Folks have been writing in, ever since I posted the latest version of my "Names of Infamy" essay. In fact, during just the last few days there has been a noticeable media swell - - a growing movement not to mention the name of the Aurora/Batman shooter.
As reported by Molly Hennesy-Fiske of the Los Angeles Times: "Jordan Ghawi, 26, of San Antonio became frustrated by how much of news coverage focused on the 24-year-old Holmes. 'Let us remember the names of the victims and not the name of the coward who committed this act,' Ghawi tweeted Friday afternoon. The tweet went viral. When some Twitter followers noticed Holmes' name trending on Twitter - something Ghawi said bothered his mother - they started a campaign to promote (a victim's) name instead."
On Sunday, Mr. Ghawi made his pitch directly to President Obama, who chose not to mention the shooter by name, in his public remarks.
Not a new idea, this worthy notion goes back to the last century, even long before I proposed it publicly in Salon Magazine (1999), describing the "Herostratos Effect" in which ancient peoples would sometimes expunge the names of those committing heinous crimes.
The pros and cons and means of doing this in a modern context, while preserving full memory, accountability and freedom of speech, lead to some interesting possibilities.
Although my most recent posted version of the Herostratos essay led to some radio time, I imagine Mr. Ghawi and the others thought of this notion independently -- and more power to them! Good ideas sometimes take time, before finally gaining traction.
Still, the intellectual/historical side of things may be of interest, if this idea is to build momentum and become a factor in solving a terrible human problem.
=== The absurd nostrums on "gun control" ==
My "names of infamy" proposal is actually quite separate from another matter -- the endless tussle over gun control.
And yet, the two topics inevitably get conflated at a time like this. At least, they were in a flood of emails, comments and assertions on facebook, twitter and this web log, proclaiming that "this sort of thing brings out hordes of liberals campaigning to eliminate the Second Amendment and gun owner rights."
Speaking as a Smithian libertarian, but one who finds liberals worthy to talk-to, may I respond with a simple request? Will someone please show me this campaign? Point to specific bills, or sustained efforts, even solidly backed proposals with even a slight chance of enactment.
They don't exist. And this simple little cartoon from Tom Tomorrow sums it up neatly.
Only one serious gun control notion is getting even tepid mention: to restore the requirement that people get checked out and licensed before blithely purchasing full-on assault rifles with mega-sized magazines. The very law that would have prevented the Aurora shooter-nut from easily acquiring his means to spray mass death.
That rule was passed, way back in the sane 20th Century, by an old thing called negotiated consensus between sober democratic and republican leaders... a pragmatic measure that led to no "slippery slope," nor any decay in reasonable gun-owner rights. Alas, it was flushed away by the later, crazier breed controlling Congress in 2005.
Now before you call me a lefty nut, please pause for perspective: those who denounced the assault gun licensing requirement -- and who howl now against its restoration -- seem to have no problem with the ongoing, 70 year old rule against private ownership of full-scale machine guns. So then, it's just a matter of where you choose to draw lines, right?
Raising this question: when one whacko can kill or wound 72 people in a couple of minutes, so quickly that no brave bystander gets a chance to tackle him, isn't that a "machine gun" style situation? Can you contemplate that maybe - just maybe - your line-in-the-sand may have been drawn just a tad too far? Is it possible to rediscover the sane art of pragmatic compromise, without fainting away or screeching in dread of a Slippery Slope?
I have shown a possible national compromise that would be a win-win... actually strengthening the constitutional guarantees of basic, essential gun ownership, while at the same time allowing pragmatic measures to be taken that reduce some of the worst calamities... all without a slippery slope. (That is, I have shown it to the half dozen people who still have both curiosity and the patience to read careful arguments. If you choose not to actually read that proposal, please don't gush forth generalized comments here, about what you presume it to be.)
Anyway, it's all much, much simpler than that.
The Slippery Slope does not exist. Not anymore. It's a fantasy. And I can prove it.
