Absence of Moderation

Despite the thousands of man-hours that have been spent railing about the shootings in Arizona over the weekend, I have yet to hear of any blogger, columnist, or public figure who has pledged to moderate his or her own tone or mode of expression. Lots of condemnation of political opponents, though.

My colleague at OTB, Alex Knapp, has posted a good post on the subject.

57 comments… add one
  • I liked alex’s post too, probably the best one I’ve read on the topic.

    It’s amazing the depths people will stoop to in order to confirm their biases. For instance, I’ve read a whole host of arguments on why Palin’s use of crosshair symbols in her political ad is orders of magnitude worse than the use of target symbols.

    “Good enough for thee, but not for me” seems to be the order of the day.

  • Question: Those who are already moderate (in tone, not necessarily in politics) don’t need to make that type of pledge, and they are the only ones I would expect to recognize the need to do so. Do you really believe that those who are NOT moderate in tone understand the harm they do?

  • michael reynolds Link

    Jack: bingo.

  • No, Jack, I think they only recognize it in the words and actions of those they disagree with.

    I’m taking my cue from Matthew 5:22:

    But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    Although putting targets or crosshairs (or reticles or surveyors’ symbols or printing alignment symbols) is inflammatory, so is treating your political adversaries as hateful, calling your political opponents fools or criminals. Anything that’s intended to provoke rather than persuade is problematic.

  • I wonder, then, where do we go from here? We can’t pass laws banning inflammatory language (that’s a bad idea all around). Is it possible for those who are moderate in tone to somehow influence things?

    I’ve been troubled by this issue for years and years (since well before the last Presidential election).

  • john personna Link

    Here’s what I’ve put up as my moderate message:

    Such are the moral complexities of our lives, Jay Tea.

    Sarah could have made the wrong choice in symbolism without being a bad person, let alone responsible for any later crazy-man’s act.

    It would just be misreading the moral question to say that because she wasn’t responsible, she wasn’t wrong

    I’m feeling that some people want to set the bar further back, to where the moral complexity cannot be examined. Off limits.

  • john personna Link

    Shorter version of what I”m hearing:

    Now, in this time of violence, it is no time to discuss violence in our society.

  • Just for the record, I have no particular fondness for firearms or their symbology. I wouldn’t own a firearm except that I recently inherited a Springfield rifle that’s been in our family since the Civil War and the shotgun my dad had as a boy. I can’t bear to part with them for sentimental reasons.

  • john personna Link

    Jack, we can hope that anything that skirts, starts to look like, violent symbolism will become off-putting. And so, any movement that wants to make broad progress will avoid it.

    The problem for a time was that we had people defending pretty crazy things. It wasn’t off-putting to a fair segment to have people show up with guns to protest Obama. Sad.

  • You’re certainly not hearing that here, jp. What I’m saying is discuss whatever you care to. But do it in a temperate tone. Argue concretes rather than abstractions. Criticize the argument, not the person making the argument.

    Is it possible for those who are moderate in tone to somehow influence things?

    Well, it’s what I’m trying to do here, small as it is.

    The sad truth is that firebrands raise more money. The more partisan and over-the-top you are, the more money you’ll raise, the larger following you’ll attract, and the faster you’ll rise in the political sphere.

  • john personna Link

    Ok, Dave. Thank you for the expansion.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I don’t pledge to moderate my tone; I don’t see the causal connection and don’t think the tone is much different than historic norms.

    I pledge not to use this tragedy as a vehicle to advance my policy preferences. This is not a persuadable moment — it’s a moment of passion, not reason.

  • Ok, let’s assume for a minute this guy was motivated by some coherent political movement (pick whatever comports with your biases). For all the inflammatory rhetoric we’ve had, over the past decade or more, this would be one of a very few – maybe the only – act of murderous political violence.

    The point being, I support moderation in tone for a lot of reasons, but fear of political violence is pretty low on the list. Also, historically speaking, “inflammatory” rhetoric is pretty typical.

  • That’s a well-made point PD.

  • john personna Link

    PD and Andy, do you know the term “zeitgeist,” and do you agree that the culture of the times shape the path of history?

  • JP,

    Yes, I understand the term and agree it can and does influence the path of history. I’m not convinced that political rhetoric today is part of any zeitgeist, much less the Tucson murders.

  • cfpete Link

    @JP
    “the culture of the times shape the path of history?”
    Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. “More chaos, maybe,” he says. “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening. He wants all of that.” Tierney thinks that Loughner’s mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: “He fucks things up to fuck shit up, there’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: ‘Another Saturday, going to go get groceries’—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in.”

