I have done a post, in our Politics channel rather than here in Notes, on today’s murders in San Bernardino, a place I know well. The post is here. I will be off line until sometime tomorrow but will do my best to collect follow-up discussion in this space, as Chris Bodenner will as well, via firstname.lastname@example.org.
One reader wants to start a discussion on the question:
School shootings are absolutely horrific. They’re like plane crashes; very unlikely to affect you, but terrible and frightening if they do. We don’t want to alter our entire society to respond to a sensational but ultimately quite rare event. If you want to arm teachers, then you might as well mandate that every child in a car wear a full Formula One racing suit and helmet. A child is far more likely to die in a car crash than in a school shooting.
That said, I’d like to hear about other possible remedies and defenses.
I believe that students should be trained and drilled on how to respond to a mass shooter. Look at how Israeli civilians respond to an armed terrorist. Much of their action is due to military training, but there's no reason why our kids are wholly unprepared for this kind of thing. Could be useful as an adult, too.
Instead of arming every teacher, how about entrusting one teacher or the principal with that responsibility? Like an Air Marshall.
Moreover, there must be “lockdown” technology that can be easily implemented. An easy and automatic alarm that triggers when a gunshot is heard. Reinforced classroom doors. Designated shelters. Maybe some kind of teargas that could incapacitate everyone in a room, including the gunman.
Lara N. Dotson-Renta touched on some of those points in her piece for us today on teachers facing the possibility of a shooting:
A teacher in the United States is now likely to […] dutifully practice ever more realistic lockdowns, a safety measure that ultimately feels as though it’s placing shootings on par with fires, earthquakes, and natural disasters. At the elementary-school level, my daughter’s teachers devise quiet lockdown games and crouch-down-under-the-desk dances for their little first-graders, while a group of teachers in Iowa has even devised and marketed a locking mechanism that allows doors to be closed from the inside.
If you have any strong views on the best way for educators to protect themselves and their students, drop me an email and I’ll post. Meanwhile, this list of “unsuccessful attacks related to schools” is interesting to skim through. For example:
De Anza College student Al DeGuzman planned a Columbine style school shooting at the school. An employee at a Longs Drugs store developed pictures of DeGuzman posing with his guns and homemade bombs. She and a coworker called police. DeGuzman was arrested when he returned for his photos.
A remarkable number of those averted attacks—at least seven out of 24—involved would-be killers directly inspired by Columbine. I also looked around for examples of educators who stopped gunmen with their own guns, along the lines of the Air Marshall analogy mentioned by our reader. I found this AP story from 1997:
Luke Woodham [is] the 16-year-old who is charged with slashing his mother to death with a butcher knife and then opening fire on his classmates with a rifle. He is accused of killing Lydia Dew, 17, and his former girlfriend, Christina Menefee, and wounding seven other students, leaving them bleeding on the polished floor of the school cafeteria. [...]
Fearing Woodham would come for him next, [principal Roy] Balentine ran to his office to call the police. As he dialed, more shots rang out. More students fell.
Minutes later, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick chased Woodham down outside the school, held him at bay with a .45-caliber automatic pistol he kept in his truck in the school parking lot. He forced Woodham to the ground and put his foot on the youth’s neck. “I think he’s a coward,” Myrick said. “I had my weapon pointed at his face, and he didn’t want to die.”
Though I guess it’s questionable whether Woodham had already done all his damage before Myrick pinned him down. If you know of any better examples, please let me know.
A reader, Michael Jalovecky, takes the thread on yet another tangent—and a good one:
I found myself in agreement with one reader’s comment that “the Constitution guarantees a right [that pro-life and gun-control activists] don’t like, so they make it as difficult as possible to exercise that right.” Well put. To that I would stretch the comparison to a larger liberal vs. conservative paradigm and highlight that both camps hypocritically apply interpretative theories of the Constitution that suit they’re preferred policy outcomes.
Pro-lifers, which generally are politically conservative, rail against Roe v. Wade as the preeminent example of judicial activism that invented the constitutional right to abortion out of thin air, and that the ruling had no basis in any “original” understanding or reading of the Constitution. Yet, in D.C. v. Heller, conservatives applauded when the Court, through naked judicial activism, overturned 200-plus years of precedent and history and decided for the first time in history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual rather than a collective right to firearm possession.
Similarly, gun-control activists, which are generally liberal, abhor “originalism” as an interpretive theory for obvious reasons. They embrace Roe v. Wade and its view of the Constitution as a “living document” and applaud judicial efforts to read the Constitution in broader, more modern terms to promote greater conceptions of justice, equality and personal liberty. Yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, suddenly they’re all Originalists, arguing that it was only intended to protect a collective right to bear arms for purposes of a Militia; and thus the Heller decision was decided incorrectly (in their opinion).
Well, you can’t have it both ways! Gun-control activists (i.e. liberals) cannot be Originalists only when it suits their preferred policy outcome. But perhaps that is to be expected if, as Jim Elliott put it: “gun control advocates and pro-life advocates work upon first principles.” Apparently, there’s no harm in being a hypocrite if it’s in defense of your principles.
Update from Jim Elliott:
I have to take slight issue with your reader who asserted that the Supreme Court, in Heller v. D.C., invented “from whole cloth” an individual right to bear arms. A right to individual self-defense was held in common with the idea of a well-regulated militia—you could not have the latter without the former—and was incorporated into the state constitutions of a number of the original 13 colonies.
In 1776, Pennsylvania stated explicitly in Article XIII of its constitution “that people have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves and the state.” This language is similar to that of Virginia, also from 1776. A further Pennsylvania provision gave an obligation to Pennsylvanians to keep and bear arms, or provide a fee if they refused due to conscience. Vermont also incorporated similar language. North Carolina and Massachusetts (the first in the Americas) were explicit in the obligation to keep and bear arms as well, linking it directly to the defense of the commons, because at the time there was no distinction between the two.
As early as 1650, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware required all men 16 and over to keep and bear arms. Rhode Island did not require you to own a gun, unless you wanted to attend a public meeting or travel more than two miles, in which case you had to appear with one. South Carolina, while not specific that “armes” meant guns, did require men to be able to appear with them, and in 1743 required every man to carry a gun when attending church. Georgia’s law is confusing but clearly levies fines for failing to appear at the militia’s muster without your own firearm and equipment. From the time of its transfer from the Dutch, New York required all men from 16 to 60 to be keep arms. In Maryland, you could not own land unless you could prove you were armed. Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina required masters to give firearms, shot, and gunpowder to indentured servants upon the completion of their service.
