Well, I’ve just returned from an exhilarating and eye-opening month of backpacking through Europe, and now I’m prepared with renewed vigor to confront the supposedly real world in which Donald Trump is considered a serious contender for president. In my absence, certain “militia” types in Oregon have demonstrated once again that guns are a very poor substitute for brains. Which is quite appropriate, since I left in the midst of a discussion about guns, which I will now resume. Stay tuned.
Just a note that I will be out of the country from Jan. 12 to Feb. 11. During this time, my Internet access may be limited. This means not only that there will be probably no new posts, but also that there may be a delay in moderating comments. Please be patient. Thanks.
Finally, President Obama stood up to Republicans in Congress and the gun lobby that owns them. And not surprisingly, his announced plans to take action on gun violence triggered a volley of loony objections from the Second Amendment cult: “IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! HE’S PLANNING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!!! IT WON’T STOP GUN VIOLENCE!!! IT’S JUST LIKE HITLER!!!
Media Matters did a good job of addressing most of the negative comments about the president’s specific proposals. But there are certain general attacks that always greet any kind of proposed action to reduce gun violence. They are based on certain beliefs that are not only false but dangerous. The most common are these:
- The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that citizens can do battle against their own government.
- “Gun Control” is a hallmark of tyranny.
- Armed civilians can successfully defend themselves against malicious government forces.
- Guns make us safer, and the more guns we have, the safer we are
We’re going to look at each of these in its own separate post. Let’s get started with this one:
Dangerous Belief # 1: The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that citizens can do battle against their own government.
This is actually a subsidiary myth, with the primary myth being that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee all citizens a right to be armed. But thoroughly dismantling the immense stack of falsehoods surrounding that claim will take more space than we’ve got here (we’ll get to it in due time).
Yet it should be obvious to anyone who actually reads the Second Amendment and has a basic grasp of the mother tongue that it is, to say the very least, a semantic swamp that leaves a great deal of ambiguity about the supposed right to own firearms for private use; and wherever there is any ambiguity at all, there are no absolutes. Thus, there is no absolute right to own a gun. Which means the notion that there is a right to own a gun to defend yourself against the big bad guvmint is a non-sequitur.
It would behoove the NRA crowd to realize that there is more to the Constitution than just one amendment. If they could only extricate their combat boots from the muck of the Second Amendment, even just long enough to move a few steps back to the original seven articles of the Constitution — the ones written before the Sacred Second or any other amendment was appended– they might learn that a true “militia”, such as they fancy themselves to be, answers to the President Of The United States, rather than trying to plot his downfall:
(Article 2, Section 2)
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…
So if they are an actual militia, then President Obama would only have to call them into “actual service”, and they’d be obligated to take orders from him, if they truly are the “patriots” they style themselves. Doesn’t matter whether or not they like him or his complexion — oops, I mean his policies, of course. Furthermore, if they have the fortitude to read only a little further, they might learn that taking up arms against their country not only is not patriotic, it’s the very definition of treason:
(Article 3, Section 3)
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…
Treason is a very serious crime. It’s often been punishable by death. And yet you really believe that the Founders went to all the trouble of inserting an amendment into the Constitution so that U.S. citizens would have the opportunity — nay, even the right and duty — to commit such a serious offense?
This myth is particularly dangerous because since the Second Amendment does not mention tyranny, it of course does not define tyranny. That leaves the gun culture to dream up its own definitions, which tend to be deranged and egocentric. Quite often, “tyranny” is anything that happens when they don’t get their way one hundred percent: hence the slogan “if ballots don’t work, bullets will”. Many of them consider President Obama a tyrant because he wants to make sure they have healthcare.
At this writing, one cringe-worthy example of what often happens when children of white privilege have too much time on their hands and too many toys to play with is taking its course in Oregon, where an armed “””militia””” has taken over an isolated pit stop and threatened violent action if they don’t get themselves excused from the penalties of law that apply to everyone else.