  • michael reynolds Link

    There is no “sometime later” discussion of issues in American politics. As incredible as it seems this entire matter will be off the radar within a week.

    So this is a teachable moment. If there are passions surrounding it then there damned well should be.

    1) A man so apparently deranged that classmates imagined him carrying out a killing spree bought a handgun and an extended clip and ammo. Why was he able to do so? Because the GOP is a cult of gun worship. Because NRA money is deployed very effectively. Because opponents caved.

    2) We live in a country where Republicans not only fetishize guns but join that gun love to violent, dire, apocalyptic rhetoric, the demonization and delegitimization of opponents, and stir it all together with a big spoonful of racism and fear of the “Other.”

    Among the many reasons not to promote the threat of violence as a political tactic, or to practice violent rhetoric, or to employ gun-oriented symbology, is that when — not if, but when — a deranged individual takes the obvious next step, it points a giant finger of blame at those who have engaged in those self-serving, short-sighted and amoral activities.

    So that whatever political party or faction promotes violence, whether directly responsible or not, is assumed to be culpable. That assumption of culpability further poisons the dialog and the whole country takes one more step down the long spiral staircase.

    So, with all due respect, no, this discussion should not be put off. There is no “off.” This issue is important and needs to be discussed during the brief window we have to discuss it before LIndsay LOhan either enters or leaves rehab or Snooki makes a statement.

  • john personna Link

    I think the most productive thing, re. zeitgeist, is to talk about how we can improve it.

    Talk about the good things: Moderation, as Dave notes. Civil discourse. Democracy. Non-violence.

    And perhaps, privately consider where we’ve diverged from that. I wouldn’t ask you to name anything publicly. That would be too much. But think about how you want to go forward.

    (There may be some “taint” going forward on violent metaphor, and I’m afraid that is necessary. The zeitgeist doesn’t change on its own.)

  • john personna Link

    BTW, if a year from now someone said “I can say what I want, talk didn’t cause Tuscon,” then I’d consider that a pretty big failure – in society as a whole.

    “I can say what I want” is not a mature morality.

  • PD Shaw Link

    And the Fort Hood shootings were a teachable moment on Islam, right?

  • Michael,

    Who is suggesting that any discussion be put off? My complaint is that people are jumping to conclusions based on their own biases and wildly throwing ill-informed accusations around. That’s not suggesting that we should put off discussion, that is suggesting that people shouldn’t be talking out of their ass and making pronouncement for which no evidence exists.

    After the Nidal Hasan murders in Ft. Worth, many people were arguing for caution until all the facts were in. That was sound then and it is sound now.

    You talk about gun control. That will obviously be looked at. It does seem premature, however, to announce a policy response when we don’t even know how he got the gun or the magazines in the first place.

    BTW, I think Ezra Klein has a fairly nuanced take on the topic.

  • Ooops, I meant Ft. Hood.

    JP,

    My attempts at changing the zeitgeist have always been around this question: What is the best way to persuade people to adopt my point of view? I’ve found that a moderate tone and logical, supported arguments are much more effective than rants and ad hominem. Rants are great at motivating people who already agree with you, but they’re counterproductive when it comes to persuading others.

  • john personna Link

    That is a very good strategy, Andy.

    For what it’s worth, I think when you (and PD) recall Ft. Hood you might be recalling the craziest of the respondents, and responding to them.

    Are any of those crazies even here? I don’t think so.

  • michael reynolds Link

    PD:

    Yes. That was a teachable moment on Islam. So was 9/11. So was the Irvine mosque that recently took action against a radical jihadist who turned out to be a FBI plant. And so was the action of Egyptian Muslims who stood up to defend the Copts. They are all teachable moments.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:
    Actually, quite a few people are suggesting the discussion be put off. I wasn’t referencing you.

  • PD Shaw Link

    My accusation is simply this, that insisting on a moment of a emotional drama to force a political point, advocates are increasing partisanship. That’s not an accusation of bad faith or even partisanship; I think it’s simply the nature of discourse.

    Exhibit A would be the comment thread at OTB over the weekend.

  • john personna Link

    Yes PD, there were some nuts of all persuasion over at OTB this weekend.

  • PD Shaw Link

    But it’s not just nuts, it’s the blogger you pointed out, making the case against violent imagery in the Palin graphic while utilizing a graphic that says “Please Die.” I’m not seeing a lot of self-awareness or receptiveness to reason. It’s tribalism.

  • john personna Link

    I kinda think that might have been a nut PD 😉

    Or at least semi.