The fact is - and, again let me remind you that I say this not as a "liberal" but as a Heinleinian-Smithian Libertarian - the right seems completely unaware of a seismic shift that happened under G.W. Bush --
-- when many liberals started arming themselves.
Yes, they are. As is their perfect right.
Now tell that to your crazy uncle and watch multiple expressions pass across his face, as it sinks in.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Runaway Serfer
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
Salon.com
Comments
Well, I find this somewhat humorous. Of course, you are correct. There aren't any such bills to control weapons; and it is not likely that serious and effective campaigns for such proposals will, or can, be launched.
I don't ascribe much wisdom, intellect, or common sense to the policies promoted by either of the two major political parties regarding the long-term interests of our country. However, I am always inclined to believe that they are extremely smart when it comes to their thinking about their survival, as well as the tactics and strategies they employ to gain, and hold, majority power.
In this vein, the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was signed into law in September of 1994. The effort to get the AWB passed in Congress was perceived by many then to be similar to the effort associated with the passage of the ACA more recently. Two months after the passage of the AWB, the Republican Revolution did much to reduce Democratic power in Congress.
There is likely a lesson here for Democrats when it comes to proposing gun control. The AWB might not have been the only factor in their loss in 1994, at both the national and State levels; but my guess is that few Democrats will completely discount its impact.
In addition, I suspect that there is a lesson here for Republicans as well. This may explain, in spite of the different majorities in both houses of Congress, why both are evaluated these days as "gun control safe".
Consequently, if, in your request, there is an implication that legislative action on gun control might proceed, or not proceed, from the high ideals associated with Libertarianism, or Second Amendment considerations, then I chuckle. Instead, my guess is that the absence of such legislation stems from the absolute fear associated with climbing down from the railway platform in order to stand on the tracks while touching the third rail.
==========
Rated for the repetition of the great idea that criminals should not achieve notoriety
==========
There is another comment to your post within me which I will add in a few moments.
One might be tempted to trot out the tired argument that once universal registration is required, then a tyrannical government has the means by which to locate almost all weapons and/or their owners. Couple this with the probability that criminals, almost by definition, won’t register their weapons; and you may have to admit that the devil resides in the details of your proposed solution.
Perhaps a more convincing argument is found in gun control as implemented in Mexico. The Mexican Constitution actually guarantees its citizens a right to keep and bear arms.
Yet, to my best information and belief, there is only one retail gun store in this country. It’s in Mexico City. It’s owned by the government. It’s run by the army.
No Mexican is allowed to own more than 10 weapons. Each must be registered. One weapon may be owned for self- or home-protection. The other nine may be owned for target shooting or hunting purposes, provided one produces evidence that the potential owner belongs to the correct, government-registered, clubs.
Weapons used, or tested, by the various levels of Mexican governments may not be sold to, or owned by, citizens. In general, no weapons larger than 38-caliber, or 12-guage, are allowed. Certainly no automatic weapons are allowed. Many semi-automatic weapons are relegated to ownership only under extremely rare collector permits whose acquisition, apparently, is dependent upon who one knows in government
Weapons permits are issued for short terms, often for just one year. Their renewals are subject to audits. Non-renewed permits render the possession, transportation, ownership, and use of the associated weapon illegal.
In the context of this comprehensive, highly restrictive, set of gun control laws, Mexico is awash in illegal weapons. Their use often overrides the will of government in some areas. In other instances, their use corrupts government to the will of criminals. Mass murder is a common occurrence associated with armed warfare between drug cartels in Mexico.
Hence, reasoning that gun control laws reduce violence seems like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union argument that the 18th Amendment was the solution to the vices and societal degradation associated with the consumption of alcohol. Prohibition flooded some parts of America with alcohol and greatly increased the level, and ubiquity, of criminal activity. The repeal of Prohibition then should be taken as a history lesson and applied to unthinking gun control now.
I am convinced that there is a solution to most violent gun use in America. However, it doesn’t lie in gun control laws or regulation. Unfortunately, we will never eliminate the mentally ill among us; but the harm of the ongoing shooting gallery in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles can probably be mitigated.