Tuesday, July 23, 2019

ANS -- BMW unveils all-electric Mini Cooper SE with 168-mile range, based on older i3 platform

this is a fun article because it tells it like it is.  There's a video at the end on the site, but I didn't try to add it because that never works.  Pretty short.
Our solar electric car charger is close to being ready -- we have charged our car with it twice so far.  
Aren't you glad this isn't more politics?
--Kim


BMW has introduced the long-awaited all-electric Mini with its new Mini Cooper SE. We already know what it looks like but do its specs impress?

The electric Mini Cooper SE is BMW's first all-electric car since the BMW i3 was released in 2013. Its electric motor delivers 135 kW/184 hp and a maximum torque of 270 Nm. BMW claims the front-wheel drive electric SE can get from zero to 60 km/h (37 mph) in 3.9 seconds, and zero to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 7.3 seconds. Prices in Germany start at 32,500 Euros (about $36,400).

The electric Mini's 32.6 kWh battery has a reported range of 235 to 270 km (146-168 miles) based on the new WLTP cycle. That means EPA/real world will be closer to 140 miles. The battery is located in the vehicle floor, so the electric Mini Cooper SE has the same luggage volume as the ICE 3-door Mini, with the body positioned 18 mm higher for ground clearance.

Its charging connection uses Type 2 and CCS Combo 2 plugs for AC and DC charging. When fast charging, the Mini can get an 80% charge in 35 minutes at a maximum capacity of 50 kW.

BMW says the new electric Mini will be a three-door based on the current ICE version of the Mini Cooper SE:

The first-ever purely electric model of the British brand is a genuine MINI to the core. Its vehicle concept is based on the MINI 3 Door. The dimensions, design, space, and interior ambience of the new MINI Cooper SE are clearly based on the conventionally powered vehicle, the development of which already took account of the expansion of the model range to include a electrically powered version.

The electric Mini offers four driving modes. BMW says of the electric car's driving experience:

Electric drive takes the typical MINI concept of go-kart feeling into an entirely new and fascinating dimension. The enthralling agile handling of the new MINI Cooper SE is supported by suspension technology that has been refined and harmonized on a model-specific basis. In conjunction with purely electric drive too, the tried-and-tested design principle of the suspension — with single-joint spring strut at the front, a multilink rear axle that is unique within the competitive field, and electromechanical steering — guarantees maximum ride stability, steering precision, and spontaneity when changing direction. With a center of gravity that is at least 30 mm lower than in the MINI Cooper S, optimum weight distribution helps the new MINI Cooper SE achieve a level of cornering dynamics that is unique within the small-car segment.

The electric Mini will be produced in Oxford, UK, starting in November, and BMW has already been taking preorders in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway. Customers in the US, UK, Italy, and Spain can also register their interest. BMW says more than 40,000 customers have already registered their interest.

Bernd Koerber, senior vice president of MINI, said in a statement that BMW has decided against one launch date for all markets. Koerber continued, "The first vehicles will then be delivered as early as possible."

Electrek's take:

This is painful to say because I love the Mini form factor and I'm glad BMW has finally introduced this car.

But is this car from 2016? Let's compare it to the similarly sized Chevy Bolt which was released in 2016.  The 2016 Bolt has 50% more range, is way quicker/more HP, 4 doors and even charges faster at 54kW on CCS. This vehicle doesn't match up very well with a 4 year old car. How is it going to compete with vehicles released since then?

The truth is that this is a 1st generation EV, hopefully the last BMW tries to roll out on its i3 platform. In fact, the i3 at least had RWD and better acceleration than this.

BMW will probably sell a disappointing number of these because, hey, even the Nissan LEAF has significantly more range and better acceleration, and it is hard to sell a sporty EV that gets smoked by an old Nissan. As far as new EVs go, the electric Mini may be best compared to the Honda e.

BMW's board members will say things like "no one wants electric" when in fact people do want electric — just not an outdated, half-assed attempt. They've got a long way to go if they want Mini to be an all-electric brand, which it can excel at, if given the proper chance.

There's also this:

ANS -- As Ilhan Omar Said, Trump Is a Fascist — and His Rallies Prove It

This one is a bit long and repetitive, but at least read the first few paragraphs.  The Big Idea in it is in this paragraph:
It is both strange and disconcerting that almost none of the mainstream reporting on Trump's rally examined its clear similarities with staged rallies in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Much like Nazi rallies, Trump's rallies seek to turn politics into a grandiose theater of nativism, while presenting the head of state as a kind of demigod. In addition, there is the preaching of hate, which functions as a kind of quasi-religious experience used to trade off and amplify mass anger largely directed at those considered the enemies of the state — in this case women of color who are criminalized by virtue of their political beliefs, race and ethnicity. Seizing upon the potentially violent energy of his followers, Trump transforms their heightened anxieties and collective fears into a mass disdain for Muslims, immigrants, Black people and others.  
That is, that what Trump is offering his followers is a quasi-religious experience -- he is offering religious ecstasy in the guise of cruelty and hate.  Think about that.  How empty we are that so many people fall for that cheap substitute.  So needy.  And yet, hate is easier than love -- it confers no responsibilities on one.  
I submit that it is late-stage Capitalism that empties people out like this -- that makes them feel worthless because only money is worth anything.  That makes them not want to invest in love or each other -- because it has no clear price tag and thus no clear worth.  Americans long for community, but reject it when offered, like the animal who bites you when you try to rescue it.  Oh, what a pickle we are in!

