Gun Violence, Personal Choice, and America in an Election Year

OK, we know what happened...

So, I won't go into the details. There.

Now.

*sigh*

First, I would like you to watch this video about the Winnendon school shooting in 2009. I found it in Patton Oswalt's Facebook feed (I freaking lurve Patton Effing Oswalt). Pay really good attention starting at 1:34.

Now. I will let that point sit on its own. Please don't go all 24-hour-news-cycle on us. We don't need to see his face. We don't need to hear nonsensical eyewitnesses give their side of the story using hyperbole and incorrect gun terms. We don't need news readers making comments of a technical nature.

We do need facts. We do need what happened (as far as we can tell). We do need who did it (as far as we can tell). We do need to know what we need to do next (lock our doors, pack our bags, hug our families).

We do need restraint. 

We do need to get on with the other things going on in the world. This may sound callous, and my heart does go out to the victims, their families, and their friends, but I am glad I have the internet so I could see if there was something else going on in the world.

First Response

I guess you know how I feel about the network coverage. Between the inane rambling of people still on an adrenaline high after surviving the worst shooting since the Va Tech Massacre and the inane rambling of a news anchor who knows next to nothing about guns (I love you, Robin Meade, but you need to get to the range sometime), I was boggled. The only decent eyewitness account I felt was legitimate was that of a combat-experienced Marine who was with his wife. He calmly described what he saw and heard. He didn't exaggerate. He didn't make guesses. He told what he knew.

Sadly, I believe the best journalistic effort of the day came from the Onion, citing an imaginary person as saying "Nothing really surprises me when it comes to this kind of thing anymore. And that makes me feel terrible" and "In exactly two weeks this will all be over and it will be like it never happened."

Yep. This.

The United States of Guns

I'll let most of the pundits go into the facts and figures.

TL:DR - There are more guns in the hands of fewer people now than there have been historically. Violent Crime has been decreasing rapidly. Concealed Carry is available in almost every state (several without permitting).

Let me use my golden, reassuring voice to scare you into buying something.

Since Senator Obama was nominated as the Democratic Party Candidate in 2008, sales of guns and ammunition went up in the mistaken belief President Obama would take all of our guns away because of his following a European socialist who was attempting to ban our guns. I was there and I watched it happen. The last four years saw the gun industry as one of the only recession-proof areas of the economy other than the gold sellers advertising via Glenn Beck. (I do have to admit, I expected the bottom to fall out of the gold market by about 2010-2011... I was wrong)

I like my guns. I like being able to shoot them. I like being able to teach people about the role of firearms in American and World history. I like teaching museum people about firearms (reaaaallll small slice of the Venn diagram there...). I like talking to Gun Guys (and Gun Gals).

However, I also can't stand talking to Gun Guys.

Most Gun Guys I know are great people. Some are religious, some aren't. Most are on the right, some are on the left. Some are active shooters. Some are collectors. Some just buy guns. Most are the salt of the earth. Most are white. Most are upstanding members of their communities. Genuinely nice folk, for the most part.

Sometimes, though, being around guns has placed me in the company of some people I really did not like. Racists, White Supremacists, Anti-Government Conspiracy Theorists, Separatist movement folks, and a few Aryan Nation folks. Real great crowd. Shining examples of a group of otherwise great people. Also, the folks who will easily get on camera because they fit the stereotype.

Stuck on the NRA

Then there is the mix. Good people who are believing everything the NRA is telling them. When pundits mention the core of the Republican Party, they are talking about these people. I have written previously about my feelings on the NRA. I will reiterate that I appreciate the non-lobbying activities - firearms use and safety training, youth shooter programs, and grants for ranges to make improvements, to name a few. As I am happy to share, I am a life member of the NRA. However, I have to admit I giggled when I saw the Onion giving Wayne LaPierre a dig.

Over the last couple of decades, Wayne and his people have been pushing Social Security off of the third rail of the political subway and replacing it with Firearms. For the last 10 years especially, they have made the life of our Congresspeople harder than it already was. Vote the wrong way on a bill and every gun owner in your district will find out. nice.

The NRA, as usual after a situation like this is lying low. They did the same after the Gabby Giffords Shooting - smart move on their part.

Some folks, however, are pointing to a decline in the power of their organization. There are different reasons behind why this may be happening. One is that they are outliving their utility as a result of one success and one failure. The success is that they have pushed back or removed many gun restrictions across the country (including hamstringing the ATF through limiting their investigative power). The failure has been in catching the graying of the gun community too late. The retirees with guns are passing away. The greatest Generation is all but gone. The youth are in single-parent homes with no dads (This is what happens when you believe "Only boys shoot guns"). The majority of our population lives in an urban setting. On the one hand, you have one of the most liberal environments for gun usage. On the other, the percent of the population that does own guns is decreasing.