Indeed, since the beginning of colonization, individuals armed for the defense of the commons was a hallmark of regulation, just as much as the secure storage of them was also regulated. I mean, let’s remember why the British were coming to Lexington and Concord: To seize arms after a spontaneous militia in Massachusetts had prevented John Gage from imposing his will in Boston. While the original states all expressly tied the keeping of arms to an obligation to defend the commons, and there were laws regarding their use (i.e. Pennsylvania actually had a separate article regarding hunting, and Boston had laws regarding careless discharges of firearms), none inhibited the personal possession of arms or their use in self-defense.
There is also the little matter of the fact that, were your reader correct, the Second Amendment would become the only amendment within the Bill of Rights where “the people” did not have both a collective and individual application. There is no “collective” right to free political speech or religious expression without protection of the individual’s, nor security in one’s own papers and person in some collective sense. It would be sophistry to claim that only in the case of the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms solely based in a need for common defense.
The Supreme Court has made many rulings directly and indirectly affecting the right to bear arms. In Guorko v. U.S., the court struck down jury instructions that told the jurors to consider deliberately arming oneself as indication of premeditation to kill, so long as the individual had armed themselves for the purposes of self-defense. This was re-affirmed by the same court in Thompson v. U.S. Where Heller arguably deviates is from precedence from the Supreme Court (Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas, U.S. v. Miller) that affirmed the ability of states to regulate the carry of firearms.
To this conversation I would also offer the corollary: Pro-Life Activists are very much like Gun Control Activists. As Jim Elliott correctly notes, with both issues you have camps opposed on first principles. In both cases you have camps that are unable to accomplish outright bans, due to a combination of constitutional barriers and public opposition.
Most regulations on abortion are arbitrary, simply meant to make the process as onerous as possible. Requiring abortion clinics to have admitting privileges is not meant to enhance patient safety. Mandatory ultrasounds, including those of the highly invasive trans-vaginal sort, are not intended to provide the doctor or the patient with important medical information. Since bans are presently not feasible, anti-abortion activists will take any restrictions they can get.
Much is the same with most gun control proposals. Proposals to ban so-called “assault weapons” are perhaps the best example of this. It is essentially the “partial birth abortion” of the gun control world.
They rely predominantly on public confusion and disgust to pass, even though they make no practical difference. But any ban, no matter how pointless or incremental, is welcomed.
Stuck in the middle all of this is the American public. People desperately want to believe that there is a way to preserve a broad 2nd Amendment right to gun ownership, while keeping the guns away from the bad people. The two goals are almost certainly mutually exclusive, so what we end up with is a bunch of meaningless tinkering around the edges.
By “no practical difference,” our reader likely means that the percentage of homicides from assault weapons is very small—less than 3 percent—similar to the percentage of abortions that are “partial birth”—about 0.02 percent. (Those percentages translate to 322 deaths in 2012 from any kind of rifle, and about 2,600 deaths in 2006 from “partial birth abortion.”) Here’s Lois Beckett on the “assault weapon myth”:
In a poll [in December 2014], 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban. But in the 10 years since the previous [assault weapons] ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference. It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.
Another reader, like the one above, illustrates “How Pro-Life Activists Are Like Gun Control Activists”:
1. They seem to think degrading their opponents help their cause.
When a Pro-Life activist refers to a scared, young woman seeking an abortion as a “whore,” “slut,” or “baby-killer,” most people, even those who may hold a more moderate Pro-Life views, will be repulsed. Said scared young woman is unlikely to be deterred; she will just become resentful towards those who verbally abused her, and this will probably drive her to resist their cause even more than she would have otherwise.
Gun Control activists do the same thing. “Ammosexual.” “Arsenalists and ‘tactical’ fetishists.” “Domestic Terrorist.” While most people would agree these terms are not nearly as harsh as the ones above, it is pretty clear that anyone who uses these terms hates the people who own firearms (or at least the “wrong” kind of firearms), and takes a certain amount of glee in denigrating them. This name-calling will make someone who values their right to own a firearm wary of anything a Gun Control advocate proposes, regardless of how reasonable it may be. In both cases, the insult says more about the one issuing it than the one receiving it.
2. The Constitution guarantees a right they don’t like, so they make it as difficult as possible to exercise that right.
Roe v. Wade established the right to an abortion. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago confirmed the 2nd Amendment applied on an individual basis. Overturning either would require a Constitutional amendment that will not pass in the foreseeable future, so the tactic is to make exercising these rights as difficult as possible. From overly complicated requirements to get an abortion, to “may issue” concealed carry laws that require political connections to get a concealed carry license, both sides pass laws that do whatever they can to infringe upon rights they don’t agree with.
3. They sound like idiots to their opponents
As someone who leans conservative, I cringe a little bit whenever a geriatric Republican man starts talking about abortion, or women’s health in general. I either laugh or shake my head in disbelief whenever a Gun Control activist starts talking. From little things like misusing “bullets” and “clips” (when they really mean “cartridges” and “magazines”), to the now classic “the shoulder thing that goes up [see the embedded video above],” it’s hard to take someone seriously who clearly knows nothing about what they’re talking about.
4. Getting what they want will make the problem worse
If Pro-Life activists get what they want, women will go back to coat-hangers in back alleys. If Gun Control activists get what they want (and most of the more prominent activists want a complete ban, even if they do everything they can not to say it), the only people who will be disarmed are the ones you didn’t have to worry about in the first place. Both will create unfavorable situations.
Jim Elliott responds to the criticisms from readers in these updates:
First, while all analogies are inherently flawed—there’s no one-to-one equivalence, ever—I think in this case, the analogy is somewhat effective, because it illustrates the practical problem of talking pragmatic policy trying to bridge the divide between camps opposed on first principles. I understand—though don’t agree with—many gun rights advocates’ concerns regarding gun control, because ultimately the “middle ground” solutions your reader says “most” people are in favor of—background checks, cooling off periods, safety training, and no assault rifles—are just tinkering around the edges.