  • I kinda think that might have been a nut PD

    TBogg is quite a prominent Left Blogosphere blogger, part of the Firedoglake group blog. Hateful, inflammatory, even violent rhetoric is part of the shtick.

  • john personna Link

    TBogg is quite a prominent Left Blogosphere blogger, part of the Firedoglake group blog.

    Really! Wow. I had been holding out some hope that the graphic was associated with a gamer group or something.

  • john personna Link

    oops, bad quote

  • PD Shaw Link

    Another example would be the attempted assassination of Andrew Jackson. Jackson had been the subject of a number of fiery attacks, and his would-be-assassin had even been present at one of Calhoun’s a few days earlier. It turned out however that the assassin was crazy, blaming Jackson not only for the bad economy, but the death of his father and blocking his rightful place as King of England. He was adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, but the Jackson faction found this angle of attack on their enemies too fruitful to let go, so they procured witnesses willing to sign statements that they had seen the would-be-assassin meeting with Senator Poindexter of Mississippi. (I don’t believe anybody thinks Jackson was behind this, it’s just another case of over-excited supporters) A Congressional investigation absolved Poindexter and found the witnesses to be suspect at best. The Whigs used the events to accuse Jackson of despotism, and even suggested the assassination was really a plot contrived by Jackson for political reasons. Ultimately, both parties were left more angry and more full of perceived grievances than when the whole thing started.

    The tenor of discourse was clearly worse in those days (also known as the Riot Years), but this is what I would expect of partisan politics, each side using an opportune event to their advantage. The recipient will complain of the unjustness of the attack and she will use it to her political advantage.

  • Drew Link

    I, too, found Alex’s piece to be one of the few sane ones.

    That said, for all those who have tried to make the case that this a “right wing,” Tea Party, or anti-government issue, all spawned by angry, shrill and erroneous public discourse in the past few years, well, I’ve come around to your way of thinking. I think all those public figures who create shrill, erroneous public discourse should be immediately jailed:

    “Gore Says George W. Bush Tried to Increase the Amount of Arsenic in America’s Drinking Water: “Instead of ensuring that our water is clean to drink, [the Bush Administration] tried to increase the amount of arsenic in our water.” – Al Gore, April 22, 2002 (Speech by Al Gore on Earth Day 2002, text available via http://www.algore04.com/gorefacts/speeches/index.shtml)

    Three days before George W. Bush was inaugurated, the Clinton Administration announced a rule reducing the amount of arsenic allowed in public water systems from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb.2 The new rule, which was to replace a standard in effect since 1942, was one of many regulations proposed by the Clinton Administration during the brief time between Bush’s acknowledged election victory and Bush’s inauguration.

    On January 20, 2001, Bush signed an order temporarily delaying issuance of many of Clinton’s last-minute regulations to give his new Administration a chance to review their content. The new arsenic standard rule was among them. However, as it was not due to take effect until 2006, Bush’s temporary hold in 2001 had no impact on water quality.

    Tougher standards had been controversial because they were expected to be expensive (especially for small communities served by small water systems and in the Western U.S., which has more naturally-occurring arsenic) and because some argued tougher standards were unnecessary for human health.

    The Clinton Administration’s EPA had estimated a 10 ppb standard would save 23-33 lives per year. A joint American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Institution study, however, had concluded the new rules would actually cost lives (due to the negative impact of higher water costs on low income families).

    The Bush Administration asked the National Academies of Science to report to the Administration on the likely health impacts of various possible new arsenic standards (3 ppb, 5 ppb, 10 ppb and 20 ppb). (Notably, the Administration did not ask the NAS to study the impact of leaving the 1942 standard in place, making it unlikely that the Administration ever seriously contemplated leaving the rules unchanged.)

    The NAS studied the issue and, on September 11, 2001, issued a report concluding that the bladder/lung cancer risk for a 3 ppb standard would be 4 persons in 10,000; at 5 parts per billion, 6.5 in 10,000; at 10 parts per billion, greater than 1 in 1,000; and at 20 parts per billion, more than 2 in 1,000.6

    After reviewing the NAS study, the Bush Administration decided to accept the Clinton Administration recommendation of a new 10 ppb standard and to keep the Clinton Administration implementation date of 2006. On November 26, 2001, almost half a year before Gore’s speech quoted above, Bush lowered the allowable arsenic level to 10 ppb.

  • Icepick Link

    Michael, in the past you compared Bush to Mussolini and the Republicans to Fascists, and sugggested (to put it mildly) that they were planning the violent overthrow of the US government.* You constantly imply that every Republican and conservative is a closet Klansman looking to string people up. You allow for no honorable disagreement, as your comments in this thread make clear. Everyone must agree with you about everything or they will be lumped in with the KKK, Fascists and worse.

