Far East Cynic

How it will go….

The shootings in DC are a senseless tragedy.

Nonetheless, there is pretty much a predictable script of how the reactions will go.

First of course, comes the shock of it all.

Then the fascination with which we all will watch the news. Followed by Tweets, Facebook posts and the like. There will be a demand for "solemnity"-no dry quips about someone going postal allowed. ( Even when there is a 50-50 chance that it might be that).  Decorum you know. Someone else's decorum. The victims , many of whom are probably government employees or military personnel will be praised as heroes. ( Which they are).

Then the night will pass and the second day will begin. The questions will start. The dead shooter's name will be released. If its a Muslim name or something foreign-the terrorism speculation will climb and climb. If it is not-then will come the ever familar " Its too soon to speculate about changing gun laws" speech. The slants of news reports will begin-as will the finger pointing back and forth.

On the third day the volume will increase, and it will still be too soon to talk about America's gun laws. If there is even the slighest indication that it was an outside attack-the berating of the country's foreign policy will begin. If its a disgruntled employee, well, it still won't be time to talk about America's gun laws. Or America's economics.  Crazy people you know-no lessons for the greater populace. 

On the fourth day, it will still be too soon to talk about meaningful gun control in America. ( This will repeat for the next 365 days).

The immediacy will recede-some more details will emerge and the in depth analysis will begin.

Finally, some two weeks later-Congress will refuse to vote to fund those heroic military personnel and government civilians a budget or a pay raise-because we have to worry about the "children" and the crushing debt that will be left to them. It will still be too soon to talk about America's crazy gun laws.  Within a few days the finger pointing about security will begin-and it will get even harder to get on a military base. But we "still thank them for their service". We just refuse to reward them for it.

And so on. This is the way it works.  

I can't tell you how strange this looks from the other side of the Atlantic. Not the details of the shooting — although those seem strange enough — but the very fact of it. I am sitting right now in a part of Ireland in which the gun played a tragic role in the country's politics all the way up into the 1930's. (The guerrilla fighting during the Irish Civil War was particularly brutal in Kerry.)  Nobody here is unfamiliar with firearms. But this kind of thing — an armed madman or, worse, three armed madmen — is so alien that it seems to be taking place in an alternate reality. Other countries simply don't have these things. Or, if they do, they have them so rarely that, when one occurs, as occurred in Australia, the county gets very tough on firearms and changes its laws. The Teachable Moments actually teach something. It is more than odd to be sitting in another country, watching the news scroll by, and to realize that your country, the one that your grandparents braved a leaky boat and the north Atlantic to get to, is a country that has a several of these every couple years, and accepts it as part of the cost of those essential freedoms your grandparents sought. It is very much like being part of another world.

 

 

UPDATE! If you have any doubts about what will happen-the Twitter beating David Frum is being subjected to for these tweets should remind you why I am right. BTW I am highly entertained by the all the folks that missed the sarcasm 🙂

 

  1. Cannot bring guns onto federal property!  So much for a gun free zone being the answer to this  kind of act.      

  3. Grant, I love that argument-as if it somehow absolves American society from any role. You can't bring guns into schools in Connecticut either-but people do.

    Other countries have acted-strongly. We don't and never will. Th second amendment was never intended to protect things like this.

  4. So if we start dissecting the 2nd amendment, where do we go from there.  How strongly should we act?

    Me – I became a sheep dog as my role in American society.  In that role I practice at a range at least once a month. I stay aware of my suroundings always.  When I see a no gun zone, I leave the area.  I'm not a George Zimmerman as I know restraint from serving under some kind of rule of engagement with concequences for over 24 years.

     

  5. Skippy,

    Osaka 2001 – 8 children killed by a nut job with a knife.

    Akihabra, Tokyo 2008 – 7 killed, 10 wounded by a nut case using an auto and knife

    Hiroshima 2013 – 2 killed at factory by knife welding lunatic.

    It't not that guns or knives kill, people kill.  Whether you have a gun or a knife, if one is crazy enough they will do it.  The comment normally comes up along the lines of "if it's only a knife you stand a much better chance of surviving if you attack the attacker."  Not really true.  Are you going to volunteer to be the one to go charging "Half a Leauge Onward" for the glory of stopping said attacker with just your bare hands?  I am not so sure that I would, but I would also say that I am definately sure that I would not go charging against someone with a gun.