Safety training isn’t something I have any problem with—even California’s test for a permit to buy a handgun is so simple you basically can’t be trusted with the pencil you use to fill it out if you can’t pass. Many states do have more rigorous safety courses for people applying for carry permits, as well they should.
This brings us to the ever-ubiquitous “assault rifle” argument, which was essentially given to the United States by some divine and perverse creature to make sure no one agrees on anything, ever. Definitions of assault rifles are primarily cosmetic; a semi-automatic is a semi-automatic at its basest function whether it is America’s most popular rifle—the .22 caliber Ruger 10/22—or the wet dream of some mil-spec fetishist’s custom AR-15: Detachable magazine, self-loading and cocking, pull the trigger and it (theoretically) works. Rifles, as a whole, historically make up about 2.5 percent of the firearms used in homicides.
So, again ... tinkering.
Gun rights advocates know these figures. They know that if you want to make a substantial, serious impact on homicide and suicide in this country, you need to get rid of handguns. They’re the most-commonly purchased, most-commonly stolen, most-commonly used to harm oneself or another. Full stop.
A gun control advocate who doesn’t want to stop the sale and possession of handguns in their entirety is either fooling themselves or someone who doesn't really care beyond the conversation they’re in at that moment. Now, I don’t particularly care for slippery-slope arguments, and I think the NRA is so afraid of this one they prevent extraordinarily useful tinkering—because saving lives, even around the edges, is a worthy goal. But the logic is inescapable if you’ve bothered to study the issue.
Bringing me to your second reader. If, indeed, she has enough experience to “like and respect” me, then she has been here long enough to know I already know and agree with their point. Medical progress has gifted women with the ability to choose whether or not they will bear the life-long consequences that come to their body from bearing a child, and not acknowledging those consequences is so cavalier it should render one ineligible to discuss the topic.
Let me be clear: While health is a crucial concern in choosing abortion, this does not diminish the fact that this very liberty—to choose not to bear the consequences of pregnancy, to set the course of one's own life—is what is at stake. It’s not liberty “to own a gun” that is at stake, any more than it is just a woman’s choice to be a parent or not that is at stake: It is the liberty to defend the sanctity of one’s own body and its course.
A woman is choosing the course of her life over the potential life inside them. And that’s fine. If I’m going to pick my belief in the human right to the tools of self-defense over potentially-ended lives, I have precisely zero truck to be able to criticize a woman over that choice, and any gun rights advocate who claims otherwise is just engaging in the time-honored human tradition of refusing to apply their own logic to a situation they don't want to because they know it makes them wrong. And vice versa.
Jim Elliott, a reader whose writing on guns Ta-Nehisi featured a few years ago under a pseudonym, rejoins the debate under his real name:
Your reader's comparison of gun rights activists to pro-choice activists made immediate sense to me, as a gun rights liberal. Both gun control advocates and pro-life advocates primarily work upon first principles. They make a moral argument, not a pragmatic one.
As perhaps well they should. Pro-choice advocates, after all, weigh the potential for life against the liberty of a life already existing and choose the latter, whereas gun rights advocates weigh the potential for death against the liberty of a life already existing, and choose the latter.
When you’re essentially arguing against a moral axiom such as life, you’ve just picked the losing team. Just as a pro-choice advocate can’t really argue with the picture of an aborted fetus, neither can a gun rights advocate argue against the picture of a weeping parent. Nor should they; as Ben Carson and Jeb Bush just learned, it’s basically impossible to not be an ass if you even try.
The number of nonfatal firearm-related crimes has dropped from a high of 1,287,190 in 1994 to a bottoming out of 331,618 in 2008. And even though that number has since increased, it remains at around a third of its peak. In 1994, the firearm crime rate was 7.4; in 2011, it was 1.8. And, interestingly, firearm use in non-fatal violent crime remains consistent with its historical range of between 5-8 percent of overall non-fatal violent crime.
But those facts won’t matter.
I could point out that murder and non-negligent manslaughter are down from a 1994 peak of 23,326 to 14,196 in 2013, according to the FBI. I could point out that, also according to the FBI, 8,454 of those deaths in 2013 were caused by firearms—just under 60 percent of them—and that this remains consistent with the historical average of the percentage of murders that are done with firearms.
I could point out that your chance of being criminally killed by a firearm is 0.000267 percent. I could point out that accidental firearm deaths account for 0.6 percent of all accidental deaths in the U.S., and that such deaths are down from a peak of over 2,000 in 1981 to fewer than 600 in 2013.
But that won’t matter.
It won’t matter because I’m basically being an ass: Behind every one of those data points is the story of a life lost. There’s a mother or father who’s not coming home, a son or daughter who won’t be tucked in tonight. How do you argue with the moral equivalent of Dick Cheney’s One-Percent Doctrine couched in the image of a woman screaming in the parking lot of an elementary school [in Newtown, Connecticut, in the photo seen above]? You don’t. Unless you’re a complete ass.
Gun rights activists have to realize this. We don’t have a good answer. We may not even have a right one. We can either avoid this discussion by flinging first principles at one another like good fundamentalists, or we can recognize that the gun control folks aren’t wrong. Unlike with abortion, we can’t fall back on different axiomatic definitions of what a zygote is. Gun control advocates are responding to the loss of what are indisputably innocent lives. We have to respect those lives by recognizing that.
Update from a reader:
But here’s the crucial difference: Most—almost all—anti-abortion activists are very open about wanting to make all abortion illegal. They’re very vocal about how abortion is murder in their eyes, and thus not a negotiable practice.
But most gun-control supporters fall in the middle of the bell curve, just wanting background checks, a cooling off period, maybe some basic training in gun safety, and no assault rifles. And I don’t think they’re being cagy about it. That’s really all most of them want.
So the unwillingness of the pro-life crowd to negotiate makes sense, while the intransigence of the NRA is something else.
Jim Elliott’s comparison of pro-choice activists with gun-rights activists is deeply flawed. He writes:
Pro-choice advocates [...] weigh the potential for life against the liberty of a life already existing and choose the latter, whereas gun rights advocates weigh the potential for death against the liberty of a life already existing, and choose the latter. When you’re essentially arguing against a moral axiom such as life, you’ve just picked the losing team.
