The shooting in Aurora, CO early in the morning on July 20, 2012, needs little in the way of introduction. It was a horrible event, perpetrated by a sick individual. James Holmes likely has severe mental problems, and he will either spend the rest of his life heavily medicated in an institution for the criminally insane, or be put to death. It is my opinion, and probably the opinion of many others, that he deserves the latter; either way, he will never be a part of society again.
This horrible event could be used to spark a nationwide discussion of mental health, the role of family members in seeking help on each others' behalf (note that Holmes' mother was not surprised when she learned what her son did), or anything else that may help prevent future massacres. Instead, the focus is on the instrument, rather than the problem; the symptom instead of the disease.
The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, jumped at the chance to reignite the gun control debate. He literally jumped - it was too much for him to wait even 12 hours after the news broke before politicizing the event and calling on the presidential candidates to concretely address the issue of gun control. Barack Obama has indicated that he won't pass any news laws for the time being (though he did address the issue for the first time in a while, in a recent speech in New Orleans). Mitt Romney has indicated that he feels the existing laws are strong enough. All the while, commentators of all sorts have weighed in on the subject.
One such commentator is actor Jason Alexander, best known for portraying George Costanza on Seinfeld, as well as a fellow Boston University alum. In a heartfelt, 1700-word Twitter post (cached copy at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht), Alexander laid out his feelings on guns and his desire for increased regulations, arguing that they would minimize the chance of a future Aurora-style shooting.
It's a given that I disagree with a lot of what he says - I'm pro-2nd Amendment and Alexander is not. I don't think he's a bad person for his views. He's just as free to speak his mind on the subject as I am. Where I take issue, however, is where he has inserted into his argument things that are not true, or statements and positions that are so illogical that they necessitate scrutiny. I have reproduced the majority of his post below, and added in my commentary; I certainly urge you to read his post, intact and uninterrupted, at the link in the previous paragraph now if you have not already done so. Alexander's words are in plain type, and mine are in Italics.
----------
I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments [to an earlier tweet questioning the need for civilians to own AR-15 style, semi-automatic rifles] are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
It's unfortunate that gun owners and advocates posted comments that Alexander perceived as threatening, angry, or hostile. There are certainly people like that in the world of gun advocacy, just as there are all over the political world. Inflamed rhetoric isn't good for anyone. Alexander is not doing his cause any favors, however, to paint all gun owners and advocates (keep in mind that there are people in the world who don't own guns yet support the rights of others to own them) as "seeing no value in even considering some kind of control." This is a broad generalization, and if you could survey every gun owner I think you'd see the majority in favor of "some kind of control."
I would also like to see a source on his figure that 100,000 die every year. Statistics from the CDC indicate that, in 2009, "all firearm deaths" in the United States numbered 31,347. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)This number includes suicides.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.
It was gracious of him to admit at the outset that he's not a Constitutional scholar.
The Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 [2008]) (PDF of opinion available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) addressed the issue of private gun ownership in the context of Washington, DC, which has some of the toughest gun laws in the US. This landmark case, in a 5-4 ruling, affirmed the ability of lawful citizens to individually own handguns and keep them for self-defense in the home, consistent with the 2nd amendment. The Court in fact spent a lot of time discussing the wording of the 2nd amendment, particular the language of "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." which is also known as a "prefatory clause." Through Justice Scalia's trademark historical research, and canons of statutory interpretation centuries old, the Court found that the prefatory language does not limit the second part of the amendment, known as the "operative clause." The Court also clarified the operative clause, pointing to historical precedent and documents contemporaneous with the founding of this country supporting the contention that "bear arms" was not a term of art limited to military/militia contexts. The Court confirmed that the definition of "militia" that applies here is one that Alexander helpfully mentioned: "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." Most notably, and always worthy of repeating, the Court affirmed that the 2nd amendment, like the first and the fourth, was not an affirmative right granted by the Constitution, or the legislature, or any man; it is a natural right, flowing from the right of self-defense; it is the right of all Americans, and the Constitution places a prohibition only on those who would attempt to take away that right.