No matter how valid their complaint may have been to begin with, does it really justify this kind of behavior? So far, their actions have not resulted in any violence, but what do you suppose would happen if the big bad guvmint responded to them the same way it responded to UNARMED protesters for Black Lives Matter?
These “””patriots””” supposedly came to defend a couple of Oregon ranchers who were duly convicted of arson after setting fires on public land to destroy evidence of other crimes, boasting about their deeds and vowing to “light up the whole country on fire”. Those two, meanwhile, have faced up to their punishment and have said they don’t want the “””militia””” representing them.
Doesn’t matter. The “””patriots”””, led by a couple of other ranchers from Nevada, have decided to take up the gauntlet against the evil guvmint, from whom they receive several forms of assistance to fatten their purses, and have drastically rewritten the nation’s history in the process. And they’ve expanded their narrative to pose as constitutional and legal experts in making the case that the federal government in general has no authority to administer public lands — even though the Constitution and the courts say otherwise.
They have pledged to stay until the death if they are not crowned emperors; yet, while they remembered to bring plenty of weapons and lead, they apparently didn’t think they might also need food during their mission of indefinite duration. Consequently, they have appealed for more handouts — this time from their admirers, but the survival rations are to be delivered by the USPS — another branch of the evil guvmint.
It’s scary enough that people like this are armed at all, much less that they take it upon themselves to decide what kind of “tyranny” needs overthrowing.
(Related Post: “9 Nutty Narratives About the Nevada Standoff”)
Like many Americans, and indeed many people around the world, I’ve been exposed to Reader’s Digest my entire life. We were very poor when I was a child, and couldn’t afford much in the way of reading material; but many compact issues of that cheery, wholesome periodical published somewhere in New York, and even some of its hard-cover distillations of recent bestselling books, still managed to find their way into our household (they all tend to get recirculated a lot).
At an early age, I learned to appreciate the magazine’s inspiring real-life stories, amusing real-life anecdotes, upbeat tone, and informative condensed gleanings from many other publications that I’d never seen or even heard of. And I might add that some of the most hilarious moments I ever saw on The Tonight Show were Johnny Carson’s recurring parodies of RD’s helpful-hints articles.
But I also realized at an early age that an intelligent perusal of RD entailed filtering out a lot of crap. Founded in 1922 by a rock-ribbed right-winger, RD catered wholeheartedly to the longstanding dominant narrative that America was founded by and for right-wing fanatics; and that anything except right-wing fanaticism poses a grim threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Not only did it extol the untainted bliss of life in the dear old U S of A, it also painted an unstintingly grim picture of life in the evil empire of the Soviet Union. Somewhere around my grandparents’ house, I even recall seeing a Reader’s Digest edition of a piece of sophomoric literary agitprop called… let’s see, was it Atlas Yawned? (Presumably, the naughty parts were expunged in the name of American decency.)
The politically themed features of the magazine often followed a formula that I have come to call the bias sandwich. Suppose it ran an expose of a certain type of corruption or incompetence in Washington. The article would begin by providing three or four examples of Democrats indulging in the behavior, then throw in a Republican offender to provide some semblance of balance, then close with another Democrat or two to create a lasting impression. If the article instead examined admirable activity, the proportions would be the same but the polarities would be reversed.
And religion. God yes, it was steeped to the core in religion. Not just any religion, but hardcore fundamentalist namby-pamby WASPish Christianity. There were many accounts of real-life “miracles”, and the true meaning of Christmas, and the power of prayer, and anecdotes recounting how “when I was eleven I fell and scraped my knee and my grandmother bandaged it and made me a cup of hot chocolate and I knew then that God would always be there for me.”
All of which seemed perfectly congruent in an era when everyone was white, judges could order people to attend church, and school children wore military-style dog tags so their bodies could be identified in the rubble left by an impending Russian nuking. But it’s a different world now, a less innocent and more adult world. It’s much harder to ignore the fact that there are many kinds of people in the world, people of different races and creeds and proclivities and lifestyles — and most of them are rather decent people. And Reader’s Digest, fortunately, has evolved to reflect this change.