Let me be blunt: It is wrong to suggest a woman’s liberty is the only thing at risk when she is denied the right to have an abortion, given that many women need an abortion to save their own lives. It almost pisses me off that I have to point this out to Jim, whom I like and respect, but it’s disheartening so many men seem to skip over the whole thing about our bodies being part of their risk-analysis equation. A woman’s liberty to control what happens to her own body, and the lifelong consequences of denying her that liberty, are profoundly different than those involved with a person’s liberty to own a gun (and I think even pro-life advocates would agree with me on this point). While there may be some shared concerns about preserving life, these issues are much too complex to be analogized.
Fallows promotes on Twitter an extensive, ongoing feature from The Guardian illustrating mass shootings across the U.S.:
The whole, depressingly long graphic is here. The current tally is “994 mass shootings in 1,004 days.” Those six red figures in the lower-right corner probably caught your eye, too. Details:
Scott and Nicole Westerhuis, along with their four children, third-grader Kailey, fifth-grader Jaeci, eighth-grader Connor, and sophomore Michael were believed to have died in a fire on Sept. 17 at their home at 36705 379th Street, 3 miles south of Platte.
On Monday, the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office released the family's preliminary autopsy reports, which indicate that cause and manner of death for Nicole, Kailey, Jaeci, Connor and Michael Westerhuis were homicide by shotgun wounds. The attorney general’s office released information late on Monday that says the cause of death for Scott Westerhuis is suspected suicide based on the current investigation findings.
They both oppose any incremental regulations to abortion and guns, respectively, believing those incremental steps are a means to banning. At least that’s what the following reader suggests, quoting an earlier reader:
But the interesting point is that I don’t think any of the owners of these collections would take umbrage at being called the appropriate type of nut.* They’d just smile, say they love their hobby, and think wistfully about the next addition to their collection. So why do gun owners react so differently? Is it because they’re defensive about the reactions of others to their “hobby”? Because the central organizing theme of their collection is lethality?
Being defensive about other’s reaction to an arsenal is a lot different than being defensive about a collection of shoes. If you embarrass your friend about his computer collection, or his shoe collection, he only has to deal with embarrassment. In fact, he has no reason to suspect you noticing the number of shoes or computers he has at all, since nobody has ever mentioned or floated a ban on him owning multiple numbers of shoes or computers or tools or cars.
In this case, though, you have voices calling for a ban on arsenals, and defining arsenals as a number of guns generally lower than ten.
In this case, the guy isn’t oversensitive because you are implying he’s overcompensating (well, sometimes maybe) but because you are implying that other men with guns should come and tell him it would be a very good idea for him to not have those anymore, or face jail time. That’s being floated about.
And then when he gets down to thinking about it, he realizes that a lot of shootings happen with numbers of guns as small as one, and never much larger than three. So he then gets to thinking: Maybe when it comes time to ban arsenals, someone will say, “Well, what we really meant was multiple guns, because just two or three is all it takes to multiply the risk from a single shooter.”
When pro-life people come in and try to incrementally restrict access to abortions in arbitrary ways, do you pretend what they’re doing isn’t going for a full and total ban, eventually? Nobody seriously does, because it’s clear what they’re doing is trying to restrict access in any way they can, any opportunity they get, because they are working towards the endgame of banning abortions. It’s transparent.
I don’t own guns, and I don’t enjoy shooting. That being said, what you are asking these people to do is either accept arbitrary regulation that doesn’t do anything (less than ten guns is still plenty to do a mass shooting with) or ignore the fact that what the people who mention “arsenals” and “assault rifles” without defining those terms really want as an endgame is no guns, at all, for anyone.
In an item after the Oregon shootings, I quoted a reader from Florida saying that if you owned more than 10 guns yourself, you might be considered to have an “arsenal.” And just now on TV I heard the British father of the Oregon murderer asking why anyone, including his son, would want or need so many guns.
Yesterday I quoted a reader who said, on the contrary, ten or more guns could be a perfectly reasonable collection for perfectly non-threatening citizens to have.
On the “how much is enough” point, responses from two readers. First, on the similarities and differences between “gun nuts” and other types of nuts, a reader argues that there really is something different in how gun owners relate with the rest of us.
Your correspondent argues that you can own ten guns without being a "gun nut", then proceeds to list an inventory that he feels makes his case.
Let's try to approach on different collections. Suppose I owned ten motorcycles of different types. Perhaps a cafe racer, an enduro bike, a big touring bike, and so on. Would that make me a motorcycle nut? Probably. You're a runner (I think). Maybe you own ten or more pairs of running shoes. [JF note: Over the years, yes. And let’s not get into old computers, or types of beer.] I'm sure you can come up with a better list than I can, but I can imagine shoes for street running, dirt running, trail running, training, racing, and so on.
How about woodworkers? Some may have a dozen different types of saw, even more different types of planes. Are they tool nuts? Uh-huh.
If you had a couple of PCs, a few laptops, some tablets, more than one cellphone, a Raspberry Pi, a bunch of Arduinos lying around the house would you be an uber-geek, alternately known as a computer nut? Sure. Depending on budget, you could make a list like this for cars, boats, airplanes - almost anything.
But the interesting point is that I don't think any of the owners of these collections would take umbrage at being called the appropriate type of nut.* They'd just smile, say they love their hobby, and think wistfully about the next addition to their collection. So why do gun owners react so differently? Is it because they're defensive about the reactions of others to their "hobby"? Because the central organizing theme of their collection is lethality?
NB: In your writer's example, the common theme is NOT hunting, which might be an alternative explanation of owning a wide variety of firearms. The common theme is the guns themselves.
*in fact, not only do they not take umbrage, but many of these collector types have their own names (and reality TV shows). The only objection to being called a car nut is that gearhead is the appropriate term.
Now, from the original “reader in Florida” who originally asserted that if you had 10 or more guns, you were moving into “arsenalist” territory:
That guy's defensive reaction to the "arsenalist" label is exactly what I'm after.
Trying to respect and reason with mass collectors within the 35 percent of gun-owning households has gotten us absolutely nowhere. Nowhere. That's because arsenalists and "tactical" fetishists do not respect the rest of us. And the gun hustler industry thrives on this disrespect. This isn't about defense; it's about dominance. And people like your reader have done absolutely nothing to clean up the culture they perpetuate.
I grew up in a house with 5 hunting rifles and some sort semi-automatic weapon (a mini 14, I believe) mounted on the wall above my dad's chair. [JF note: This is the time to point out that I got the old Marksmanship merit badge as a Boy Scout, now called something else, and that my father was part of the local auxiliary-police force and carried a pistol with him when he went on nighttime house calls as a local doctor.]
