|
August 04, 2006
"the same old bellicose rant"
Sometimes, my local paper's "wake up calls" make waking up in the morning a disturbing experience. Actually, this morning's column by the Philadelphia Inquirer's John Grogan serves as more than a wake up call; it's taking me down a very unpleasant memory lane. As Mr. Grogan sees it, it is "time to unload" on what he calls "gun stupidity": I know I will hear from the gun nuts and firepower freaks, and they will scream the same old bellicose rant. I'm tired of hearing it.I'll try to rein in my bellicosity for now, but I do think it is fair to characterize the tone of the Grogan column as a bit emotional: A boy and a gunNo one likes suicides, accidents, murder, or death, but I do wish Mr. Grogan would calm down. As I said, I'll try not to be too bellicose, but I would venture that the reason some Second Amendment supporters sound bellicose to people who disagree with them is that, to be fair, asserting the right to own guns and the right to self defense in the face of grief and tragedy sounds, well, callused. On the other hand, it might also be argued that it is equally callused, perhaps equally bellicose, to use the occasion of tragedy to advocate taking away a cherished and important right from people who were not involved in the latest tragedy in the news. I also think it's also a bit callused to be so quick to blame the gun when there's an ongoing investigation of the death -- the facts of which seem a bit strange (to me, at least). Let's start with the gun, because it is being blamed as the culprit. The reason State Senator Regola is not being charged is because it was not stored haphazardly: District Attorney John Peck said at this point no criminal charges would be filed against the senator. He noted that although Regola's pistol was not safe-guarded by a trigger lock, it was not stored haphazardly.What that means is that either the teenager searched the place until he found it, or else someone else knew where it was stored, and . . . And what? I can't reconstruct what might have happened from these facts, but here's what's being reported by police: The Farrells became concerned early Saturday when they realized Louis was not in his bedroom and apparently had not slept in his bed, [State police Capt.] Cole said.OK, so it appears that the "pet sitter" left his home at 10:15 to go to the Regola home, where the younger Regola arrived at 10:30. I could be wrong, but this does not sound like pet sitting to me. Nor does it sound like the kid had time to search the house and find a gun which wasn't left out in the open. The police are not saying how close the friendship was between the two, but are saying that they spoke by telephone at 11:30. Between that time and 8:30 in the morning, a bullet went through the boy's head. Was human agency involved, or did this gun manage to find its way out of a drawer or cabinet and find its way into the woods with the dead teen? I strongly suspect human agency of some sort. So why blame the gun? If the kid (or kids) had gotten hold of the keys to the family car and driven it into a tree, would anyone be blaming SUVs? Maybe I'm getting too old. Maybe I should return to my adolescence, and another tragedy involving a gun, and a best friend. It haunts me to this day, and the story is absolutely true except I won't use his real name. I'll just call him "Mark" (the name of another loved one, whose death was caused not by a gunshot but from AIDS). Hope that's OK with everyone. I had known Mark since kindergarten, and it is no exaggeration to say he was one of my few truly best friends. ("Best friends" is my term for the closest few -- people I can count on one hand.) He was a lot more intelligent that I. At least he seemed that way; his penetrating insights into the nature of things went far, far beyond any of his peers, and his writing was brilliant. Everyone thought he was the Ernest Hemingway of our class. We were very close. (Spin that any way you want; I won't.) I helped drive him to the ER after a drug overdose which would have been fatal according to the docs who pumped his stomach out. He was extremely pissed off that I went out to California and intended to remain there, and said so in repeated letters to me. But we both got through our freshman year, and by June of 1973, I was really looking forward to seeing him. Unfortunately, there was an extremely unpleasant telephone conversation between him and my then, um, "inamorato" which I was not told about until the latter's deathbed confession accompanied by a plea that I forgive him. (If only I had known in 1973! But there are some things in life you're just fated never to know, and I was lucky that no "Gone with the Wind" Dr. Meade was there to stop such deathbed confessions.) I didn't know it when I got on the plane in June