, 'I feel like going for a stroll now' is, I think, a more than adequate reason. I think for choosing to own a killing device slightly better reasons are required. I think good reasons do, in fact, exist in many cases, and in other cases they don't. If you don't think good reasons are required for owning a gun or that it is unfair to examine the soundness of various arguments for owning guns in particular cases or in general, that's also creepy. I'd also add that your failure to navigate this relatively simple matrix of reasoning also makes me slightly suspicious of your reasoning and decision-making abilities, which would seem to be particularly relevant skills when it comes to handling firearms.

As I think more about these issues, I may choose to post further thoughts. In particular, my positions on specific cases of and arguments for gun ownership are becoming more informed and I may post on them soon.

Guns are creepy and we should tell gun people we don't think they're cool

UPDATE: after reading this post, I recommend that you read this one, which expands upon and clarifies several parts of it based on discussions and further thought following the original post.

What happened in Newtown, Connecticut has left me deeply saddened. In the media and on my own Facebook feed, there's a heartening and moving sense that something needs to be done and a sense of shared mission and commitment in actually doing it. There's also a sense that people of good will need to do something now before the moment is lost.

A lot of the suggestions about what that something should be focus on what to do politically: banning assault weapons, closing background check loopholes, restricting the number of guns an individual can own, etc. It's not my place to tell anyone whether they should spend their time advocating for these worthy and reasonable things. What I do want to do is talk about another side of the issue, both because I think it's important to understand if you want to advocate for these policy measures and because I think it translates to a something that every single person of good will can do right now.

The history of guns in this country and our relationship to them as a people is long, complex and unique in the history of the world. The right to bear arms is tied up with the concepts of freedom, personal liberty and the role of government for a significant number of people in this country. Legislators and courts, while allowing for certain restrictions on it, have firmly established an individual right to bear arms for personal defense (not just as part of the militia, sorry guys). We can debate if that's a good thing, but it is what it is, and nothing is changing it in the short term.

In addition to the legal history, we also have a bizarre cultural history with guns, and so gun ownership is also tied up with concepts of individual, family, regional and cultural identity for lots of people. If you want a taste of this mentality, check out this New York Times article, which describes how local residents in Newtown recently opposed a measure to restrict the hours during which gun ranges could operate as a tyrannical, anti-American assault on their personal liberty.

I understand that lots of people take pleasure in gun ownership, gun collecting, "sport" hunting, target shooting and lots of similar activities. And you know what: I'm not going to talk about your right to do those things. You have the right. The Constitution says so. The Supreme Court says so. Fine.

What I am going to say is I find your culture creepy. I hope to stigmatize it so much that the more reasonable among you are shamed into abandoning it, because I don't think it has a place in our society.

We stigmatize geeks in this country for the crime of watching Battlestar Galactica. We stigmatize young women for being interested in science and young men for not being interested in sports. We even stigmatize gamers for playing videogames in which they control pretend people who use pretend guns to pretend kill other pretend people. I think it's time we expressed disapproval of people who exercise their right to -- and in many cases glorify -- the civillian ownership and use of death machines.

Guns are death machines. They exist to kill things. Kill them dead. Irreversibly. There are circumstances in which that's appropriate: for example when a criminal or foreign invader is initiating a life-threatening assault against a victim. I don't mean that to be an exhaustive list, just a clear and I hope uncontroversial example. I'm happy to discuss under what other circumstances it's appropriate. But let's not forget that the taking of any life -- even when justified -- is serious and irreversible.

There's an immense, dark power involved in ending a life, and guns exist as instruments of that power. I respect that power. I fear that power. I am deeply, deeply grateful to live in a society where we have a government and laws that constrain that power and place it under some measure of objective control.

And I guess on a psychological level -- if I am to indulge in psychologizing -- I understand why someone might embrace, fixate on, want a share of or even fetishize an object that embodies that power. But you know what: that's really creepy and those are not the kind of people I want to associate with. 

"I am a private citizen and I want to have a gun in my suburban house for protection" -- It's 2012 and you live in Connecticut, not 1883 Wyoming. We have effective police and military protection for you. Those forces have been trained and put in place to handle your protection and are governed by objective laws and procedures to insure the appropriate use of force, including deadly force, in pursuit of your protection. Frankly, I'm a little concerned about the potential for mistakes and abuses of this power by trained and authorized professionals. The idea of private individuals wielding such power outside of those objective controls and the risks your ownership entails scare the crap out of me.

"I like hunting for 'sport'" -- I find the notion of taking any life -- including the life of an animal -- for pleasure distasteful. Killing living things for fun has no place in any society I want to be a part of.

"I like target shooting" -- If you enjoy the skill of shooting, maybe try something like an Olympic air rifle or an electronic system or maybe even a video game. And if you specifically get off on the fact that you're using something that can actually kill people, you should stay as far away from other people as possible.

"I find these [objectively hateful] people hateful. I hope someone shoots them for protesting at the funeral of those poor kids." -- Dude, I find those people really objectionable, too, but please find a more constructive way to express your (justified) outrage. Suggesting that murder with a firearm is an appropriate response to hateful speech is reenforcing the notion that gun violence has a place in our societal discourse. It doesn't.

I suspect that most people of conscience feel similarly. Guns have a role to play in our society, but the fact that they're needed to play the role -- and they undeniably are -- is something to be regretted, not celebrated.

Before any law is passed, before any case is decided, before any petition is written, there is something you can do. The next time someone puts forth one of the above statements, disagree. Leave no ambiguity in removing your sanction -- whether explicitly by agreeing with them or implicitly by saying nothing -- from the idea that gun culture has any place in your culture. Let them know that you find that culture -- and by extension the people who support it -- alien, frightening and off-putting. Don't invite them into your home, don't invite yourself into their's -- especially if a gun is present.

You're not going to convince any NRA Executive Board members to change their positions any more than you could convince a card-carrying member of the KKK to change his views on race. But you might startle a few people at the margins into realizing that views they once thought were mainstream aren't and that there are interpersonal and social consequences for holding them. By working to marginalize those views, you'll also be laying the groundwork for the cultural change that will enable the political changes you support (and may even be working for). And both of those are very important first steps.

Again, please consider reading the companion post to this one, too.

EDIT 12/17: Fixed some typos and added the link to the Times article.