Skip to main content

"This wouldn't have happened if teachers were armed."

"If I'd been at that theater in Aurora with my gun, I'd have taken out the shooter."

"If we allow concealed weapons in public places, these deranged gunmen would never get away with it."

Where do they come up with these idiotic ideas?

I suspect, it's the consequence of having grown up watching American television. Not so much the violence, mind you, the stupid ideas about how to stop the violence.

I watched a lot of TV growing up. I can't count the number of times that the hero shot the gun out of the hand of the villain.

I watched hundreds of shootouts where only the hero's bullets hit their target. The bad guys are always terrible shots.

In Bugs Bunny cartoons, Bugs can always stop Elmer Fudd by putting his finger in the barrel of Elmer's gun. If you drop an anvil on someone's head, they are knocked out, but they always survive.

On TV, people get "knocked out" by a blow to the back of the head, but nobody ever gets a closed head injury that leaves them disabled for the rest of their lives.

Cowboys chase the bad guys on horseback and shoot the bad guys out of the saddle.

Jack Bauer can find out anything with torture, and the information will always be accurate.

The way violence plays out on TV is determined by how the writer wants it to play out.

This is not an argument for censoring popular entertainment. Most of us watched those shows and understood that they were fiction. I watched uncounted Bugs Bunny cartoons when I was growing up and never ever decided that dropping anvils or pianos on people was an effective way to deal with conflict.

If you walk up to a right-wing gun supporter and ask him if sticking your finger in the barrel of his gun will stop him from shooting you, he'll laugh. "Bugs Bunny cartoons aren't real," he'll tell you. He knows that cartoons aren't real. He probably even knows that Jack Bauer is a fictional character and the stuff he does wouldn't necessarily work.

I think there is something more subtle than thinking TV shows are real happening here.

The argument for censoring popular entertainment goes something like, "Children grow up watching thousands of murders on television. While they may understand that they've been watching fiction, they become desensitized to violence."

I don't pretend to know whether that is true. I do know that all the crime shows I watched as a child and teenager did not make me more likely to commit violence. I am not likely to commit violence -- even if my life is threatened..

But, it may have made me more likely to think violence is a "normal" thing.

Without crime statistics to rely on, I suspect I'm going to think that there is more violence happening that is really happening. I'll probably think that because of all the violence I've seen on television. I don't believe the television shows are real, but they inform the landscape of my perception of reality.

By the same token, I suspect that my hypothetical right-wing gun nut imagines his weapon is a more effective deterrent than it actually is. He doesn't think "The A-Team" is real, but it informs his perception of reality.

The difference between him and me is what component of the television we watched we wrapped into our perception of reality.

Here's where I'm going with this

In real life, a gun is an ineffective defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon.

There's a reason that back when soldiers fought with swords, they carried shields. Guns are not good shields.

A Kevlar vest is a defense. A gun is not.

The first person who pulls a gun has the advantage. The second person does not get the opportunity to pull his own gun.

So, if I'm approached by an armed robber, I'm never going to get the opportunity to rummage through my purse and get out my gun. (Note: I don't have a gun in my purse.)

The deranged gunman walks into a crowded place and starts shooting. Before he starts shooting, nobody knows he's a deranged gunman. After he starts shooting, there is chaos. The only time when it would be possible to "take him out" is before he starts shooting. After he starts shooting, the chances of hitting a bystander rather than the shooter rise dramatically. But you certainly can't shoot him before it's clear he has murderous intent.

It's a "Catch 22." The only time having a gun would be useful is before the threat is clear, and before the threat is clear, you cannot use the gun.

Increasing the number of bullets flying while everyone is screaming and running for the exits is not going to help. A clear shot at the shooter is unlikely. And if you have a clear shot at the shooter, he has a clear shot at you.

The action that will reduce the number of people injured/killed is running away and/or hiding. Better yet, if you're brave and steady in a crisis, help other people run away and/or hide.

I never carry a weapon. I own no firearms and never will. I believe this protects me, because in a crisis, my thought process is going to go directly to "How do I get away/help others to get away?" It will never go to "how can I confront the gunman?"

Gun supporters don't imagine that scenario the way I do.

That's why we can't have a rational discussion of gun control. We're coming at the problem from different versions reality.

I hear people say, "The solution is more guns!" and I think "Is that person insane? More guns=more death." They hear me say "The solution is gun control!" and they think "Is that person insane? She wants to leave us all vulnerable."

Me: A gun in my home would make me vulnerable to someone using it against me.
Them: A gun in my home protects my family.

All the statistics in the world won't convince either one of us the other is right because we see the statistics through the filter of our own worldview.

The challenge we face is framing this argument in such a way that we can break through a mindset developed by watching "The A Team," and "24."

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    Wealth doesn't trickle down -- it rises up.

    by elsaf on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 10:22:11 AM PST

  •  You can tell them it would be useless (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elsaf, PeterHug

    At the moment, I substitute. I've been thinking, what would I do if this happened to me?

    Going for a gun wasn't even on the list, even if I did carry. It wouldn't be in reach because I could not lock it away from students as a sub.

     Locking the door. I can't even do that at the one school I sub at the most (I was there Fri). I don't get keys. And I said so. That will be fixed, apparently, so good.

     Take cover, telling kids to take cover.

     Throw shit. Anything at hand. Tell the kids to throw stuff- books, anything they can grab from cover. Better in the chem room- I know what to throw to make it really effective.

     A good chance I'd charge with a chair in hand. It's the of action I take in nightmares, so I suspect I might not freeze about it.

    I could not imagine having time to find a gun if I had one. This goes for just about any unexpected situation I can think of. I would not be able to get to a gun quicker than I can hide or throw stuff while I hide.

    My thought processes are similar to yours- except where I feel the necessity of protecting my students or self. In thinking about it, being pushed to the point of nothing left to lose, I can feel strong, ugly emotions stirring in my subconscious and I hope I never find out what that demon is.

    But as for having a gun? Yes- for hunting and protecting my poultry and goats from coyotes and bobcats. Otherwise, it's locked up. Not in as easy reach as bleach, vinegar and a frying pan.

    I am much too liberal to be a Democrat.

    by WiseFerret on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 12:18:53 PM PST

  •  Great, cogent diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elsaf, mythatsme

    Well written and very persuasive, well , to me at least ^_^

    What would a good framing be? Something that involves "freedom?" It can't be possibly be something about effectiveness, because that entails statistics, and 'they' don't believe in statistics (except the ones they've made up)

    By the way,
    "On TV, people get "knocked out" by a blow to the back of the head, but nobody ever gets a closed head injury that leaves them disabled for the rest of their lives."

    I used to believe this when I was a child. Lucky I didn't try to bop one my sisters on the head while arguing with her.

    Ironically, it was TV that showed me glimmers of truth; on an episode of "Star Trek" Kirk knocks out evil Spock by hitting his head with a bottle or something. McCoy insists on putting Spock on the diagnostics table, otherwise "he might die." Since that episode, I have looked at every TV show with a wary eye.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site