--Kim



As Ilhan Omar Said, Trump Is a Fascist — and His Rallies Prove It

The Public Intellectual

PART OF THE TRUTHOUT SERIES

The Public Intellectual

After Donald Trump accused Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of "trafficking in vicious anti-Semitic screeds" at a rally in North Carolina, the crowd erupted in the chant "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!" Trump later claimed he did not agree with the chants and that he had tried to cut them short. A tape of the event, however, makes clear that this was a lie. Moreover, Trump refused to retract the racist tweets that set in motion this frenzied mass expression of racism by renewing his call for the four Congresswomen he attacked to leave the country if they do not embrace his worldview of patriotism and American exceptionalism. In fact, he mentioned to reporters that he was "enjoying" the latest controversy over his comments, which have drawn international condemnation." This was a spectacle that had the markings not only of a current white nationalist rally but also echoes of the hate-filled spectacles that took place in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and 1940s.

It is both strange and disconcerting that almost none of the mainstream reporting on Trump's rally examined its clear similarities with staged rallies in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Much like Nazi rallies, Trump's rallies seek to turn politics into a grandiose theater of nativism, while presenting the head of state as a kind of demigod. In addition, there is the preaching of hate, which functions as a kind of quasi-religious experience used to trade off and amplify mass anger largely directed at those considered the enemies of the state — in this case women of color who are criminalized by virtue of their political beliefs, race and ethnicity. Seizing upon the potentially violent energy of his followers, Trump transforms their heightened anxieties and collective fears into a mass disdain for Muslims, immigrants, Black people and others.

Trump's manipulation of the crowds at his rallies brings to mind French reactionary theorist Gustave Le Bon's depiction of crowds as governed by "impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgment and of the critical spirit [and] the exaggeration of the sentiments" — a depiction that Hitler read and was inspired by.

Uncompromised, uncompromising news

Get reliable, independent news and commentary delivered to your inbox every day.

Such expressions of hate and racial cleansing are about more than the privileging of fear and emotion over reason. They also constitute an updated version of a mob frenzy that encourages its participants to take pleasure in demonizing others. This "politics of the spectacle" reinforces the social emptiness at the heart of neoliberal societies, filling it with fear, illusion and endless nativist and racist rants while offering the immediate gratification of misdirected pleasure. Trump's spectacles of fear and racism portray politics as pure theater mediated through the elemental forces of hatred, bigotry and the triumph of power.

In her chapter on "The Drama of Illumination," in the anthology on Art, Culture, and Media Under the Third Reich, art history scholar Kathleen James-Chakraborty describes how Nazi rallies used public spectacles to unify Nazi supporters around policies that demonized socialists, gays, communists and Jews, all the while drawing attention away from unjust economic and social issues. She writes:

The ingredients of Nazi spectacle may have been familiar, but the degree to which they were now injected into the daily lives of millions of Germans was certainly unprecedented. So was the degree to which they were intended to promise blind obedience to the authoritarian state. Such spectacles could only work if they were comprehensible and thus potentially appealing to the masses upon whose support the ostensible legitimacy of the state depended.

The fascist spectacle echoed a totalitarian logic in which desire became a target of politics. As Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi wrote in Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini's Italy, the relationship between fantasy and agency in these spectacles was reconfigured to produce "the prevalence of the senses over sprit, self-abandonment, and the release of passion." Culture was transformed into a pedagogical practice of disruption, a pedagogical vehicle used to unleash the collective passions of abhorrence, loathing and cruelty.

The most sinister elements of the fascist spectacle are at work in Trump's mobilization of a toxic populism. As politics scholar John Keane points out in The Conversation, this is a populism that in the name of an imagined people necessitates "demagogic leadership" and "encourages attacks on independent media, expertise, rule-of-law judiciaries" and other institutions designed to hold power accountable. Trump's manipulation of his followers feeds upon a right-wing populism that uses the logic of disposability as a driving force of social abandonment and machinery of social death. This populism thrives on the energies of the dead.