    So exactly why should we trust your take on the need to moderate violent imagery? It’s not like you have pledged to do so yourself. Nor have I ever heard you complain when all the lefties were not so subtly calling for the assasination of President Bush. You completely lack credibility on this issue.

    * Don’t bother looking for that stuff. Reynolds killed that blog because he realized that perhaps, just maybe, people would stop buying his books if they found out he hated everything about them.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Michael, in the past you compared Bush to Mussolini and the Republicans to Fascists, and sugggested (to put it mildly) that they were planning the violent overthrow of the US government.*

    Bullshit. You are taking things absurdly out of context. I don’t know if you know that you do it, or not, so I won’t call you a liar. But I’ll say you’re mistaken.

    * Don’t bother looking for that stuff. Reynolds killed that blog because he realized that perhaps, just maybe, people would stop buying his books if they found out he hated everything about them.

    This is self-evidently false. I comment here and elsewhere under my own name. Anyone with minimal Google skills can find the names I write under. I make no secret of who I am. Unlike you, “Icepick.”

    I took down the blog because I had repeatedly used “not safe for children” language and kids Googling the books my wife and I wrote 10-15 years ago were stumbling upon it. Those books were middle reader range, meaning 9 to 12 year olds.

    I felt it was unkind to have little kids looking for An*m*rphs and stumble on me using the kind of language I use in adult language.

    It had nothing to do with my political opinions as opinions, it had to do primarily with the F-bomb, secondarily to do with what felt like a dirty trick: leading kids away from their target and to a tendentious political site. The problem was that I named that oft-searched book series, and that led littler kids to Mighty Middle. That made me squeamish.

    I explained that quite clearly at the time which I think points to the unreliability of your memory where I am concerned.

  • steve Link

    While I think that there is a faction among conservatives that fetishizes guns, which I fail to understand as they are just tools, they didnt cause this guy to shoot anyone. There are 200 million guns in the country. They arent going anywhere. Part of the freedom to own guns means that occasionally a nut will shoot some people, just like occasionally a nut or senile person will run over some people.

    While I do wish people would moderate their speech some, and I do think that lots of hateful rhetoric provides fertile ground for the least stable among us, it will not change. There are now blowhards on TV and radio making millions to make people angry.

    Steve

  • DaveC Link
  • michael reynolds Link

    steve:

    There are 200 million guns in the country. They arent going anywhere.

    Yeah, but Loughner didn’t have one of those. He had one he bought a couple of months ago after apparently everyone who knew him concluded he was crazy. There are also not 200 million extended magazines. Nor is there an infinite supply of 9 mil ammo.

    Part of the freedom to own guns means that occasionally a nut will shoot some people, just like occasionally a nut or senile person will run over some people.

    Except that cars are necessary and guns are not. The basic purpose of cars is not to kill a human being, while that is the only purpose of a 9. They are irrelevant to hunting and even target shooting. You buy a 9 mil in anticipation of shooting a man. It may be in self defense, or in enforcement of the law, or for murder, but it has precisely one purpose: to shoot a human being. A car, on the other hand, is what I use to drive my daughter to school.

  • Michael,

    In fact there is a law in Arizona against selling crazy people guns. The problem is how does a gun seller know some one is crazy? There’s a database for that and this guy wasn’t in it. He wasn’t in it because he’d never been certified “crazy” by a properly credentialed official. That didn’t happen because he hadn’t been violent up to this point, and those around him didn’t do as much as they probably could have and probably now wish they had.

    Also, 9mm is a caliber – a type of bullet – not a gun. I used to own a gun that shot those bullets and I can assure you it was not in anticipation of shooting anyone. I still own a few guns which I keep locked away and separated from ammo because I have small children. I also have a sword which I do keep in the closet next to my bed just in case. That’s my man-killing instrument, not my guns.

    In short, it may surprise you to know that just because you can see no purpose for guns other than killing someone, there are many others who have a different view.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:

    Honestly don’t need lectures on guns. I fired my first handgun at a young age — young enough that the kick from the Ruger .44 Blackhawk knocked me on my ass. In terms of handguns I’ve fired everything from .22 to the .45 I owned for a while. Also owned a 32 gauge shotgun for a while, and have fired various gauges including my dad’s 12. And I’ve fired various rifles, .22, .270 and 30ot6.

    I don’t recall ever having fired a 9 but in my day it was more .38, .375 mag, 44 mag and 45. 9s became popular later.