    People like to talk about the "Wild West" mentality that is America and the gun culture.  One of my in-laws tried to corner me on that, talking about America's violent past, based on their understanding of our culture.  When I pointed out to him as we were watching a late Edo period drama about samurais, I explained that while those actors in the background were being killed in battle because some samuri felt that his honor had been impugned by some slight, that around that time in America a man could leave the east coast and head out west to start a life for himself, and not be holding to some feudal lord to go and make war because he didn't get the girl that he wanted.  Also, during those times, samuris normally walked around with a weapon and the rest of the peasants weren't allowed to own such a device.  So how is that any better than the average American at the time being able to at least have some sort of weapon on their side.

    The US is a violent place, I do agree, but we are not alone.  Why is it that just about everyone in Der Schweitz has a weapon and they are trained on them, yet we don't hear about the mass killings there?

    Contact me off-line for another aspect on this that you would fine eerily similar to today's events.

  6. Why is it that just about everyone in Der Schweitz has a weapon and they are trained on them, yet we don't hear about the mass killings there?

    I think its important to highlight the differences in culture. One: The Swiss have national service-a good idea.  That said they still have rather strict laws on ownership, usage, and storage. There is no parallel in the United States.Switzerland is also a member of the Schengen treaty. All member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard.

    I'd also point out that ammunition, military ammunition is kept in arsenals-not in private homes.

    More importantly is the way Swiss view a weapon-which is very different from their US counterparts, and culture of responsibility they impart. They don't have wack job idiots in fatigues and goatees roaming around the woods.

    Which brings me to your point about Japan. First lets look at the overall numbers-WELL below the US rate. Second look at the spacing. 3 incidents in a decade? The US has had over three in a year.

    The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Where are the other soldiers? Who’s in charge? And which state are you protecting? Because other wise, owning a gun is just an exercise in personal selfishness. I know how to use a gun. I also know how to use CMS. Both of them I regard with considerable caution and respect-primarily for their ability to fuck up my life. I try to stay away from both and use them only when I have to.

  7. Skippy,

    What you fail to realize in your rant is that David Frum's rule #3 is correct. All citizens, including gun owners, are to be recognized as responsible and law-abiding until they personally have broken the law. Maybe both you and he forgot that fact. Separately, if gun control were so effective, why does Chicago suffer from so many gun deaths? Also, who are you to determine whether someone else's completely free exercise of their constitutional rights is "an exercise in personal selfishness?" Is someone exercising their right to remain silent after they have committed a crime is "an exercise in personal selfishness?" And finally, people are free to debate meaningful gun control today, tomorrow, or ten years from now. Just don't be surprised if "meaningful gun control" means something like "Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot" to many people. You forget that there is a reason than gun laws around the nation have become less restrictive over the past 3 decades. It is because people want them to be.

  8. Skippy,

     It never ceases to amaze me that we can have such similar backgrounds, see the same facts, and yet so often reach conclusions that are 180 degrees out from each other. I enjoy reading your blog because it's useful to hear the "the other side" attempt to argue rationally. 

      At the end of the day though, on the issues of gun ownership, American gun culture, and the second amendment you are flat out wromg. Look at the company you keep on this issue: Piers Morgan, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, etc. Hypocrites all, and criminals mostly. When you are marching in a parade and you look around and see that everyone else marching with you is a midget, you have to ask yourself "Am I a midget? If not, then why am I in a midget parade?" That's what I see with most all of the gun confiscation crowd– a parade of midgets.

    R/

    Sluf

  10. Skippy,

    There are a lot more incidents of stabbings here in Japan, but the majority of them don't get translated into English.  I am able to pick up some of the cases when watching the local news with the wife. Also, it's not just stabbings but other instruments are used in Japan in violent attacks on people more than you may realize.  Japan can be summed up on my Friday "gomi" day when it is the time to put out the PET bottles.  I live in a very quiet neighborhood, and it seems as if you hardly see the neighbors out doing anything, but you know they are there.  But on Fridays when I put out my PET bottles (mostly sodas and water), I notice a funny thing.  My Japanese neighbors put out bags that are full of alcohol products.  If they go through the amount of liquor that I see evey week, something must be going on in the shadows which they are not letting out.  It seems like a well respected, peaceful place, but the undercurrents are there.  Same situation in the area that I lived in before.

    Japan has violence, workplace and random acts like this idot did.  It's just a matter of them not being upfront in reporting them.

    As for the Swiss, it may be a cultural thing that keeps them in check, but at least they do accept the fact the people have them, and they try to treat adults like adults and offer training for people, and not gonig around and telling them that they can't handle a weapon.