Trump's appropriation of right-wing populism as a tactical weapon is evident in his attack on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan (collectively known as "the Squad." Such attacks are part of a spectacle of toxic masculine power that encourages the subordination of women to men, seeks to turn people into dehumanized objects, and transforms intellectual complexities into the quick fix of an emotional discharge. For Trump, shock becomes his mode of address, designed to titillate his adoring fans while using theater as a politics of diversion. Trump's racism, his demonizing of others and his call to suppress dissent makes the appeal to violence a legitimating tool of state terrorism. At the same time, Trump's rallies — like the Nuremberg rallies in Nazi Germany — not only appeal to the registers of emotion over reason but also mystify power and embrace dystopian notions of the state in an aesthetic that cinema scholar Lutz Koepnick describes in his essay "Rethinking the Spectacle" as working to "bond the individual to a charismatic project of national rebirth and pure politics."

Trump's spectacles could not succeed without the conservative media ecosystem and a mainstream press that serves largely to heighten the effects of the Trump media show.

Trump's rallies pathologize politics by promoting a culture of fear that reverses the process of identification from compassion for the other to a feral hatred and contempt. At the same time, Trump's spectacles while appealing to his base could not succeed without the presence of the conservative media ecosystem and a mainstream press that serves largely to heighten the effects of the Trump media show. Moreover, a number of commentators and almost no Republicans have condemned Trump's overt racism. In this scenario, there are few moments of profane illumination or self-reflection, except for the way such events are taken up in the alternative media.

We have arrived at a historical moment when the interface of violence, fear, racism and new technologies are strengthening and mobilizing a political formation steeped in a species of white nationalism. This formation turns fear and the pleasure of humiliation into the immediacy of a spectacle that delivers the fantasy of collective revenge as a central part of presidential power and electioneering. Let's be clear. At the heart of Trump's rallies is a manufactured pageant that trades in violence, cruelty, humiliation and domination as part of his campaign of terror that makes the elemental structures of a democracy and the social sphere dysfunctional. Trump's spectacle operates off of fear rather than persuasion and, in doing so, reinforces the ominous anti-intellectual forces that drive his presidency.

Trump unapologetically operates on the assumption that only white people can be citizens — a belief that Ishaan Tharoor argues is a cornerstone of white nationalism. By politicizing racial taunts and reinforcing the assumption that citizenship is the exclusive terrain of whites, Trump turns politics into part of a war culture that trades in divisiveness and friend/enemy divides. What is clear is that Trump's rallies echo a fascist past that uses racism and nativist narratives of racial purity as a form of mass entertainment. Trump's rallies thus make clear that politics has degenerated into a war on justice and any vestige of democracy. Moreover, Trump has given further legitimation to what has become a global phenomenon of right-wing populism, which as Agnes Heller has written, is "the transformation of class to a mass society." That is, class is no longer defined in terms of inequalities in wealth, power and resources, but as a generalized mass no longer defined by the boundaries of popular sovereignty and an insurgent collective resistance but by the need to transfer power to a leader who speaks and acts on behalf of the multitude.

What we are witnessing at the current historical moment is an acceleration of racial politics and the politics of terminal exclusion, wrapped up in the mass marketing of rage and anger. Language has degenerated into an educational and political project for reinforcing the currency of white supremacy through what Paul Gilroy describes in Against Race as the affective registers of "romance, pleasure, and fantasy." In Trump's rallies, we find a spectacle rich with the thrill of what economist Calvin Hoover in 1933 called "a sugar-coated terror," carefully staged in the service of an emotionally charged rhetoric that affirmed a culture of cruelty. In this aestheticization of politics is a fascist principle wedded to producing what Étienne Balibar calls "death zones of humanity." These "death zones" (where people become silenced, unknowable, and lack human rights) take the form of borders, detention centers and dead spaces of terminal exclusion — wrapped up in spectacles and political pageants that call for the elimination of those individuals and groups seen as a threat to the ideology of white nationalism.

Trump has a predatory instinct for mobilizing hatred and whipping up a regressive release of mass emotions in which a narrow Nazi-style "blood and soil" ethos replaces humanitarian ways of being. This is a discourse that puts the meaning of justice, identity and citizenship on trial and could lead eventually to the imprisoning and killing of those deemed enemies of the people.

Trump's presidency reinforces an unchecked racism and nativism through conservative and mainstream cultural apparatuses and pedagogical practices that further normalize a right-wing populism and enhance the global standing of authoritarianism. The public sphere is now saturated with spectacles of violence, thoughtlessness and a mind-numbing anti-intellectualism. At work here is an ongoing project to transform culture into a theatrical performance, while quickening, without apology, a fascist politics that has now become a central element of governance.

Rather than kill democracy through a military coup or a show of state force, Trump eviscerates democracy through a cultural politics that hollows out and destroys those institutions that produce critically engaged citizens. This is a soft form of fascism, rooted in modes of identification, desire and agency that offer the public unity defined through what Los Angeles Review of Books contributor Anya Ventura describes as "a separatist politics that relied on strict categories of identity." Or more specifically, a separatist politics rooted in the divisive lens of white supremacy and the hatred of democracy.