We had a handgun stored somewhere. Not quite an arsenal, but a collection. Mostly the legacy of childhood hunting that lost its charm for my dad after Vietnam. The book I wrote revolves largely around heroic, armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a family legacy. Modern American gun pimp culture dishonors everyone who has ever used a weapon for self-defense.
I'm sorry, if you collect "tactical" weapons for the fun of it, you're an asshole. You're a bully and a thug. You're sending a clear message to fellow countrymen: I'm going to dominate you. Modern American gun culture rests entirely upon implicit intimidation and the economic benefits of it.
And I love the guy's final line: "Why can't we get rid of guns?", not "What is wrong with us?"
Ah yes, the all inclusive "we," the coverer of all sins. There's no "we." He doesn't get to include "me" in his whiny, handwringing pathology of of anti-gun-safety.
Your reader and I have very similar household gun experiences. But faced with the debauchery and hedonism of modern American gun culture, we've made very different political and moral choices. His culture, not mine, puts "tactical" weapons in lunatics hands. If he's going to defend that culture, he should fucking own it and not cower behind "we."
I am anti-prohibitionist. It's my core political philosophy, based on my reading of history and economics and human behavior. I didn't say a damn word about "get rid of guns". That's his language. In fact, I'm not even thinking about laws. I'm thinking about culture. He doesn't like that I use "arsenalist," think it doesn't apply to him, then he should do something about the damn arsenalists in his own culture. Stigmatize them.
Arsenalists have power. I recognize that power. But it does not entitle them to my respect. And if it stings a little to have arsenalist hung on him, good. That is what I intend. Like I said before, stigmatizing the legal thuggery of American gun culture is a long-term project. It is a culture war. It just is. It's been waged against the rest of us for a long time. I'm done pretending that your reader isn't part of it.
In a similar vein, one short email from another reader:
I think we need a simple t-shirt slogan: "The NRA is immoral."
The fact that everyone will understand the message is all that really needs to be said.
Are we doomed to the ritual of “our thoughts and prayers go to the families” after whatever is the latest mass-shooting massacre, and to the knowledge that only in the United States will this keep happening week after week after week? That’s the theme of the posts you see collected in this thread. Now, further reader response.
The answer is the market. One reader says:
Two points. First, the reason for the certainty [of more shootings] is our bizarre, obsolete 2nd amendment. The only other nations with a constitutional guarantee are Mexico and Haiti. The rest of the world understands that they want their communities to choose the regulations they can apply to the ownership, storage and use of deadly weapons. But in the US, one zealot—ONE—can go to court, and on the basis of the 2nd amendment overrule the entire community’s decision. Now, that constitutional guarantee isn't going anywhere, but as long as it is in place, there’s not stopping the horrors from recurring.
Second, the only path to any kind of gun control in the US is market-based. The constitution guarantees you the right to own guns, but it doesn’t guarantee that you'll be able to afford them. Liability insurance, transfer fees, import quotas—we should concentrate on everything that can be done non-legislatively to drive up the cost and scarcity of handguns. It’s all we've got...
By the typical definition of terrorism (non-government violence advancing a political agenda via intimidation) many of the mass shootings in America are terrorism. Because of racism and probably other reasons, Americans resist calling it terrorism when the perpetrator is white or his political goals seem silly, vague or arcane.
The line between mass shootings and terrorism in America is often gray and we are solely interested in curtailing terrorism when foreigners (or persons of color) perpetrate it.
Make it a pro-life campaign. From a reader in California:
I suggest the following:
1. Those of us who recognize the insanity and toll of our benighted gun policies need to change the paradigm. We need to make this a pro-life issue. We need to put the issue in the conservative camp, where gun control goes to die, by forcing them to defend letting so many Americans die in their terms. Guns and pro-life should be entwined and repeated ceaselessly.
2. We need to lobby the media (local, state and national) to include the daily death toll, preferably in photos, every day. Every newspaper should run a large boldfaced number summarizing the death toll locally and nationally, daily. Every web site needs a counter in the corner. Every TV news broadcast, ditto. We need to put signs up with victim photos of victims like we do for victims of car accidents along roads. There needs to be no escape from the consequences of our policies.
3. We need to highlight suicide more. Victims of gun suicides tend to be white guys, not inner city gangbangers. The public doesn’t realize how many gun deaths are from suicide.
4. We have to address the irrational fear of so many gun owners that background checks leads to registration which leads to confiscation. We need to confront those on the right who stoke the irrational fear of black helicopters and government confiscation as people with blood on their hands.
Why owning 10+ guns doesn’t make you a gun nut. From another reader, in a message related to David’s post from yesterday:
The reader from Florida who referred to those who own 10+ guns as “arsenalists” illustrates one reason why those Americans who do own guns are afraid of gun control legislation. To this reader, it appears, a gun in a gun is a gun, and anybody with 10 or more guns is an arsenalist (with evil intent, or perhaps mentally deranged).
Let’s look at one way a person might have ten guns:
1. A 12-gauge pump shotgun for duck hunting
2. A 20-gauge over/under shotgun for upland bird hunting
3. A single-barrel 12-gauge specialized for trap shooting
4. A bolt-action .270 rifle for deer hunting
5. A bolt-action (insert larger/more powerful rifle cartridge here) rifle for long-range target shooting or big-game hunting
6. An M1 Garand or AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle for “high-powered rifle” competition—which is a highly structured/organized competition at the national level; see this.
7. A .22LR rifle for cheap target practice
8. A .22LR semi-automatic pistol for cheap pistol target practice
9. A break-barrel single shot pistol for competitive silhouette shooting
10. Any kind of family heirloom hand-me-down gun that you want to keep for sentimental reasons but don’t want to shoot much for wear-and-tear reasons.
Note that that list does not include a single gun for the purpose of home defense or concealed carry; i.e., not a single gun owned with the express intent of possibly being shot at a person, but those could also be different and specialized.
I personally don’t own such a collection (I don't have time/money to pursue all of these sports) but my grandfather did. It really bothers me to think that there are people out there who want to set an arbitrary limit on the number of guns a person could/should own because they are ignorant of the different types of competitive/recreational shooting that exist. [JF note: In the whole range of “arbitrary limits” that modern life imposes on us, a 10-gun ceiling does not strike me as particularly onerous. But I understand that it’s a big country with lots of different lifestyles and tastes, and that collections like this grandparent’s can seem reasonable for the right people in the right circumstances.]