The founders were smart people. They easily could have written clear language that limited the right in the way that Alexander contends. They did not.
Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like:
@BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR
@nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?
I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.
This section is poorly-informed and inaccurate. An excellent primer on what an "assault weapon" is and is not is located here: http://i.imgur.com/WRizU.jpg. What James Holmes used in his massacre was an AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the M16. It is semi-automatic, which means that one pull of the trigger = one shot fired. Contrary to some of the more inflamed rhetoric we've seen lately, Holmes was not using an automatic rifle; rifles that can fire automatically or burst-fire (true "assault rifles") are heavily regulated by Federal law (the National Firearms Act). Semi-auto rifles, such as the one here, and AK-47 variants, use a medium-sized rifle cartridge; Alexander's contention that they "accommodate a more lethal payload" is patently false. The rounds used by hunting rifles and "battle rifles" are larger and more powerful, meaning they fire a longer distance as well - rendering another of Alexander's points ("fir[ing] farther and more accurately") untrue. The ability to "fire more rounds without reload[ing]" is dependent on the size of the magazine, not the rifle itself. Many states ban large-capacity magazines, perhaps for good reason, but this is not equivalent to what Alexander appears to be asserting, that something unique about AR-15 style semi-auto rifles gives them the ability to hold more ammunition.
Talking about firearms in this manner indicates to me that his viewpoint is based not on facts but on emotion and fear. Emotion does not make for good arguments, or good public policy.
[The discussion moves to what Alexander calls the "extreme right"]
These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.
Fringe elements on the "extreme right" may indeed believe that street-by-street enslavement is imminent. The majority of gun owners - again, many of whom are moderates or even liberals - certainly don't, but that majority does understand and respect the origins of the 2nd amendment. Let's go back to DC v. Heller:
"[the prefatory clause and the operative clause fit] perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights." (this quote is on page 25 of the linked pdf)
It's hard to argue this stuff without sounding like a hermit wearing a tinfoil hat, but the 2nd amendment is there for an important reason, and we should be very wary of thinking that we "don't need it anymore." The founders knew that despots and tyrants get to where they are by first disarming the population to eliminate the possibility of armed resistance. It was true then, and it was true in the 20th century - see Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al - and it continues to be true. A firearms advocacy organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership was started by someone "aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed." The 2nd amendment is an important part of this country's heritage, and that so many are willing and eager to give up its protections is troubling to me.
By the way, I don't understand what he means by "as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem." This section veers a little too much into personal attacks on those on the political right for my taste. If the government attempts to enslave liberals, homosexuals, or democrats, the government would thankfully still have a fight on their hands, since there are plenty of people from these groups who own firearms (google "Pink Pistols"). Though I do not fit into any of these three categories, I would have quite the problem if the government went street-to-street enslaving such people, as would a whole lot of others.
Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.
Yes, he was wearing armor, but kevlar body armor does not mean that the bullets harmlessly bounce off of you like Superman. It just keeps the bullet from entering your body. There's still a great deal of energy being transferred when the bullet hits you, certainly enough to make you stumble, if not fall over.
Alexander's other issue - the chaos of a crowd of CCW holders firing into each other - is admittedly not without merit. Having a CCW does not automatically make you Jack Bauer or give you the ability to take down a crazed and determined gunman singlehandedly. You know what CCW does on a large scale, however? It creates a deterrent. Areas with higher concealed carry percentages have lower crime rates, because it has the effect on criminals of making them think twice about robbing or assaulting someone. Holmes likely wasn't afraid of this because the theater didn't allow weapons - in this regard he was like Seung-Hui Cho or Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold, in that for his massacre he chose a place where his targets would not be armed.