At stake here is not just a political crisis but also a cultural crisis resulting in what architect and theorist Teddy Cruz describes in Living as Form as "the inability of institutions to question their ways of thinking … the rigidity of their protocols and silos." Trump's aestheticization of politics aims largely to eliminate those formative cultures that create the habits and dispositions upon which a democracy's survival depends.

In this media-fabricated ecosystem, agency can only find its purpose and meaning in the coordinates of hate and anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies. Under Trump, reality has become a toxic melodrama played out through a relentless display of hypermasculinity, ultranationalism and a culture of utter cruelty that accelerates the death of the unwanted.

White nationalism is now being delivered nationally via emotional taunts parading as spectacle, entertainment and manufactured drama. The making of politics as theater opens up a new connection between contemporary fascist politics and a fascist past. Ilhan Omar was right in calling Trump a fascist.

Monday, July 22, 2019

ANS -- The Privilege of Being Normal

Here is Doug Muder's take on what we mean by "white privilege".  Read it.  It's fairly short.  There is a good discussion in the comments, so if you like that sort of thing, go there.  
--Kim


The Privilege of Being Normal

You can't explain "white privilege" without first acknowledging that "privilege" used to mean something else.


A little over a week ago, Kirsten Gillibrand was confronted on the campaign trail by a woman who challenged what "so-called white privilege" could possibly mean in a place like Youngstown, Ohio. Youngtown has lost its factories and is ground zero of the opioid crisis. White people there are suffering. So how can they be "privileged"?

Gillibrand's answer got applause from the room, was described by Vox as "spot on", and was widely shared on social media: She acknowledged the distress of Youngstown's whites, clearly stated that it's "not acceptable and not OK", but then segued to institutional racism, which she characterized as "a different issue".

While in general I agree with what Gillibrand said, I wonder if the woman who asked the question really heard her yes-but answer. Gillibrand allowed that "no one in that circumstance [i.e., unemployed in Youngstown] is privileged on any level", but then went on to talk about their privilege anyway. I wonder how many struggling whites will dismiss her response as confusing double-talk.

I think a proper answer to the Youngstown woman's question has to start by recognizing that we use the word privilege differently than we used to. When that woman was growing up (or when I was), privilege was a kind of abnormality: Being privileged meant that you didn't have the same worries as ordinary people. Privileged teens didn't have to sweat about their grades or test scores, because of course they'd get into the same Ivy League college Dad and Grandpa went to. If they had trouble finding a first job, an uncle would invite them into the family business. If they had an idea for a business of their own, start-up capital would be available. And if that business failed, there would be more capital for a second or third try.

Privilege in that sense — which the Youngstown woman has probably never had — was summed up in the Barry Switzer line that Ann Richards applied to George Bush: He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

But white privilege (like male privilege and straight privilege and all the other privileges we talk about these days) is fundamentally different: It's the privilege of being seen* as normal. You still have to follow the rules, do the work, pay the bills, and so on, but whoever set the system up had people like you in mind. So the effort you put in has a chance to succeed. You weren't born on third base; you had to hit the ball and run like all the other players. But nobody challenged your right to have a turn at bat.

Take me, for example. As the son of a factory worker and a secretary, I never got the kind of exceptional treatment a Bush or a Kennedy could expect. But all my life I have had the advantage of being classified as normal in a variety of beneficial ways: Police see me as a citizen to protect rather than a malefactor to control. Neither I nor anyone else ever had to wonder whether "people like me" can succeed in my chosen profession. Doctors take my complaints seriously. When I walk into a store, clerks think about what I might buy rather than what I might steal. The public has never debated whether people like me should be allowed to join the military or get married. No one stares when my wife and I walk down the street together. I can find a restaurant on Yelp and have confidence that the front door will be accessible to me, the staff will speak my language, the menu will include food I can eat, and no one will object if I use the bathroom.

None of that is anything like having a spot reserved at Harvard or a corner office waiting for me when I get out. But these days we call those things "privileges" in order to recognize that not everybody gets them. In some sense, my "privilege" has been to be treated the way everybody should be treated. But everybody isn'ttreated that way in 21st-century America. And that's the point we're making when we talk about "white privilege" or any similar privileges.


* It's important to understand something about normal: It's not about what you are, it's about how systems treat you. If some system works for you the way it's supposed to, without anybody needing to step in and make some special exception, then for the purposes of that system you are normal. You may have purple skin and three heads, but if a bus picks you up and takes you where you're going without incident, that bus has normalized you.

Sunday, July 21, 2019

ANS -- Bang Bang Sanity (on what to do about guns)

This is an old one, and you may have seen it before.  But it's important.  
--Kim


Friday, June 26, 2015

Bang Bang Sanity

Here we are yet again.