The final comment cited your blog post sums up my thoughts on the subject: this recent American phenomenon of mass shootings every month does not seem correlated with the number of guns in existence, but the question everybody seems to ask after a mass shooting is “Why can’t we get rid of guns?,” not “What is wrong with us?”
The emptiness of “our prayers are with the families.” From another reader in California:
I can’t believe most gun owners are happy with this. That it doesn't make them sick and want to do something. Even the gun “nuts” that I’ve known would want to do something. I put it in quotes to differentiate them from the militia/survivalist types who are way past the gun hobbyist.
The NRA has succeeded in making us think we can’t do anything. They’ve succeeded in making us believe that because we can’t be perfect, why even try to be good.
It’s just so sad. The repeated expression of “our thoughts and prayers are with the families” is analogous to mindlessly calling every service person a hero. It’s more for the speaker than the recipient.
I’ve received a flood of mail in response to the Oregon shooting and this item on whether the United States is doomed to be the only developed nation that tolerates mass-fatality shootings as routine.
The message quoted below is related to the evocative photo above, showing the moment in 1967 when armed Black Panthers marched into the California state capitol building in Sacramento. (This moment is also part of a great new documentary on the Black Panthers, which its director Stanley Nelson discussed with our editor James Bennet at the Washington Ideas Forum this week.) This reader imagines what it would be like if today’s Muslims applied a similar approach:
One sentence in your article reminded me of an idea a friend and I have had for a couple of years to combat the NRA. "[The President] highlighting the disproportion between America’s sky-is-falling sensitivity to the slightest potential risk that could be defined as 'terrorism' versus its blasé acceptance of unending home-grown killings." What if gun control advocates combined the two and exploited that terrorism sensitivity?
One evening, my friend, who happens to be of Indian and Sri Lankan descent, noted the potential hypocrisy of many Second Amendment supporters in that all hell would likely break loose if he walked the streets with an AR-15.
Over drinks, we imagined a video project whereby Muslim Americans legally purchase and carry firearms within the bounds of existing laws. However, maybe in the introduction they are wearing hijabs, maybe they are speaking Arabic, maybe they are praying to Mecca. And then with the help of body cameras, you can watch them purchase firearms at a gun show without a background check and maybe watch them buy 5 guns in a month. Pursuant to proper permit, you can watch them carry, either concealed or openly, such firearm(s) to their mosque, to the park or to the grocery store. Lastly, you can watch a group of Muslims Americans fire off hundreds of rounds a minute legally at a gun range.
Additional videos could feature other minority groups which many 2nd Amendment supporters might consider members of the scary "other". A 6'8'' African American male taking an assault rifle to a Black Panther meeting! A bandana and tattooed clad Mexican American with a gun in his low rider. The point being to highlight the deficiencies in the existing system with Americans that NRA members might fear, or at least not be sympathetic to. You can also explain how real undesirables, existing mass murderers or individuals with undocumented mental illness, exploited the system and/or stockpiled firearms and ammo.
If the videos got big enough, it would be interesting to see the NRA's response as supporting everyone's right to easy access to guns may alienate some of their members and supporters.
Both my friend and I are attorneys with young families so while we would actually like to undertake this labor intensive endeavor, there will likely never be the time.
I am a registered New York Republican. My father was in law enforcement for 40+ years and I grew up in a home with firearms, which were properly protected. I believe in the 2nd Amendment but obviously agree with your writings that there are reasonable restrictions that could and should be put in place to reduce the risk of mass shootings. A part of my humanity died on December 14, 2012 as a result of the shooting itself but also the failure to take any steps to prevent further bloodshed. I know it is underhanded to play off the biases of people but if it serves the greater good and results in less death and tragedy, I could look myself in the mirror.
Three years ago, after the then-latest horrific mass shooting (the one in Aurora, Colorado), I did a short, angry Atlantic item called “The Certainty of More Shootings.” It ended this way:
There will be more of these; we absolutely know it; we also know that we will not change the circumstances that allow such episodes to recur. I am an optimist about most things, but not about this. Everyone around the world understands this reality too. It is the kind of thing that makes them consider America dangerous, and mad.
After that came: the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, with six people killed; the shooting in a business office in Minneapolis, with six people killed; the shooting in a hair salon in Wisconsin, with three people killed; the Sandy Hook / Newtown elementary school massacre, with 27 children and teachers shot to death; the shooting at Santa Monica College in California, with five people killed; the shootings at the Washington Navy Yard, with 13 people killed; the shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas, with three people killed (which was different from the earlier Ft. Hood shooting, with 13 people killed); the shooting at UC Santa Barbara, with 7 people killed; the shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, with nine people killed; the on-air shooting of two TV reporters in Virginia; yesterday’s shooting outside Roseburg, Oregon, with ten people killed; and of course the countless other gun-death episodes.
I agreed with every word, and with every point of furious emphasis, in President Obama’s powerful statement last night after the latest massacre, in Oregon: His anger at the ritual of saying “our thoughts and prayers are with the families” but doing nothing to prevent further such killings. His stress on America’s status as the only “advanced” society in which mass shootings are routine. His highlighting the disproportion between America’s sky-is-falling sensitivity to the slightest potential risk that could be defined as “terrorism” versus its blasé acceptance of unending home-grown killings. His clear, cold reminder that it is an ongoing political decision by America collectively not to do anything to prevent these killings.
For now, all I can add is views from readers. From one in Los Angeles:
The astonishing chart in the Washington Post’s Wonkblog today, showing that the likelihood of dying in a car crash is severely negatively correlated with education, makes me wonder if the same is true for dying in gun violence. I bet it is.
And I bet that's a major reason there is no serious public policy attempt to stop gun violence. If dying of gun violence were positively correlated with country club membership or levels of investment income, I bet there would be dramatic policy changes tomorrow. But when the victims are poorer, or younger, or less white - those with real power simply do not care. It's heartbreaking and wrong
In real-time chronicling mode, I am putting up this note before completing a search for graphs or studies on this point. I am sure that the reader’s supposition is right it comes to “routine” urban shootings. The mass murders in schoolyards, colleges, theaters, and shopping-malls are different, in making it easier for better-off Americans to think, that could have been me. Worse, that could have been my child. But evidently not enough people have made that imaginative leap to make a political difference.