Worshipping at the Altar

The result of this is that those with guns see themselves surrounded by those without. Tie this with the belief in family, church, and country shared by many of these folks and you get an almost religious fervor that has spread among the gun-owning public.This was best shown through the Pat Robertson-esque comments made by Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert. Referring to our Founding Fathers and asking repeatedly, "Where was God in all of this?" he is searching for ties that aren't there. In asking why no one in that theater was carrying concealed, he is making an assumption of your typical concealed-carry permit holder and the situation in the theater. My money is on Representative Gohmert never having a concealed carry permit.  

I have. After arriving in Wyoming in 2003, I applied for and received my concealed carry permit. That permit allowed me to carry concealed in more than 1/2 of the United States. I regularly did. Even in Cody, Wyoming, I would carry to Wal-Mart, to restaurants, and, yes, to the movies. Why? Because I knew then what some folks are just starting to understand. This can happen anywhere. Statistically, you have a better chance of getting cancer, but there is always that chance.The best training doesn't just teach safety and how to shoot. It teaches you when to shoot and how to determine IF you should shoot. Many was the time at Wal-Mart when I knew that I would not be shooting - I would be grabbing my kids and doing my best Franco Harris impersonation.

Part of the reason I support legal carry is simply that I have met too many idiots with guns. Most of them, fortunately, do not get the concealed carry permit. Sitting in a class for 16 hours (in a lot of states), filling out forms, writing a check, and then waiting is too much for some. Others aren't legal residents of the state in which they live. Some get refused because of a past crime. Some have "issues." These folks decide to carry concealed for reasons unknown. These are the people I worry about. 

And then there are the people like Aurora (I won't call him by name). He picked out what he wanted to do. He picked a great place to attack. He chose a good time to go "in costume." He chose some good weapons for the job. The guns were purchased legally. There were no warning signs (that have been reported). He was not going to be stopped.

Weapons in the Hands of Private Citizens

Even if someone had been carrying (like that Marine I mentioned earlier?), I would expect that their first and best response would have been to get the hell out of Dodge and keep your eyes open. This is due to the stories of the smoke grenade (if that is what it was) and the combination of the Remington 870 and AR-15. If I have a handgun and the other guy has a rifle or shotgun, I am finding hard cover. Why? Because they can do more damage and are more accurate over range.

The larger firearms (and the ones folks tend to freak over) have historically been designed and used for hunting. Even the venerable AR-15 uses a round very similar to small game cartridges. I have an 870. I've shot trap, grouse, and rabbit with it. I would likely own an AR if I had the spare cash. Why - because they can be so heavily modified. Otherwise, there are other firearms that don't look so scary that are more dangerous because that can fire larger ammunition just as fast.

Whether or not we should have these firearms is, to me, not an issue. I believe we have the right, but I would give them all up for a happy peaceful world (this is why I am damned to be a Liberal). The more I have thought about it, though, the more I am surprised the Democratic Party is not on the side of gun rights. This is one of the only rights issues that the Democratic Party does not support. We support the right to choose, the right to love who we want to love, the right to vote, the right to think and worship (or not worship) as we wish. We should be the gun rights party.

The Upshot

I'm just rambling now, but there are bigger issues than gun rights and bans. There is the issue of our society. There is the issue that we have a nation that does not pay attention to mental illness as it should. There is an issue in that our society does not engender more empathy and respect for life. It's not guns, it's not video games, it's not kids underlining 'Eskimo' in their copy of Moby Dick. It's responsibility, it's family, and it's love.

#forgettheshooter

Peace, out.

Differences of Opinion

I've been getting into trouble recently

A few of my Facebook friends... OK, more than a few of my Facebook friends (and a number of my real world friends) are very Conservative. I mean, c'mon, how can you be involved in firearms without knowing some Gun Guys (and if they aren't a conservative bunch, I don't know who is).

I was called out for offending someone with cartoons and posts that made it seem I was trying to say something about them personally. Most of the posts/shares I made were attempts to show the political beliefs I espouse or to ridicule what I see as the low side of both ends of the political spectrum. One cartoon was about the lowest common denominator within a conservative political group (and something I have seen first hand).