Nine more Americans slaughtered by a raging madman with a gun and bad haircut.

Nine more innocents slaughtered because we absolutely, utterly, refuse to do anything to prevent it.

This time it was Charleston, but it could have been anywhere.

The place, the names, the blood and the hate, the insanity, they're all the same.

I waited a week to see what would happen. To see if it would be different this time.

But, of course, it's not.

It never is.

Oh, they'll haul down the Confederate Battle Flag, that stinking banner of treasonous bigotry, sure. Social media will raise a great cry of joy at the victory, but it won't end racism in America any more than outlawing the swastika in Germany got rid of the skinheads. It's a start, certainly, and one a hundred years overdue, but it won't do a damned thing to get at the real problem.

And it certainly won't stop the gun violence in America.

When US Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in the head by a grinning nut with a gun, we watched six people including a little girl die. Eighteen people were wounded that day. I wrote about rights and responsibilities and about Second Amendment Solutions.  We Americans, we talked about maybe doing something.  Some demanded more laws. Some demanded more guns. Some blamed liberals. Some blamed conservatives. Some blamed mental health. Some blamed the victims. Everybody blamed Obama.

Predictably, nothing changed.

Then another lunatic with a gun slaughtered twelve people inside a movie theater and wounded seventy more.

I wrote The Seven Stages of Gun Violence.  Over the last thirty-six months I've updated that piece numerous times with another, and another, and another, and another, and yet anothercase of armed madness and bloody mayhem.

I said then nothing will change, that nothing can change because we Americans will notchange it. We can't even have a civil conversation about it. Guns are an obsession in our country, a lunatic insanity, the mere mention of which makes us bang bang crazy.

I said that the slaughter will continue, and it has with terrible regularity.

I said liberals will blame conservatives, and they do.

I said conservatives will blame liberals, and they do.

I said the same old argument will continue. And so it has, repetitious and as predictable as clockwork, bang, bang, bang.

And nothing changed.

Fully half of Americans apparently believe gun violence can somehow be brought under control with the addition of yet more gun violence – which is a lot like saying drunk driving can be cured if we just put more drunk people behind the wheel.  They might be right, in an evolutionary sense, but it's small comfort to those killed and maimed in the resulting blood bath.

The simple truth of the matter is that gun violence isn't the exception in America, it's who we are.

The president was right, you don't find this kind of gun violence in other First World countries. 

What? What's that? Oh, of course, France. Charlie Hebdo. Fair enough. I'll give you Charlie Hebdo. Tell you what, I'll even spot you Anders Behring Breivik. Now, your turn, quick, name twenty more. Name ten more incidents of gun violence in France. Name ten more incidents of gun violence in Norway. No, no, don't Google it. If it's as common there as it is here, you should have no trouble naming five examples in either country right off the top of your head.

So go ahead, name them.

What's the matter? Can't do it?

Funny, you sure as shit can name that many incidents of gun violence, five, ten, twenty, right here in  America, can't you? In the last three years.

Gun violence is who we are.

We're bang bang crazy.

We actually have "National Gun Appreciation Day" in America. All of our heroes are packing. Guns and violence solve all of our problems.  Books, TV, movies, video games, law enforcement, foreign policy, we can't think of a solution that doesn't involve guns, or the threat of them. In the United States we believe gun ownership is a fundamental civil right, a Constitutional right … and access to food, clean water, education and healthcare are not.We proudly tell ourselves that an armed society is a polite society, a civil society, a law abiding society – even though that is patently and provably untrue in every example. We say that armed citizens, a good guy with a gun, stop crime, even though that is patently and provably untrue in large part. In America, "guns" and "religion" are commonly used in the same sentence. In America, it's now possible to print your own untraceable and undetectable gun with a 3D Assembler and a computer and won't that be fun? We have so many incidents of gun violence in this country that after a while they all just start to sound the same.  In America, guns are so important to us that we demand even those with diagnosed psychological problems have access to guns. And when those same people go on a murderous killing spree, we say it was God's will and we say it was the victims who were at fault for not having guns of their own – which is exactly what was said at Sandy Hook and last week in Charleston.

Small wonder then that the nuts and disaffected and the simple-minded haters reach for that Second Amendment solution. Honestly, what other examples do we offer?

And so what do we do about it?

As a firearms expert and as a gun owner, and I am both, I'll say to you in all candor: moreguns are not the solution. Having people armed in schools and churches is not the solution. Carrying your mini-14 in a tactical harness to the grocery store isn't the solution. Living in an armed camp isn't the goddamned solution. 

You can't fight drunk driving with more drunk drivers.

So what then? More laws?

Maybe, if they're the right laws.

The gun fetishists at the National Rifle Association often argue criminals and crazy people don't obey the law, so more laws won't stop them – new gun laws only punish "responsible" gun owners and take away their Constitutional rights.

There's a certain amount of truth to this.

