Gail Collins, "The Dread That Is Ted": The Tall Tale Told by Gail

"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me."

- Dianne Feinstein

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Dread That Is Ted" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/opinion/collins-the-dread-that-is-ted.html?_r=0), Gail Collins takes Senator Ted Cruz to task for daring to lecture 79-year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein during a Judiciary Committee hearing this past week regarding the sale of assault rifles. Collins writes of Cruz:

"If you combine a lack of a sense of humor with an absence of humility and then stir in a cup of self-righteousness, you are definitely not working on a recipe for cooperative achievement."

Ah, yes, let's blame freshman Senator Cruz for a lack of "cooperative achievement." In this vein, consider what Olympia Snowe, one of the most moderate Republicans in Washington, had to say when explaining her retirement from the US Senate, i.e. before Cruz arrived on the scene (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/):

"People are just stunned by the debilitating partisanship, polarization and the overall dysfunction of the institution and political paralysis as we come, you know, to the point of extreme when it comes to resolving the problems facing our country."

And what did Snowe, one of three Republicans in the US Congress who voted for Obama's economic stimulus plan in 2009, have to say about President Obama? Snowe told Jonathan Karl that she has not had a face-to-face meeting with Obama in two years, and asked if she had to grade Obama on his willingness to work with Republicans, she replied that he would be "close to failing on that point" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html).

Yup, the US government is dysfunctional, but let's not blame Ted Cruz for that. There is someone else at whom Gail should be pointing her finger.

But I stray from the issue of gun control and a ban on assault rifles. I favor a ban on assault rifles; however, I also acknowledge that they are not the problem. Have a look at the data from the FBI on all murders from 2007 to 2011 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8). In a nutshell, handguns (what Feinstein used to carry around with her) are far more of a problem than assault rifles. For that matter, between 2007 and 2011 clubs and hammers killed more persons than "rifles" (not just assault rifles), and knives killed four times more people than rifles. In all but one year, shotguns killed more people than rifles.

Shotguns? Recall what Vice President Biden had to say about shotguns in a recent interview with Field & Stream magazine (see: http://washingtonexaminer.com/more-advice-from-joe-biden-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/article/2522791):

"Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense," Biden said. "I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, 'Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.'

I said, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

So just remember, should you accidentally kill the UPS man who arrived to deliver a package, or a Girl Scout who came to sell cookies, have your lawyer tell the court that none other than the Vice President of the United States told my client to "just fire the shotgun through the door."

On a more somber note, both Collins and Feinstein fail to understand that assault rifles are not the root of the problem. Rather, it is the violence inherent in American society, acknowledged by Feinstein, that is responsible for the rage and rampant killing.

Or as Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Gail Collins, "The Least Popular Subject": She's Almost Correct

When was the last time I agreed with anything that Gail Collins said? Honestly, I can't remember. So it came as something of a shock when Collins, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Least Popular Subject" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/opinion/collins-the-least-popular-campaign-subject-gun-control.html?_r=0), acknowledged that both presidential candidates have refused to embrace gun control. Observing that "there have been 43 American mass shootings in the last year," Collins writes:

"So President Obama, a vocal gun control supporter in his Chicago days, is now a gun control nonmentioner. And, when it comes to legislation in Congress, a nonhelper.

Republicans are usually eager to bring up gun control, the better to denounce it. But Mitt Romney has — surprise! — a complicated history of policy molt on the issue. He was once on the same page as Ted Kennedy, and then the page turned.

. . . .

Into all this stepped [Nina] Gonzalez, who was haunted by the Colorado theater shooting in July that killed 12 people. The gunman carried a 100-bullet assault rifle. The ban on assault weapons, which allow you to fire as fast as you can keep pulling the trigger, expired in 2004. Congress has been afraid to renew it because, you know, there’s the lore."

Well, Collins almost has it right: If the assault rifle is automatic, the shooter doesn't need to continue pulling the trigger to empty his magazine.

As I have previously observed in this blog, much of my life has been spent in the military living with assault rifles. I have eaten, slept and gone to the toilet with my rifle by my side. To be without my rifle would instantly create a feeling of extreme anxiety that something had gone missing from my body.

I also came to know the power of my assault rifles. Fired on automatic, I could unleash a hail of bullets, exchange magazines in the blink of an eye, and resume shooting. And the possession of such an instrument of destruction demanded a heightened level of caution and responsibility to ensure that this tool of death would never be misused while entrusted to me.

Even today, I have nightmares about losing my weapon.

Yes, a maniac will always find a way to kill, but we shouldn't make their task any easier by permitting the sale of assault rifles, which are designed for easy killing.

But is gun control indeed the "least popular subject" in the 2012 election? I don't think so.

Note how both candidates are studiously avoiding, when possible, the subject of America's ground involvement in Afghanistan. No mention of the senseless escalation of this war by Obama. No mention that more than 2,000 United States soldiers have died in this morass. No mention that this war is costing the US some $6 billion per month.

In fact, there is much that is not being addressed by both presidential candidates.

David Brooks, "More Treatment Programs": More Important, a Ban on the Sale of Assault Rifles

Has David Brooks ever fired an automatic assault rifle? I doubt it.

In the aftermath of the Aurora tragedy, Brooks declares in a New York Times op-ed entitled "More Treatment Programs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/opinion/brooks-more-treatment-programs.html):

"Personally, I’ve supported tighter gun control laws. But it’s not clear that those laws improve public safety. Researchers reviewing the gun control literature for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, were unable to show the laws are effective.

And gun control laws are probably even less germane in these cases. Rampage killers tend to be meticulous planners. If they can’t find an easy way to get a new gun, they’ll surely find a way to get one of the 200 million guns that already exist in this country. Or they’ll use a bomb or find another way."

Instead of more stringent gun control, Brooks concludes by calling for "a more aggressive system of treatment options, especially for men in their 20s."

More treatment options? Sure, I'm all in favor of treatment. And if you see a disturbed person on the street, call 911. The problem, however, with this solution is that police emergency call centers will be overwhelmed within minutes. Moreover, given the way I look after a night spent working until the dawn, I wouldn't be surprised if I were to be reported to the authorities were I to risk going out to buy myself a cup of coffee.

Unlike Brooks, a significant chunk of my life has been spent in the military living with guns, particularly assault rifles. I have eaten, slept and gone to the toilet with my rifle by my side. To be without my rifle would instantly create a feeling of extreme anxiety that something criticial had gone missing from my body.

I also came to know the power of my assault rifles. Fired on automatic, I could unleash a hail of bullets, exchange magazines in the blink of an eye, and resume shooting. And the possession of such an instrument of destruction demanded a heightened level of caution and responsibility to ensure that this tool of death would never be misused while entrusted to me.

In his opinion piece, Brooks fails to distinguish between target guns and assault rifles. There is a world of difference.

Sure, a determined maniac will always find a means to kill, but let's not make their task any easier by permitting the sale of assault rifles, whose sole purpose is for killing.