I have known your run-of-the-mill Conservatives, religious Conservatives, economic conservatives, some people who are Reagan Republicans, some folks who think of themselves as Reagan Republicans (but aren't), a number of Libertarians, some folks who think of themselves as Libertarians (but aren't), a guy who thinks of himself as the modern incarnation of Theodore Roosevelt (without using the word 'environmental', because, you know, only Liberals have something to do with environmentalism - and, no, he isn't on Facebook), and some folks who make the John Birch Society look like the Socialist Party of America. I have gotten along with them all - granted some better than others. I even changed some minds in the process - while I had mine opened as well.

I myself, as the blog title suggests, am not conservative. Well, not about most issues. I have also started to become less quiet about my beliefs.

Given the various places I have lived and one particular job I had, I now tend to let people know what I am thinking about a political subject. I got tired of having to nod, smile, and say, "Sure" when someone suggested the President was born in another country and how he was going to try to force Socialism on us and take our guns away. In the position I worked, I would likely have lost my job if my political leanings would have been made public.

So, back to Facebook...

Lately, I have been sharing some comics, graphs, and other things that support my worldview. Some people have taken issue with these beliefs and think that because I don't like some of their personal and political beliefs that I do not like them. This could not be further from the truth.

The first thing I ask myself: 

Are you a mean person? I have known Liberals and Conservatives both who were complete asses. There are people across the spectrum who want to hurt people, who don't respect property, and who think of those who disagree with them as lower life forms. A perfect example of this are some (not all) of the Occupy protestors at Zuccotti Park. Closer to home are people who abuse their family members. Douchebaggery knows no political lines.

Next: 

Do you use your worldview to determine how you treat others (coworkers, people on the street, customers, etc.)? For some people this manifests itself through ignoring those who do not attend your church, go to your political club, or attend your rally. An extreme case is robbing and murdering people because you don't like illegal aliens...


If the answer to either is yes, I may not want to be your friend. In a lot of ways this comes down to a simple question: "Would I want to have a beer with you?" In the case of the current presidential election, I could answer yes for either of them. Hell, I would have said yes to Ron Paul. Most of the others would be a solid no.

I can't think of a person I am friends with that I wouldn't want to have a drink with. I hope you feel the same way.

What is my worldview? 

Here is a short list.

(Note - I have the right to add, delete, or modify anything on this list without notice)

• Yes to separation of Church and State (much of the rest hinges on this)
• Yes to Taxes - especially yes to raising the capital gains tax back to pre-Clinton levels; especially no to a flat tax
• Yes to reducing unnecessary governmental spending
• No to continuing tax credits or subsidies for US corporations keeping headquarters/money overseas for tax purposes 
• Yes to Evolution
• Yes to Gay Marriage
• Yes to Social Welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.
• Yes to a program allowing illegal immigrants a means to become legal citizens (Not Amnesty)
• Yes to Gun Rights although I agree with background checks at Gun Shows and take issue with some of the nonsense spewed by the NRA
• Yes to cutting back on the military - specifically the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter
• Yes to Health Care Reform
• Yes to reproduction rights for women. However, while I support the right to it, I do not support the act of abortion. 
• I disagree with the Citizens United Decision
• I believe that many Tea Party members are genuine in their interest to see a better America and that the end result is similar to my image of a better America. Now if we can only agree on how to get to this shared destination
• I believe that the people running the Tea Party (There are several Tea Parties to choose from - each supporting slightly different things) have been very good at pulling the wool over the eyes of the rank-and-file, hiding the corporate/1%er wolf under the sheep's wool of God, Flag, and Family
• I believe that teachers do not get paid enough and if the pay was better, we would get better teachers. 
• I believe that unions are a good thing for disenfranchised workers - until they get too greedy for their own good. 
• I believe that the Amendments to the US Constitution compose a list of our rights, first and foremost. Any attempt to amend it in order to infringe the rights of ANYONE goes against that theme. (There is no such thing as a right to not be offended)
• I believe that the President is an American Citizen, a Christian, and the legal Commander-in-Chief
• I believe that there is no Muslim agenda to destroy America - I am more worried about a Christian Identity member with a U-Haul full of ANFO
• I believe that the 1% is padding their wallets and that the rest of us are suffering as a side effect

Yes. I am the Secular Humanist your parents warned you about.

Museums and Firearms - why I do what I do

Well, today finds me in Montana, relaxing at my in-laws place. Tomorrow will find me at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman (where my museum career effectively began). I will be presenting my day-long seminar on Museums and Firearms at the Museums Association of Montana (MAM) Conference.