It didn’t happen overnight, but the watershed seems to have occurred right around the turn of the millennium, as if the magazine’s editorship really took to heart the old belief about how the Twenty-First Century was supposed to be an era of wondrous developments. And there were at least three distinct mileposts that stand out.
First, the Digest became more even-handed in its political coverage. It started discussing Republicans with less gushing adoration and Democrats with more basic respect. During a presidential election cycle, you now can expect to see fairly unbiased and substantial interviews with both major candidates. (It doesn’t devote a lot of ink to candidates outside the two-party system, but who does?)
Second, it started publishing letters (emails) from readers. After all, the magazine was named for them. But for a very long time, it was a one-way mirror rather than a dialogue. And that just didn’t seem right for a periodical that was supposed to be the great American vox populi.
Finally, the ever-entertaining National Review ran a hand-wringing lament about the Digest’s sad demise. The original article by John J. Miller, alas, is no longer accessible for your entertainment, but you can get a good idea of its contents from an amusing commentary on it in The Washington Post. The premier voice of wingnuttery in America believes the Digest is in a sate of sorry decline and depravity? Higher praise than that, my friends, there is simply not.
RD is, to be sure, still a rather conservative magazine. But it’s conservative in the true sense of the word rather than the Fox/ Limbaugh/ National Review sense. Recently some of its readers felt that one particular little joke in one issue was a bit too risque, so the editor issued an apology and a promise that it wouldn’t happen again. That kind of conservatism may be silly, but at least it isn’t deranged and vicious.
For many generations, Americans have been able to say that they grew up with Reader’s Digest. But those of the present generation can also say that Reader’s Digest has grown up with them.
It’s now been 15 years since a fiercely partisan Supreme Court handed the keys to the kingdom to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (not necessarily in that order). A hotly contested battle at the time, the clash between the Bush camp and the Gore camp has faded into a paragraph in the annals of history; most people seem to assume that the matter was settled long ago and everyone has moved on. Anyone who suggests otherwise is likely to be dismissed as a mere librul being a sore loser. Just recently, I saw yet another indignant editorial denouncing the insidious “liberal lie” that Bush stole the election.
But as we detailed in a four-part series on its tenth anniversary, there are many reasons why this travesty never should be forgotten. It amounted to a bloodless coup, brought about by a multi-pronged apparatus of nepotism and election tampering. And it probably would not have happened without the complicity of a grotesquely lopsided media.
The media ignored and even actively refused to examine a massive, irregular, highly suspicious pre-election drive by Florida’s governor (who just happened to be Bush’s younger brother) and secretary of state (who just happened to be co-chair of the Bush campaign in that state) to unlawfully purge the voter rolls of tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters under a false pretext. Disenfranchising thousands of perfectly qualified Democratic voters? That doesn’t count as election theft, does it?
During the campaign, the media took up the drumbeat of the Karl Rove character assassination against Al Gore, thoroughly branding him as a pathological liar — without producing even one actual lie he’d told — and trying to manufacture whoppers out of the most trivial things he did say. Meanwhile, the media ignored bona fide lies that Bush told about important policy matters and his actions in office while he was governor of Texas. It also ignored his long track record of consistent failure and his gross ignorance about the federal government he was positioning himself to lead. His almost daily verbal gaffes were shrugged off, scrubbed, or spun as part of a folksy charm he supposedly inherited by being a Texan (though he was actually from Maine).
The media ignored or glossed over the fact that 80 percent of the ballots nationwide were counted by electronic voting machines supplied by 3 companies — all of which were owned by persons with strong ties to the Republican Party; and that Republicans did extremely well in places where these machines were used. In fact of the many highly suspicious glitches and irregularities that these beasts coughed up, virtually all benefited GOP candidates. Screwy voting machines owned by Republicans that disproportionately generate errors helping Republicans win? Why should anyone care about that?