Whenever this comes up, I always ask: what laws would have prevented this latest slaughter?

The response is usually some vague hand waving about more background checks. But background checks wouldn't have prevented Charleston. They wouldn't have prevented Columbine. They wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook. They wouldn't have prevented Aurora.  They wouldn't have prevented Fort Hood, twice. They wouldn't have kept Gabby Giffords from being shot in the head. They would not have stopped Christopher Dorner. Neither would banning assault weapons. Or high capacity magazines. Or mandating smart gun technology. Or more gun-free zones.

And in this, the NRA is provably correct.

But what both the anti-gun lobby and the pro-gun lobby get wrong is this: While it's often true laws don't stop criminals, that is not the law's purpose

Laws don't stop crime. It would be nice if they did, but laws don't stop crime. Instead laws give society legal recourse when its members engage in antisocial behavior.

If there wasn't a law against theft, you couldn't prosecute somebody for stealing.

If there wasn't a law against murder, you couldn't imprison somebody for killing another.

Laws against theft and murder don't stop theft and murder, they give society legal options when theft and murder occur.

Saying new gun laws won't end gun violence is a non sequitur. Of course guns laws won't end gun violence.

Laws don't stop crime, however what well written laws do is to put responsibility where it belongs – on the criminal.

Well written laws are about pragmatism.

For example, we all know that laws against drinking and driving won't stop drunk driving, but they weren't intended to. We know it's going to happen. People are going to drink and drive and kill themselves and each other. We know we can't eliminate it completely. That's the pragmatism part.

Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

But, and this is important so pay attention, here's what those laws didn't do: they didn't keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from 1) drinking, or 2) driving (note the operative word here is or).

And that's the answer.

We need gun laws that give society legal recourse by making each gun owner/user personally accountable for their own actions.

Those laws should be designed to change our gun culture over time in order to make gun violence less likely. And, of course, those laws should not keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Now, what exactly does such a law look like?

Well, it looks like the NRA.

 

I'll pause for a minute until you finish screaming.

 

Look, let's be honest.

More gun-free zones won't do a damned thing. The Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church was a gun-free zone.

More background checks won't do a damned thing – not unless we're willing to get serious about it, unless we standardize background checks across the nation to include a complete and thorough investigation like the kind used for federal security clearances. We're talking full national agency checks with interviews by certified investigators (what security clearance adjudicators call a NAC-I). Those cost about $100K and take four to six months. Such a system would require a complete disclosure of all financial, criminal (including juvenile records), and medical records (including mental health records), periodic updates, and a comprehensive database of all gun owners.  It's possible, but I suspect neither affordable nor politically feasible. Anything less than that is a waste of time. Q.E.D.

Banning the future sales of assault weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity magazines won't do a damned thing. That horse is out of the barn.

So what would?

Well, we make the NRA's own rules federal law.

That's right.

image

 

On my range, on any range, military, law enforcement, or civilian, the first rule of gun safety is this:

Always assume the gun is loaded, unless you personally have verified that it is unloaded.

Everything depends from that anchor point.

Everything.

You always assume the gun is loaded. Always. Every time. Even if you just watched somebody else unload it. When you pick up a weapon or accept it from somebody else, you assume it is loaded until you, yourself, personally unload it or verify visually and physically that it is unloaded. Period. No exceptions.

Now, I doubt anybody would want to argue that rule.

Make it the law.

Every gun user is personally responsible for knowing the condition of their weapon. No exceptions.

Every year, hundreds of people are shot with unloaded guns.  In the last year I've counted dozens of reports of "accidental" discharges, a number at gun shows by so-called experts. For example, last year in Medina, Ohio, a man was wounded at a gun show by a gun dealer, a gun dealer, who was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had just bought. The dealer took the gun from the seller and accidentally pulled the trigger without clearing the weapon first. The gun's magazine had been removed from the firearm but one round remained in the chamber. Both the seller and the buyer should have been held criminally liable for failure to properly clear the weapon.

"I thought it was empty" is the single most common excuse when somebody "accidentally" discharges a weapon.

There are no accidents with guns.

There. Are. No. Accidents.

It's a killing machine. You're responsible. Period. No exceptions.

We start right there: anyone who picks up a gun is responsible for its condition. No excuses. Misdemeanor for failure to know the condition of your weapon if only property damage is involved, felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself, manslaughter if somebody dies.

The next rule of safe gun handling is:

Always point the gun in a safe direction. 

Every year hundreds of people are killed or injured by guns because the operator failed to keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction.

Last year, a pregnant woman, Katherine Lynn Bryan, was shot in the head by William DeHayes. DeHayes was showing Bryan and her husband some of his guns, including a .22-caliber revolver. He picked the gun up, didn't verify that it was unloaded, failed to maintain muzzle control in a safe direction, failed to keep his finger off the trigger, and inadvertently shot Bryan in the head. She died. So did her baby. The papers called it an "accident." The police called it an "accident." DeHayes called it an "accident."