From a reader in Florida:
I have a "modest proposal", ala Swift, as an attempt to get some cultural change in our our acceptance of gun violence.
Fully publicized unretouched crime scene photos. Think for just a second if we all could see what a hollow point did to the head of a child at Sandy Hook... or Aurora... or Umpqua or .... it might get some action.
If we want easy access weapons, we should see what they really do to a human body.
On one hand it's like making folks convicted of DUI's to watch crash movies, excepting that we in the popular culture haven't been convicted of a crime. But then, maybe, we all have been guilty of doing nothing for long enough. It's crazy, I know, but sane proposals haven't worked.
From another reader in Florida. An important backdrop point about his message, of course, is that the very sheriff in Oregon running the Roseburg investigation is himself a ferociously outspoken foe of gun-control laws. Here’s the Florida reader, with emphasis added:
There's a really important dynamic that I think gives arsenalists their political power. It's open law enforcement sympathy for the armed faction of American society against the unarmed.
Culturally, I think American law enforcement thinks of itself as protecting the 35 percent of armed Americans against the 65 percent who aren't. It's crazy; but I think it's true. That's because actual police generally come from the 35 percent of American households that own guns. And more importantly, I think most of them probably sympathize with arsenal owners because many of them own their own arsenals. (10+ guns)
As long as police rhetoric and sympathy rests with armed arsenalists and not the unarmed, nothing is going to change. Police overwhelmingly support the laws that allow our debased gun culture to thrive.
It's worth noting that mass shootings are good for the gun business, especially during Democratic administrations. It's similar to how Katrina was a great achievement for the anti-government right. We have got to stigmatize the "gun hustler" industry. We've got to stigmatize the business of arsenalists in a way that splits them from police.
A very long-term project. And we have to come up with the language of seediness and gangsterism, like "gun hustler," to do it. Or at least that's my take. So mass shootings, like street level brutality and the Drug War are all part of the same issue.
From another reader, on possible cultural / commercial pressures:
Ernest Hemingway bought a shotgun from Abercrombie & Fitch and then went home and shot himself. After that, A&F stopped selling guns.
It might be effective to start publishing the names of the gun manufacturer and retail store who sold that gun for each killing. Shame is not the best motivator but sometimes it can work. And a policy like that wouldn't require any legislation, just journalist initiative.
WalMart did of course decide to stop selling AR-15 rifles, cousin of the military’s M-16, earlier this year. Unfortunately it is hard to imagine gun-show vendors or local weapons shops being as responsive as the old A&F to a mainstream-media shaming campaign.
And, finally for today, perhaps the most sobering observation:
The problem isn't simply that we have too many guns in the US and that the barriers to acquiring one are so low; other countries such as Canada and Switzerland have comparable gun to population rates, and they do it without having a school massacre every year or two.
This school shooting phenomenon is distinctly American; it has become part of our culture, like it or not, one in which kids grow up being told they are the greatest thing on earth, one in which we have killed off all sense of humor for the sake of not offending anyone, one with very poor services for those with mental health problems, and one where now we've seen so many school massacres its well within our normal daily consciousness and cultural dialogue.
To make a point about the evils of white supremacy, the film subjects its Black characters to unceasing brutality.
This story contains spoilers for the film Antebellum.
Antebellum is the kind of film that requires true storytelling daring to pull off. A horror movie that blurs history, fantasy, and darkest nightmare, it would only work with the cleverest calibration, striking a balance between thrills and social commentary that recalls the films of Jordan Peele or the best episodes of Black Mirror. But Antebellum, the feature-length directorial debut of Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz, is a cinematic perversion of the genre.
The film’s arresting premise was laid out in its stark, effective advertising: What if a modern-day Black American woke up one morning to find herself on a Civil War–era slave plantation? That’s what happens to Eden (played by Janelle Monáe), though the movie opens on her life in captivity and takes a while to reveal its contemporary twist. Antebellum evokes Octavia Butler’s chilling 1979 masterpiece, Kindred, in which an African American woman is mysteriously transported back in time and experiences the deep suffering of her enslaved ancestors. But that novel didn't relish the brutality that its protagonist experienced, and it offered profound insights into power, memory, and the psychology of enslavement.Antebellum isn’t worthy of the comparison. It loads up on visceral scares and disturbing imagery in service of a shallow film that feels like a gory theme-park ride showcasing the horrors of slavery.
With a Supreme Court vacancy after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Republican senators must again choose between country and party.
Updated on September 19, 2020, at 6:08 p.m. ET.
Nearly every reporter in Washington has experienced it: A Republican member of Congress says “off the record,” shifts into a quieter voice, and expresses how much he or she doesn’t like President Donald Trump. Soon after, you watch this same elected official speak up in favor of the president—or, more often, avoid saying anything meaningful at all. Sometimes about the same issue that they were complaining about to you in private. Sometimes within the same day. Sometimes within the same hour.
The battle to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is a pivotal moment for these whispering Republicans in the Senate.
The prospect of a conservative-heavy Court persuaded many Trump-wary conservatives to support him in 2016. This election, Ginsburg’s death will likely energize Biden-wary Democrats—millions of dollars have been raised online since news of her death broke last night—but Trump will also hope for an enthusiasm boost. He’ll aim to shift the conversation away from his mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic toward an ideological battle for the future of abortion rights and other contentious issues in American culture.
For once, he may be on the wrong side of a power dynamic.
To use power, you must have it.
On the night of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that a Trump nominee to replace Ginsburg would receive a vote on the floor of the Senate.
That announcement promised a use of power without hesitation or compunction, an abrupt reversal of the supposed rule that blocked an Obama nomination nine months before the 2016 election. This supposed rule would seem much better justified in 2020 than 2016. This time, the vacancy has occurred only 46 days before an election. This time, the party of the president making the nomination seems likely to lose, not win. This time, the Senate majority to approve the nomination may lose too.
Changing voters’ minds is famously difficult, but a recent progressive effort found real success.