of 1973, but at that point "Mark" was already dead. He had often discussed suicide (in a casual, sneering manner, as if to show he wasn't afraid), and like I say, there'd been the drug overdose which today we'd call an "early warning," but what happened was, simply, that between the telephone conversation I found out about many years later and my getting on that plane, he had gotten hold of his father's revolver and put a bullet through his head. While it wasn't logical, I blamed myself. I excoriated myself. Why wasn't I there earlier? Why didn't I call him at the right time? (His morbid sense of humor was such that had I interrupted him even as he was about to pull the trigger, he'd have told me what he was about to do, we'd have both laughed it off and gotten rip-roaring drunk, and in all honesty he might never have done it.) I went into a depression that lasted nearly a year. No one cared, because everyone I knew was busy partying and screwing. They thought I was neurotic (which of course I was). Over the years I finally learned -- really learned -- that the actions of other people can't be blamed on anyone except the people who take them. Especially a suicide. No one is responsible for someone else's suicide, and it is unfair to say that they are. I'm including even the apparently very "guilty" party who died of AIDS, and who (it turned out) told Mark that I didn't like him any more and had said that I hoped I never saw him again -- which was a complete lie, driven by insane jealousy. Even he was not responsible. The reason, of course, is that people say mean and nasty things all the time, and the normal response is not to commit suicide, but to get upset, maybe ask questions, maybe find new friends, and maybe just be hurt. Looking back, I am shocked that no one (no one I can remember, at least) ever thought to blame the gun. That would have seemed just too convenient. And it would have been too convenient. Mark could just as easily have taken another drug overdose. He could have wrapped his car around a tree. Seriously, what is it about the guns? I'm trying, I'm really trying, to be fair to Mr. Grogan, and I'm trying to avoid the "same old bellicose rant." (God knows I've ranted bellicosely enough times.) Why are guns to blame when humans use them for purposes we don't like? In my haste to blame myself for what happened to Mark, I never thought to blame guns. Perhaps this was because I always had access to guns (as, of course, did Mark). My father gave me two guns as gifts, and at any time I could have put a bullet through my head, through a friend's head, or through an enemy's head. Maybe it was because I had access to drugs and cars, and bridges and buildings and railroad tracks (I guess there was plenty of rope too -- and even water), but guns just seemed like one among many ways to end it all, if you were so inclined. Anyway, this argument is old. Some people kill themselves. Some people kill other people. The rest of us will all die of one cause or another. (As I've said many times, I've lost dozens to AIDS, but I think it would be a cop-out to blame syringes or penises for their deaths.) My "wake up call" came in 1973, and I'm still wide awake. posted by Eric on 08.04.06 at 08:35 AM
Comments
The reason that guns provoke this very emotional response is the same reason that some people REFUSE to wear seat belts: both are explicit reminders that we live in a dangerous world. Refusing to admit that you might need a gun, or you might need to wear seat belts, is a way of denying that living in a big city or driving a car is dangerous. Clayton E. Cramer · August 4, 2006 10:42 AM I've had a number of discussion with people who emotionally oppose guns. They don't undertand why anyone would own something that was designed to KILL. They see no purpose for the existence of guns, but if they have to exist then only trained police and military should have them. They believe the average citizen is too stupid, emotional, and sucicidal to own one. I might say something about projection here.... They believe that people who decide to own a gun are anti-social and dangerous. If only, they believe, we would destroy all of our guns, we would achieve peace and utopia. Denise · August 4, 2006 11:21 AM I'm reminded of a bumper sticker I once saw: "If they take our guns away can we use swords?" Was that really Clayton Cramer? Cool. Eric Blair · August 4, 2006 03:53 PM If the citizenry of a nation are, for whatever reason, incapable of rationally and sanely using force and being responsible with firearms, giving them uniforms doesn't change that one whit. Jon Thompson · August 5, 2006 01:48 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
So when's Grogan going to write the column about automobiles, which end up killing more people than guns every year?
What a dork.