On election night, it was the standard bearer of American media, Fox “News” that proclaimed Bush the winner, with the other networks sheepishly following suit, thereby immediately and permanently casting Gore in the role of challenger. That premature election night call was made by a Fox talking head who just happened to be Bush’s cousin.
During the legal battle, the media ignored the fact that the Supreme Court (which happened to include two justices appointed by Bush’s father, one of whose wife was involved in promoting a Bush presidency) did an abrupt about-face from its usual states’ rights stances in halting the Florida recount, generating a legal argument so egregious that the justices inserted a decree that no future court should follow it in any other case. And that the Court imposed arbitrary deadlines and restrictions, and offered unjustified reasons for stopping the recount. And that one of those reasons was that Bush would probably win his suit — a preliminary ruling the justices delivered without even reading the brief! And that the court openly admitted its main interest was in preserving Bush’s claim to victory — as opposed to determining the actual winner. Blatantly interested Supreme Court justices ruling in favor of their boy? Nothing suspicious about that, is there?
But perhaps the biggest slap in the face of all to the American public came a year after the election. The Supreme Court fiat did not satisfy the curiosity about who would have won had the recount proceeded. To quote myself from an earlier article:
So, with the supposed objective of setting the matter straight, a consortium of eight news organizations sponsored a painstaking review of the ballots that were rejected. (At least all they had available. Thousands of them, mostly from heavily Democratic precincts, were mysteriously MIA.) Conducted by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center and closely monitored by representatives of both political camps, the review tallied the likely outcomes under several different counting standards.
And what was the result? Somewhat mixed, with Bush winning under some counting scenarios and Gore under others. But Gore won under more scenarios than Bush — including any and all that involved a statewide recount. This, bear in mind, was even after all the shenanigans the pachyderms pulled off.
Strangely enough, this fact was dutifully noted by The Drudge Report — a very unusual degree of honesty for Drudge or any other right-wing source. In an article titled “Gore Beat Bush in Florida, Says New Recount” Drudge led off with what it must have found a very disturbing conclusion:
A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election commissioned by the nation’s main media outlets shows Al Gore edged ahead of George W. Bush “under all the scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide,” the Drudge Report has learned. [Newspapers] will splash in Monday editions an election review which will ignite total controversy during a time of war…
But of course no such splash was splashed, and no such firestorm erupted. National unity was preserved in time of a contrived war, praise the lord and pass the ammunition. Because the rest of the media did not follow Drudge’s surprise lead. Instead, most major media outlets buried the results of their own investigation under the unequivocal narrative that the right man ended up in the White House. Their headlines screamed “Bush Would Have Won a Recount”, while the truth, if it was reported at all, was mentioned in passing somewhere on the back page.
The New York Times (an ultra-librul rag, don’t you know) ran a piece under the unwieldy heading
EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
Except that farther down the page, the Times fleetingly mentions bits and pieces of the evidence that actually, the justices sort of did. And the editors also managed to let this slip through the filters:
Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the overseas absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. A New York Times investigation earlier this year showed that 680 of the late-arriving ballots did not meet Florida’s standards yet were still counted. The vast majority of those flawed ballots were accepted in counties that favored Mr. Bush, after an aggressive effort by Bush strategists to pressure officials to accept them.
A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore’s favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.
Counting illegal Republican ballots because the Bushites demanded it? What’s complicating about that? (See the late great Gore Vidal’s eloquent dissection of the Times article in The Nation.)
Anything approximating journalistic integrity and impartiality would require reaching and publicizing the conclusion that the results of the Florida review made Bush’s “victory” questionable to say the least. But that’s not what the mainstream media said then. And that’s not what it’s saying now. And that’s why it’s so important to preserve and present the facts.
There is a scene In Tony Kushner’s play Angels In America, in which one character asks what history will say about something, and another replies that history will lie as usual. Yes, history does lie — sometimes through many generations of schoolchildren who are force-fed inaccurate information, creating a warped sensibility that is often very difficult to rectify, and shapes the kind of world those children live in when they become adults. Let’s try to make certain that history doesn’t take as long to speak the truth about George W. Bush as it did about Christopher Columbus.