There are no accidents with guns.

DeHayes didn't face any charges and he's still a gun owner.

Know how to use the gun safely.
Before handling a gun, learn how it operates. Know its basic parts, how to safely open and close the action and remove any ammunition from the gun or magazine. Remember, a gun's mechanical safety device is never foolproof. Nothing can ever replace safe gun handling.

Be sure the gun is safe to operate.
Just like other tools, guns need regular maintenance to remain operable. Regular cleaning and proper storage are a part of the gun's general upkeep. If there is any question concerning a gun's ability to function, a knowledgeable gunsmith should look at it.

Use only the correct ammunition for your gun.
Only BBs, pellets, cartridges or shells designed for a particular gun can be fired safely in that gun. Most guns have the ammunition type stamped on the barrel. Ammunition can be identified by information printed on the box and sometimes stamped on the cartridge. Do not shoot the gun unless you know you have the proper ammunition.

Cleaning
Regular cleaning is important in order for your gun to operate correctly and safely. Before cleaning your gun, make absolutely sure that it is unloaded.The gun's action should be open during the cleaning process. Also, be sure that no ammunition is present in the cleaning area.

A few months ago, right across the street from my house here in the Alaskan MatSu, a woman was getting her kids out of her car in a church parking lot. Her .357 fell out of its holster, hit the ground, discharged, and struck her 4 year old child in the leg directly above his knee. Give that some thought, gun people. A .357 magnum round dead center into the bone of a 4 year old child's leg at close quarters.

The police called it an accident.

There are no accidents with guns.

Always point the gun in a safe direction, that's rule #1 of the NRA's own guidelines.

Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, that's NRA rule #2.

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use, that's NRA rule #3.

You're responsible for your weapon at all times. You're responsible for proper and secure carry. You're responsible for keeping the weapon in proper operating order. You're responsible for engaging the safety if the weapon is so equipped or for the use of other techniques if it is not. A properly maintained and carried weapon does not discharge when dropped, if it does, it's your responsibility. Period. No excuses.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to point your weapon in a safe direction, for unintentional discharge, for failure to properly maintain and use safety systems if only property damage is involved. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Felony manslaughter if somebody dies.

Know your target and what is beyond.
Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.

Make it the law.

Just as you're responsible for keeping your weapon pointed in a safe direction at all times when not intending to shoot, any gun user should be lawfully accountable for correct target identification when shooting whether it's on a target range or in the grocery store in defense of an active shooter situation. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.

Misdemeanor for failure to discharge your weapon in a safe direction if only property damage is involved, felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself, manslaughter if somebody dies.

There are no accidents with guns.

Think first. Shoot second. On or off the range. You're carrying a killing machine in public, it's your responsibility. Not anybody else's. Yours. Period. No excuses.

Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns.

We don't allow people to operate a car, a boat, an airplane when intoxicated. We don't let doctors to operate when drunk. We don't allow cops or military personnel to drink on duty.

But every year thousands of Americans are killed or injured by drunks with guns and even the NRA knows just how insane that is and they put it in writing.

Make it the law.

Just like drinking and driving, you're caught drinking with a gun, you take a breathalyzer or a blood test. We don't need any new standards, the ones for DUI will work just fine. You're intoxicated with a gun? You go to jail. And we impound your weapons.  Somebody is injured? Aggravated assault. Somebody is killed? Negligent homicide. You're operating a killing machine, I don't think sobriety is too much to ask.

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

Every year hundreds of people are killed by guns in the hands of people not authorized to have them.

You own a gun, it's your responsibility. Period. No excuses.  If Adam Lanza's idiot mother had properly secured her weapons, she and the innocents of Sandy Hook would still be alive. Hundreds of people are killed or injured every single year in the United States by unsecured weapons. Weapons are stolen and fall into the wrong hands, because they are not properly stored.

The NRA itself, by its own rules for safe gun handling, dictates that weapons must be stored so that they are not accessible to unauthorized persons. Note that the NRA doesn't dictate the method, only the requirement.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to properly store your weapon. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Negligent homicide if somebody dies. Children are able to access your weapon because you failed to properly secure it? Felony child endangerment. No excuses. No exceptions.

And finally, though it's not one of the NRA's rules, I'd add

Never provide a gun to someone not authorized to have it.
If you purchase or otherwise obtain a firearm for another who you know is not legally able to own/operate a gun, you are responsible for that person's resulting actions with that weapon.

If the people who buy weapons for those not authorized to have them were held to account for their actions, Charleston and Columbine wouldn't have happened – or at least the likelihood would be significantly reduced.

There are no accidents when it comes to guns.

Make that, that right there, the law. There are no accidents when it comes to guns. Period. No excuses.