  11. Got it. Guns bad. Glad the irish scumbags stopped using guns and stepped up their game. Just the last 2 from wiki

    15 August Omagh bombing – a dissident republican group calling itself the Real IRA exploded a bomb in Omagh, County Tyrone. It killed 29 civilians, making it the worst single bombing of the Troubles, in terms of civilian life lost.

    15 March Solicitor Rosemary Nelson, who had represented the Catholic and nationalist residents in the Drumcree dispute, was assassinated by a booby trapped car bomb in Lurgan, County Armagh. A loyalist group, Red Hand Defenders, claimed responsibility.[46]

    I stopped being a fan of the cops and other law enforcement many years ago but I don't hate them as much as anyone who pushes for legislation that bans guns in this country because every single one of them will die in the attempt to sieze legally owned weapons here. This country is not stuffed with pussies like Europe and the other former members of the British Empire.

    Seriously, 350 million guns here in the hands of many people who will never give them up and then there's all the losers who own illegal weapons. It's sad that people like you just don't understand that and persist in stupidly wishing you could make them vanish as painlessly as the cops got the drugs off the street. Chicago is exactly what you advocate for all of the US. So is DC. Accept that most Ameicans believe they have an inalienable right to guns. Live with it and stop whining. It's sickening actually to watch people like you jump/leap and dance in glee every time something like this happens because this time, this time! You're sure you'll get the guns.

  12. Actually I know I am right on this issue-and the fact that some folks one doesn't like agree with me, is not a detractor. A lot of good, non-hypocritical Americans agree with me also.

    I find most arguments in favor of unrestricted gun ownership are ultimately defined by selfishness-people do not want to give up their guns. There are people who like kiddie pXrn too-but society says as a whole, that they will not tolerate it. And because in the long run its detrimental to society- you are not allowed to have it. I would submit that other nations in the world have made the same determination to a lesser degree about guns.

    The next time a gun enthusiast proposes that the 2nd Amendment gives them the absolute right to bear any arms that they wish, pose the previous situation to them and ask them to reconcile their interpretation of the Amendment with realistic laws. What you will get as an answer will be a contorted explanation on how criminal conduct negates the 2nd Amendment rights (absolute rights don’t work like that—case in point: the 1st Amendment) and how it is not sane or safe for criminals to have access to weapons while in prison. To be fair, they are half correct that such a gun policy is neither sane nor safe in our prisons, but, then again, neither is their proposed gun control regime on general society.

    Furthermore,

    While it is true that guns are simply tools and have no ability to harm anybody on their own, the assertion that they have no part in the perpetration of violence is absurd.

    If properly motivated, somebody can kill their enemy with a pair of nail-clippers, but this is irrelevant to the greater regulatory scheme. Just because there are other ways for people to kill one another, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t in the public interest to restrict the most common way people currently kill each other.

    Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing people—even large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be far more difficult to accrue high body counts.

    There is a good reason why guns have become the mass murderer’s weapon of choice; they are simply the most efficient way of getting the job done. Weapons other than guns can be used to kill large numbers of people, but none are as easy to obtain or use as guns:

    • Bombs may be lethal to large numbers of people, but they take expertise to build and are very risky for an amateur to handle (just look at the number of people who manage to mangle themselves playing with fireworks).
    • Knives are lethal in the right hands, but they can only kill one person at a time and have no ability to kill at a distance.
    • Cars can been used to kill people but they are far too large and unwieldy to replace guns (you can’t exactly put one in your backpack to sneak into a school).

    A tool may simply be a shortcut to a desired result, but it isn’t fair to say that the tool has no part in achieving a result. A man with a hammer and a man with a gun could kill an identical number of people, but the gun certainly makes it more likely that the person will succeed, faster in their killing spree, and more likely to kill their specific targets.

    Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. However, people with guns can easily and quickly kill a lot of people, while those who don’t have guns, cannot. In a country flooded with guns, the mass murderer (or simply the person who wishes to kill one person) is able to obtain their weapon easily and without much risk. Gun control laws may not be perfect, but they are a start on a long road towards a safer America

     

  13. Skippy,

    It may have been a decade between the mass killings but more recently, a woman was stabbed in Kyoto on Saturda as she was walking alone after work in the early evening.  Yes Japan is relatively safe, but not as safe as some may think.  I have read of many incidents of this nature, and what's more shocking, more cases of women killing their own children.  Not just the one kid but wiping out 2 to three of them and then claiming some lame excuse.

    Japan is nice, but they have just as many problems as the USA.  The only difference, they just don't like to publicize them unless they happen to involve a foreigner especially a US servicemember.