Polls indicate that most Americans prefer stricter gun laws. That includes even most gun owners. Even NRA members tend to favor gun restrictions of some kind or other. Yet the NRA itself, guided by such voices of sanity and reason as Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent, has succeeded in making “gun control” a dirty word, portraying it as more evil than gay marriage.
The attack on “gun control” is two-pronged. First, it is pegged as an enemy of “liberty”; and second, it is proclaimed to be ineffective or even counterproductive. We’ve touched previously on the first absurdity — that regulating firearms is an encroachment upon freedom or constitutional rights — and will be examining it even more in the future. For the moment, let’s focus on the second. There are at least 7 reasons why the credo that “gun control doesn’t work” should be taken with a grain of saltpeter.
1. What does it even mean?
The veracity of any statement is only as good as its meaning. And with the sentence, “Gun control doesn’t work”, there is just way too much leeway to make a positive declaration of its accuracy. What is “gun control”, anyway? Well, it’s not any one thing. It’s a pejorative designation for a very wide variety of regulatory measures, from the legendary and chimerical total gun ban to a simple background check or waiting period. And what does it mean for such a measure to “work”? Would it have to eliminate crime or gun violence altogether? Or at the other extreme, could it be counted successful if it prevented only a single such incident?
2. They don’t entirely buy their own medicine.
Whenever there’s one of those all too routine mass shootings, gunsters scramble to defend guns from being implicated in the massacre, and to point the finger of blame instead at anything else they can, from video games to abortion. So far, they’ve never blamed solar flares or pork belly futures, but be patient.
One of their favorite whipping boys is mental illness. After all, these mass killers are often rather disturbed. So, say the Second Amendmenters, maybe it would be a good idea to address the problem of mental illness rather than to “blame the gun”. But what exactly would it entail to address the problem of mental illness? Well, in terms of preventing these violent acts, it must involve, among other things, ensuring that these disturbed individuals don’t get their hands on deadly weapons. And don’t look now, but that’s a form of “gun control”.
Nor is the self-contradiction among the gun culture merely theoretical. They not infrequently put it into practice whenever their own safety is at issue. When Dick Cheney addressed an NRA convention a few years ago (and it wasn’t exactly the most brilliant PR maneuver to make him the poster boy for the virtues of responsible gunmanship, but hey), the most extreme of “gun control” measures was put into place: a total ban on firearms in his presence. Which is certainly a prudent and reasonable measure. But it’s also quite counter to the avowed values of the NRA, as espoused and championed by Cheney himself. If guns are so cool in society at large, shouldn’t they be double plus good in a controlled environment filled with responsible gun owners? It was a golden opportunity for him to put his gun barrel where his mouth was, but he blew it big time.
Yet it isn’t at all unheard of for NRA conventions to prohibit guns or at least firing pins at some of its venues. Of course, NRA spokeshooters will defend their beloved benevolent fraternity from charges of hypocrisy (and in the process take an obligatory potshot at “gun control” groups) by insisting that convention officials are merely following the local laws and regulations in whatever community or site the event is being held. And it was Cheney’s secret service, not the NRA, that insisted on the pat-down.
But the organization chooses the locations for its own conventions and the spokeshooters who speak at them. What kind of message is it supposed to convey to rant about the evils of “gun control” while making choices that require abiding by it? (And don’t even get me started on what it suggests about your character to be consorting with the likes of Dick Cheney in the first place.)
3. The past is not the future.
But what if the NRA is absolutely right? Suppose “gun control”, whatever that means, absolutely “doesn’t work”, whatever that means. What exactly would it mean? It would just mean that it has not been successful so far. That does not preclude the possibility that it will be more successful in the future. No, it isn’t just a matter of blindly repeating the same thing and expecting different results; it’s a matter of finding what does produce results. Thomas Edison reportedly experimented 1000 times before perfecting the light bulb. Should he have given up long before then? And medical researchers still haven’t found a cure for cancer. Should we conclude that cancer control is a lost cause?