Make responsible gun ownership and usage federal law, uniform across the United States.

Conviction on misdemeanor gun safety charges? You lose the privilege for a specified period. You engage in remedial action? You prove you've learned your lesson? You prove you'll be a responsible gun owner in the future? You get your guns back. Happens again, you lose the privilege forever. We don't give drunk drivers more than two strikes either.

Conviction on felony gun handling charges? You lose the privilege. Period. Your name goes in the federal database and you never own or operate a gun again, this includes cops and military.

You're caught with a gun after losing the privilege? You automatically go to prison, no plea deals, no excuses.

Don't want to lose the privilege? Then all you have to do is follow the NRA's own rules for responsible gun ownership.

Will this eliminate gun violence completely?

No, of course not.

Would implementation of this idea have prevented Charleston?

Maybe. Maybe not. But over time it would make such terrible events less likely and would hold those responsible for enabling the slaughter, such as Dylann Roof's father (the guy who gave him the gun even though he knew his son wasn't supposed to have it) to account right alongside the trigger-puller.

Over time, just like with the drunk driving laws, enforcing the NRA's own rules, the same basic common sense rules that are used in the military, in law enforcement, on civilian gun ranges, and were taught to most of us by our fathers, will change our culture from one of gun fetishists to one of responsible gun owners. And that will reduce gun violence, just as the same approach has significantly reduced drinking and driving.

More, it will provide opportunity for the free market to fill in the gaps. Want to own a gun, but you're afraid of running afoul of the law because you don't know the rules? Don't know how to properly shoot? Don't know how to maintain and secure your weapon? Plenty of room in there for somebody to teach classes, say even the NRA – should they decide to return to the original charter of their once venerable organization and stop pandering to the lunatics and the gun manufacturers.

Note that I didn't suggest that you had to take a class. States should decide that. Just like states decide how you'll get a driver's license, either by formal classroom or via a knowledgeable mentor. States can levy their own additional requirements. They want background checks, fine. They want waiting periods, fine. They want to limit certain weapons and ammo and specify gun-free zones, that's up to them.

But at the federal level, we set a basic standard for responsible gun ownership: the NRA's own rules.

There's no reason why any gun owner should be oppose this idea. There is no reason why the NRA should oppose this. There is no reason why gun manufactures should oppose this. The rules are ones they all claim to follow now. The only difference is they will be legally responsible for it.

What I'm talking about here is pragmatism.

What I'm talking about is responsible gun culture.

What I'm talking about is sanity.

 

 



Other articles on gun violence referenced in this essay are summed up here.

The Seven Stages of Gun Violence

The Bang Bang Crazy series:

Part 1, What we need, see, are more guns, big fucking guns
Part 2, Gun violence isn't the exception in America, it's who we are
Part 3, Sandy Hook, the NRA, and a gun in every school
Part 4, More dead kids and why we have laws
Part 5, Gun control and a polite society
Part 6, The Christopher Dorner rampage, they needed killin'
Part 7, Still more dead kids and let's print our own guns!
Part 8, Let's try blaming the victim, shall we?
Part 9, Armed soldiers on post, sure, nothing to go wrong there.

 

About me:

As noted elsewhere, I've  been around guns my entire life. My dad taught me to shoot when I was a kid – in fact the very first gun I ever fired was my dad's prized black powder .75 caliber smooth bore Civil War trench piece when I was about four years old. I still own my very first gun, bought from Meyer's Thrifty Acres in Jenison, Michigan, for me by my dad when I was fourteen years old – a lever action Winchester 30-30. I got my first deer with that gun.  I grew up shooting, at home, in the Boy Scouts, hunting, target shooting, plinking, with friends and with family.  Thirty years ago I joined the military and spent my entire life there. I know more than a little about guns. I'm a graduate of the Smith & Wesson Rangemaster Academy, the nation's premier firearms instructor school. I'm a certified armorer and gunsmith. I've attended pretty much every boarding officer and gun school the military has. I hold both the Expert Pistol and Expert Rifle Medals. I've taught small arms and combat arms to both military and civilians for nearly thirty years now. I've fired damned near everything the US military owns, from the old .38 revolver to a US Navy Aegis Guided Missile Cruiser's 5" main battery – and everything in between. I can still field strip a Colt .45 M-1911 pistol and put it back together in under a minute, blindfolded – I happen to own several of them, along with numerous other semi-auto pistols and a number of revolvers. I used to shoot professionally and in competition. I helped to design, test, field, and fire in combat US Military weapons systems. I've spent my entire life in places where gun usage is extremely, extremely, common. I have a Concealed Carry Permit. I'm an Alaskan and I typically carry a gun in the wilds of Alaska on a regular basis. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, a gun is a tool, nothing more. If you feel that I'm ignorant of guns, or that I'm anti-gun, or unAmerican, well, you're welcome to speak your piece – just so long as you can live with what comes after.