In defense of the individual CCW holder, Alexander's assessment is wrong in many states. Here in Kansas a day-long course, with classroom and practical instruction, is required to hold a concealed carry permit, even though Kansas is a "shall issue" state. It is poor rhetorical technique to paint all CCW holders, who commit felonies at a rate far below the general population and many of whom take their carrying very seriously, as "without training or planning," as though they would be firing wildly around the room. It is worth pointing out that CCW holders shoot someone they mistakenly identify as the criminal at a rate less than 1/5 that of police (2% to 11%) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/,
citing "Tough Targets" study by the Cato Institute)
Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."
But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.
This section is what made me want to write this rebuttal in the first place. This is the poorest, most illogical gun control argument I have ever seen. Jason Alexander is arguing in favor of forcing transactions to the black market so they can be more easily tracked. Am I reading this correctly? This is what happens now, in states like Massachusetts and Illinois, where criminals find it easier to just buy a gun for cash on the street. They go to the black market precisely because it isn't "tracked, watched, overseen." When I bought a .22 rifle a few weeks ago, it was tracked, because the ATF has a record of the transaction. This happens everywhere someone buys a gun over-the-counter (even in "K-Mart" [he means Wal-mart]). I am floored by the absurdity of this argument. Forcing buyers into a black market means that 1.) criminals will still have these guns if they want them, since laws don't matter to them; 2.) ONLY criminals will have these guns; and 3.) all hope of tracing the transactions is lost.
These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.
I take issue with his contention that people buy rifles to use against "people who don't agree with [them]." I also wonder why he apparently has a problem with people protecting their homes from criminals using a rifle, though most would agree that handguns or shotguns are better for home defense. He's painting gun owners with an extraordinarily broad brush again; how many semi-automatic civilian AR-15 style rifles have been sold, and how many have been used for massacres? How many have even been used for any kind of crime at all? Statistics (admittedly old; if anyone knows of more recent numbers, please let me know) indicate that an extraordinarily low percentage of crimes are committed with these kinds of weapons - never more than 8%, with an average of 2%. (See Department of Justice Study "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003," at page 2. PDF located at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf)
SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?
For every angry gun owner firing off angry tweets, there are many who enjoy their hobby and their second amendment rights in peace. Some of us like to speak up when the national debate is hijacked by those who would have us make our laws using emotion and questionable facts. None of us are trying to shut down a reasoned conversation based on hard facts and statistics - I would be elated to see such a thing in the public arena. But that's certainly not what's coming out of Mayor Bloomberg or Jason Alexander's mouth. Gun control advocates like them make arguments (and, unfortunately, sometimes laws) based on emotion, irrationality, and fear. There is also a sublime irony in calling for a reasonable discussion by typing in all caps.
We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.
I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.
This is the absolute nadir of his contemptible attacks on lawful firearm owners. How dare he accuse law-abiding citizens of planning to commit murder merely by buying a gun. What a vile thing to say. This does nothing for his cause.
So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.
But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.
In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.
Jason Alexander
----------
This is a complex issue. Gun control advocates are coming from a good place - they want people to be safe. It's very easy to get emotional when things like this happen. The fear that the audience felt, the pain of losing loved ones - it's incomprehensible.
But immediately using something like this to advance an agenda to ban certain types of firearms is not only, in my opinion, odious and insensitive; it is a waste of time, and a distraction from what could be a worthwhile national discussion on mental health, what exactly drives someone ostensibly healthy and well-adjusted to commit such horrific acts, and what we can do about it. Why not focus on the sick mind that made the decision to kill innocent people, rather than the inanimate device he used to do it?
It's easy to focus on guns, especially scary-looking ones. But politicians should never take the easy way out, especially when the efficacy of that easy way is questionable, and most especially when it threatens Constitutional rights. I'm all for, as Jason Alexander wants, "sit[ting] down with reasonable people from both sides and ask[ing] hard questions and look[ing] at hard statistics." Let me know when the national discussion rises to that level. Until then, I'll be at the range.
Endnote: The original title of this piece was "GEORGE IS GETTIN' UPSET." I changed it because I felt it did not match the tone I was trying for, but I love that title so much I felt it worth preserving.