4. The world is not a laboratory.
The thing is, there’s just no way to know for certain whether or to what extent “gun control works”. Because in the real world, unlike in a laboratory, you can’t totally isolate factors to determine cause and effect. What works in one community may not work in another. What works now may not work 10 years from now — or vice versa. All we can do is draw reasonable correlations.
5. There’s evidence that it does work.
The correlations that gunsters focus on are cherry-picked statistics indicating, of course, that “gun control” is a deadly mistake. We’ve already mentioned the cherry picking they often do with The Chicago Gambit and The D.C. Gambit. Both illustrate a widespread tendency among the gun culture to seize the thinnest slices of statistics to back up their pet cause.
But the more you look at the broader picture the more you get the impression that stricter gun laws have a positive impact — or at least that looser gun laws have a negative impact. In other words, more guns, more crime.
6. It’s the wrong answer to the wrong question.
The human species has a long, persistent history of asking the wrong questions, giving the wrong answers to them, and becoming obsessed with both wrong question and wrong answer. We’ve already discussed, for instance, the issue of abortion: many people are obsessed with trying to argue that abortion is a terrible thing (which we all know) or that a fetus should be afforded all the privileges of personhood (which folks are unlikely ever to agree on), while the real question is how to prevent abortions (which everyone wants to do).
And so it is with guns. We’ve already mentioned the widespread obsession with whether Hitler banned guns (he didn’t) and whether the matter has some profound relevance for contemporary America (it doesn’t.) And as mentioned above, gunsters often attack “gun control” by arguing that they have a constitutional right to own guns (they don’t), while the more important issue is whether “gun control” would violate their rights (rarely if ever).
The very question of whether “gun control works” demands proof that stricter gun laws effect a quantifiable, verifiable, drastic and generally immediate reduction in crime. But as we’ve stated, such proof is impossible to produce. And the very question obscures more important questions.
Is the absence of “gun control” deleterious to a society? Does it constitute a kind of broken windows effect that attracts crime? Can societies with a tradition of loose gun laws (e.g., U.S.A.) reduce their crime by adopting policies comparable to those societies with a tradition of stricter gun laws (e.g., Japan)? How long would such a transition take? Are there other factors to be considered instead of, or in addition to, gun regulation? Can these factors be separated from, or are they inextricably linked to, a society’s firearm mentality? Can we build a culture that values life more than it values the putative right to be armed — and has an appropriate type of respect for guns and the damage they inflict? Can we instill a more responsible mentality that does not automatically consider the gun the first/best solution to a problem? Why do people, particularly Americans, lust after firearms so much to begin with?
7. What is the alternative?
And this brings us to the most crucial question of all. Gunsters often denigrate “gun control” by insisting that if bad guys want to get their hands on guns, they will do so no matter what laws are in effect. One might as well say the same about the offenses of thieves, rapists and murderers. Why have any laws at all? Why not live in a “limited government” Shangri-La where you can do whatever you damn well please as long as you have sufficient firepower to stop anyone from stopping you?
In this case, they have a valid question, but they’re still giving the wrong answer. The purpose of proscriptive law is not to transform bad guys into good guys, but to help prevent good guys from becoming bad guys; and to define bad guy behavior and prescribe appropriate penalties. The alternative is dystopian chaos and vigilante justice.
A world without “gun control” is a world with no restrictions on guns at all. It’s a world in which a six-year-old with enough funds can purchase an Uzi as easily as a Hershey bar; why bother making it illegal for a child to buy a gun if indeed “gun control doesn’t work”. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?
For that matter, how comfortable would you really feel strolling through Grand Central Station if you knew that every character passing through it was armed? Before you respond with a knee-jerk NRA soundbite or bogus “statistics” on gun defense, think about it long and hard. And think about it honestly, since nobody is going to be peeking at your answer. Or if they do, you can always just shoot them.