No state has haunted the Democratic Party’s imagination for the past four years like Wisconsin. While it was not the only state that killed Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes in 2016, it was the one where the knife plunged deepest. Clinton was so confident about Wisconsin that she never even campaigned there. This year, it is one of the most fiercely contested states. The Democrats planned to hold their convention in Milwaukee, before the coronavirus pandemic forced its cancellation. Donald Trump is also making a strong play for Wisconsin.
Trump’s weaknesses with the electorate are familiar: Voters find him coarse, and they deplore his handling of race, the coronavirus, and protests. One recent YouGov poll found that just 42 percent of Americans approved of his performance as president, while 54 percent disapproved. But when the pollsters asked about Trump’s handling of the economy, those attitudes reversed: 48 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved, despite the havoc wreaked by the pandemic.
The Supreme Court vacancy will surely inflame an already-angry nation.
Updated on September 18, 2020, at 8:47 p.m. ET.
A furious battle over a Supreme Court vacancy is arguably the last thing the United States needs right now.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today represents a devastating loss for feminists who held up the 87-year-old as an icon of women’s rights, and as a bulwark protecting abortion rights and a wide range of other progressive ideals on a conservative Supreme Court. The Brooklyn-born jurist became one of the nation’s foremost advocates against gender discrimination as a lawyer for the ACLU, decades before President Bill Clinton appointed her to be the second woman to sit on the high court.
But her passing less than two months before the presidential election also tosses one more lit match into the tinderbox of national politics in 2020: It will surely inflame a deeply polarized country already riven by a deadly pandemic, a steep economic downturn, and civil unrest in its major cities.
The coming months of the pandemic could be catastrophic. The U.S. still has ways to prepare.
On April 13, Robert Redfield, the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appeared on the Today show and assured viewers that the worst was nearly behind us. It had been a month since the last gathering of fans in an NBA arena; a month since the fateful week when Americans began panic-buying bottled water and canned beans. The segment’s host, Savannah Guthrie, was broadcasting from home in upstate New York. With the light of a makeshift camera reflecting in her glasses, she asked Redfield to address reports that we could be facing another three weeks of social distancing. “We are nearing the peak right now,” Redfield told her. “Clearly we are stabilizing in terms of the state of this outbreak.”
Climate change is killing Americans and destroying the country’s physical infrastructure.
The federal government spends roughly $700 billion a year on the military. It spends perhaps $15 billion a year trying to understand and stop climate change.
I thought about those numbers a lot last week, as I tried to stop my toddler from playing in ash, tried to calm down my dogs as they paced and panted in mid-morning dusk light, tried to figure out whether my air purifier was actually protecting my lungs, tried to understand why the sky was pumpkin-colored, and tried not to think about the carcinogen risk of breathing in wildfire smoke, week after week.
The government has committed to defending us and our allies against foreign enemies. Yet when it comes to the single biggest existential threat we collectively face—the one that threatens to make much of the planet uninhabitable, starve millions, and incite violent conflicts around the world—it has chosen to do near-nothing. Worse than that, the federal government continues to subsidize and promote fossil fuels, and with them the destruction of our planetary home. Climate hell is here. We cannot stand it. And we cannot afford it either.
She wanted to escape her marriage. He wanted to escape his life sentence.
Toby Dorr never ran a red light, never rolled through a stop sign, never got so much as a speeding ticket. As a kid, she was always the teacher’s pet, always got straight A’s. Her parents never bothered to give her a curfew, because she never stayed out late. She married the only boy she’d ever dated, raised a family, built a career, went to church. She did everything she was supposed to do.
She’s in her early 60s now, just over 5 feet tall, and with her wry smile and auburn curls, she could be your neighbor, your librarian, your aunt. But people in Kansas City remember Toby’s story. She’s been stared at in restaurants, pointed at on sidewalks. For more than a decade, people here have argued about whether what she did was stupid and selfish or brave and inspirational. In the papers, she was known as the “Dog Lady” of Lansing prison, but that moniker barely hints at why she made headlines.
The press hasn’t broken its most destructive habits when it comes to covering Donald Trump.
We’re seeing a huge error, and a potential tragedy, unfold in real time.
That’s a sentence that could apply to countless aspects of economic, medical, governmental, and environmental life at the moment. What I have in mind, though, is the almost unbelievable failure of much of the press to respond to the realities of the Trump age.
Many of our most influential editors and reporters are acting as if the rules that prevailed under previous American presidents are still in effect. But this president is different; the rules are different; and if it doesn’t adapt, fast, the press will stand as yet another institution that failed in a moment of crucial pressure.
In some important ways, media outlets are repeating the mistake made by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In his book about the Mueller investigation, True Crimes and Misdemeanors (and in a New Yorker article), Jeffrey Toobin argues that Mueller’s tragic flaw was a kind of anachronistic idealism—which had the same effect as naivete. Mueller knew the ethical standards he would maintain for himself and insist on from his team. He didn’t understand that the people he was dealing with thought standards were for chumps. Mueller didn’t imagine that a sitting attorney general would intentionally misrepresent his report, which is of course what Bill Barr did. Mueller wanted to avoid an unseemly showdown, or the appearance of a “fishing expedition” inquiry, that would come from seeking a grand-jury subpoena for Donald Trump’s testimony, so he never spoke with Trump under oath, or at all. Trump, Barr, and their team viewed this decorousness as a sign of weakness, which they could exploit.
In one of her most revealing interviews, the justice discusses her losses, her struggles, and her hope for the future.
Just days ago, on Thursday evening, the National Constitution Center awarded the 2020 Liberty Medal to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At the justice’s request, we recorded her favorite opera singers and special friends offering personal tributes in words and music. The tribute video is a moving, inspiring, and now heartbreaking celebration of her achievements as one of the most influential figures for constitutional change in American history.
In her acceptance statement, Justice Ginsburg said the following:
It was my great good fortune to have the opportunity to participate in the long effort to place equal citizenship stature for women on the basic human-rights agenda. In that regard I was scarcely an innovator. For generations, brave women and enlightened men in diverse nations pursued that goal, but they did so when society was not yet prepared to listen. I was alive and a lawyer in the late 1960s, and the decade commencing in 1970. Conditions of life had so changed that audiences responded positively to pleas that society—men, women, and children—would be well served by removing artificial barriers blocking women’s engagement in many fields of human endeavor, from bar membership to bartending, policing, firefighting, piloting planes, even serving on juries. Helping to explain what was wrong about the “closed-door era” was enormously satisfying.