The first time I did this presentation was for the 2004 Mountain-Plains Museums Association (MPMA) Conference in Casper, Wyoming. I had been at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center as the Firearms Curator for about a year-and-a-half. I was leading a charmed life. I had my (at the time) dream job, I was being paid to talk to people about guns, history, and museums, and I was starting to build some great friendships in MPMA.

Anyway, here I am, almost eight years later. I moved on to a great (and in many ways better) job at a different museum. I am still involved with MPMA (I've been a board member for 6 of the last 8 years). I still love talking to people about guns!

Part of what I love about this is that I get to help cross the great divide - the divide between the gun guys and the Museum world. It's not that there are no gun guys in the museum field or museum folks who like guns. However, this is a small slice of a huge Venn diagram. There are lots of gun guys out there who like - but misunderstand - museum operations. There are many museum professionals who are responsible for firearms in their collections but don't fully understand them as objects or have concerns about guns and their accoutrements.

Unfortunately, the channels of communication between the two groups are limited. There are about a half dozen titled Firearms Curators in the country. I know most of them by first name. Some of these guys, by choice or job description, don't have the opportunity to talk to the general museum field. The museum field, tending to skew politically liberal, are often not gun owners. I, on the other hand, fall into both areas to a certain extent. As I have titled the blog, I am a Liberal Gun Guy.

Having set myself apart and acknowledging this difficult and sometimes tenuous position, I am more than happy to talk to both groups about how we can all get along. Tomorrow will be the sixth time I have presented this specific seminar. It has been seen by about 100 museum professionals and others to this point. I had several hunters skip the opening day of deer season to catch the talk in Bismark, North Dakota (thanks to the State Historical Society of North Dakota). I have had input from the (at the time) Firearms Conservator from Springfield Armory National Historic Site. I even have done the unthinkable - I enlist the aid of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

With the aid of these folks (and the host organizations I have dealt with), I get to talk to 20 more people about two of my loves - museums and firearms. Safety and identification, legal issues, conservation and care, and exhibition and curation will all be covered.

It'll be a great day!

Improving the Country Through Rural Wi-Fi

I heard about the introduction of "Whitespace Broadband" in Wilmington, North Carolina this morning on NPR and then saw an article about it when I got to work.

This is a GREAT thing!

I grew up rural. We had four channels: the big three and PBS (my wife had two with occasional PBS). By the time I got to junior high, we had a fifth channel broadcasting syndicated shows in the UHF range. We couldn't get cable - unless we paid to lay it - and satellite was just coming into vogue - albeit with a huge metal receiver dish that would make the NSA proud.

Over the years, I have spent most of my life in a rural/semi-rural environment. Without government subsidizing electricity, water, phone, and road infrastructure, these folks would still be living the life of Russian serfs. One of the last areas that has been built up to a decent level is internet access. The use of the old analog TV radio frequencies for this is a HUGE step forward. Access will improve and (more importantly) speeds will improve.

Why is speed important? Currently, most rural internet users live in 1996. Dial-up is the rule, not the exception (note - yes, there is satellite and microwave internet, but they are both prohibitively expensive and each has it's own issues). My in-laws have dial-up. Most ISPs advertise access speeds above 56Kbps, yet the lines and equipment used for transmission is sixty years old (or older). This may allow downloads in the 24-36Kbps range and uploads about 14Kbps... OK, most rural internet users live in 1994.

My internet access at home is in the 7-10Mbs (7000-10,000Kbps) range with uploads in the 2-3Mbs range. I can email a document (conservatively) eighty times faster than they receive it. I can download webpages almost 200 times faster... Loading video on dial-up is prohibitively ssssssslllllllloooooowwwwwwww on dial-up... let's not even go there... Whitespace Broadband is apparently faster than my Cable Internet, but I would like to see the numbers from Wilmington.

An effect of this - less education about what is going on in the world around you. Yes, you have your satellite TV. Yes, you can keep track of what is going on from the point of view of the news channel you choose to watch. However, you don't have access to the Khan Academy, foregoing one of the best learning institutions on the planet. You don't have access to the Weather Channel info about your specific location, foregoing information about the hurricane, tornado, or blizzard bearing down on you..You don't have access to all of the news sources the world has to provide, foregoing the opportunity to learn about opposing viewpoints and the chance to be a better informed citizen.

If this isn't inequity, I don't know what is.

I am not trying to suggest, as some are, that the Internet is a human right. I am suggesting that the better educated the populace, the better the country. Expand Internet infrastructure cheaply and efficiently and your people will reward you. But first, they will have to get in line behind the residents of Wilmington, North Carolina.

Other articles on this:
Network World
PCMag - with explanation of how this works and it is not really 'Wi-Fi'
PC World