It’s now been five years since I began this blog, with the purpose of ferreting out, exposing and correcting myths, misinformation and disinformation in a variety of fields. In many ways, it’s been a productive five years. I’m pleased with the work I’ve done, and of all that I myself have learned in the process. And I’m pleased to see that I have a steadily growing following, and that I have received some wonderful feedback from readers. Equally telling, I’ve received my share of nay-saying and nasty attacks from those whose ideological feathers I’ve ruffled. The readership is not as large as I’d like, but considering that I’ve done next to nothing to promote it (I’m a very busy man, and not very tech savvy), it’s rather impressive.
These investigations have turned out to involve, much more frequently than I ever imagined, debunking the talking points of right-wing extremists. Which inevitably has prompted the accusation that I’m just here to promote a “liberal agenda”. Which is, alas, far from being the looniest thing right-wing extremists have said.
Which brings me to a fact that really bothers me. Out of 162 posts that I have written to date, the most popular by far is the one titled The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban. And when I say by far, I mean really, really by far. More precisely, it receives more than twice as many views as all the others combined. That’s right: more than twice as many as all the others combined. In one day alone, right after being linked in a commentary by pundit Randi Rhodes, it was viewed more than 23,000 times. It also has elicited about a third of the total comments.
I mentioned all of this to my wife and she said, “Well, maybe reading that post will make people want to read your other posts as well.” But the evidence indicates that this is not the case. The blog is averaging barely more than one page view per visit. Most people come here to read just one thing. And most of the time, it’s the same one thing.
And it is far from being the best of my articles. Oh, there’s really nothing wrong with it, except that it’s rather cursory. Which is why I wrote two sequels that explore the topic in greater depth. But guess what? Those two posts are no more popular than any of the others. It’s bad enough that people consider this subject of such vital importance — I actually wrote the first post to show that it’s a bullshit question, and really not very important except as a historical footnote. What’s even worse is that so many readers don’t want to know the ifs, ands or buts. They just want a simple answer: did he or didn’t he?
They believe this question is vital because they have been duped into believing it’s vital by a relatively small cadre of gun culture propagandists who keep hammering away at one of their favorite little formulas: (a) Hitler banned guns and (b) therefore, any attempt to regulate guns is superlatively evil. Not only are both premises patently false, they are by no means interdependent, as the propagandists insistently suggest.
The irony is that, far from shunning firearms, Nazis embraced them with a white-hot passion. And it’s hard to imagine that anyone who knows anything about history at all doesn’t realize this. Thus, it’s hard not to suspect that the gun fanatics who conjure up the specter of Der Fuhrer are doing so not out of revulsion, but out of some level of admiration. Not for the man himself, or his policies or evil deeds. But for the way he and his followers fashioned such a powerful and influential movement — aided and abetted by guns.
In any case, there are numerous subjects I’ve written about that deserve far more attention, especially from American readers. There is, for example, the Christian Right’s Nazi-flavored campaign to marginalize gays. (No, “Nazi-flavored” is not an exaggeration.) There’s the way a shamelessly partisan media cartel colluded with Republicans in the hijacking of the 2000 presidential election. Or, if we must talk about guns, there is the way the gun lobby manipulates statistics to make it appear that guns make us safer; and in particular, there’s the frequent naive reliance on bogus “statistics” that grossly inflate the frequency of defensive gun use, giving gun owners a dangerous false sense of security and coincidentally swelling the coffers of gun merchants. Instead, many readers just zero in on a bit of minor marginalia in the history of Twentieth-Century Europe.
But there is a bright spot. I omitted something from the stats I referred to (and one reason I did so is to illustrate how incomplete information can be misleading). The counts do not include visits to the home page, which presumably reflect readers checking out the latest post without actually clicking on it. That count is on average nearly as high as that of the Hitler-gun post; in fact, for the past couple of weeks, it’s actually been considerably higher almost every day. If this continues, it certainly offers some encouragement.
Still, I’m glad that this blog is geared toward those who have a sincere interest in learning the truth. If it had been designed for the edification of the general public, one would have to conclude that it’s been a dismal failure.