    I note that you fail to state what that purpose might be for your owning a 9.

    Hunting? I’m open to suggestions. You own a 9, so for what purpose?

  • michael reynolds Link

    By the way, if you have a usable sword in your home I’d 1) urge you to lock that up as well if you have kids and 2) think realistically about the prospects of swinging a sword in any useful way in the confines of a home, presumably in the dark, having just been awakened by a strange noise. It would make for great for slapstick comedy, probably not so great if you intend to actually attempt to cut someone with it.

  • Michael,

    9mm is a popular cartridge used in a wide variety of firearms because it is the NATO standard cartridge. That makes it comparatively inexpensive to similar cartridges. For a recreational shooter, ammo cost is a pretty big factor in choosing a firearm which is why .22 guns remain the most popular. Gun makers make more versions of the popular cartridges, so those guns also tend to be cheaper to buy.

    For the same reason the .223 rifle (aka NATO 5.56) cartridge is very popular. After the cold war ended, 7.62×39 became very cheap ammunition which ended up driving sales of AK-47’s and other guns that used it.

    .38’s, .357 and 45’s (along with 30.06 and .308 for rifles) were very popular for a long time for exactly the same reason and remain popular today.

    I’m a recreational shooter – at least I used to be, I haven’t been out to a range in several years. I owned a 9mm handgun for a time for that purpose. I’m down to two guns now, a .357 revolver, and a .22 rifle.

    Regardless, once more actual facts about this guy and his crime are known, then we can make a rational determination if additional gun laws might have done anything, if existing gun laws failed, or whatever.

  • Drew Link

    Unless you are specifically trained (as in police, military or SWAT) to use a pistol, most people view the Mossberg 500 HS 410 or the short barrell Remington 870 shotguns as the best home protection weapons.

    And icepick, you have to make allowances. Michael’s inner racist needs to get out from time to time, although it seems to be happening more frequently the past year.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:

    I’m a recreational shooter – at least I used to be, I haven’t been out to a range in several years. I owned a 9mm handgun for a time for that purpose.

    What exactly is a “recreational shooter?” It’s not target shooting, it’snot hunting, it’s not self-defense. So you just go bang bang?

    Drew:

    Do you have something to back up that asinine remark? Or are you as full of crap as Icepick?

  • Michael,

    Yes, you go target shooting at a range or, depending on location, you can go into the wilderness and shoot there.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:

    So because you want to go bang, bang, bang for no reason other than to hear loud noises you bring a firearm into your child’s home. And have a sword in the closet.

    I would never knowingly allow my children to visit your home. I think it is reckless to do what you do. I sincerely hope you never have cause to regret. But I think you are being very foolish. I think you and your wife should give this some thought.

  • You assume a lot Michael. And it’s a bit annoying when you complain that “you don’t need lectures on guns” and then turn right around and start lecturing people on topics you don’t know the first thing about. Things like my family, how and where my weapons are stored, my choice of hobbies, my sword, etc. (for example, the latter has no edge and is about as dangerous as a baseball bat. What did you imagine – a giant, razor-edged blood-caked blade?).

    My house is pretty safe actually and I have kids over here all the time – like almost every day. Since I put safety first, I always make sure the guns a loaded with blanks before I let the kiddies play with them. They really love the “bang bang” fun and it gives their “kill the brown people” games a lot more realism. Ok, those last two sentences I just made up.

    I understand you don’t get the “gun” thing. A lot of people don’t and I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem when people like you are patronizing about it particularly when you don’t have much of a clue what you’re talking about regarding my life, my family and my house.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:
    #1:
    You assume a lot Michael.

    #2:
    (for example, the latter has no edge and is about as dangerous as a baseball bat. What did you imagine – a giant, razor-edged blood-caked blade?)

    #3 (earlier)
    I also have a sword which I do keep in the closet next to my bed just in case. That’s my man-killing instrument, not my guns.

  • Michael,

    I guess I will have to start using emoticons since the wink in the phrase wasn’t obvious – at least not to you.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:

    Nice try. I began by saying that people buy 9s in contemplation of man-killing — whether legal or not.

    You countered by saying that wasn’t true, that you had a sword for that purpose.

    If that was a “joke” then we’re back to you having no better explanation for owning a 9. You just denied your own rationale.

  • Michael,

    What is it with you? You’re starting to get creepy.

    This will be my last attempt to engage with you on this topic:

    I grew up around guns and I don’t have any issues with or fear of guns. As a result, I don’t consider guns inherently threatening objects. I enjoy shooting guns and I enjoy the technical aspects of guns. I used to make my own ammunition as well. Guns are a hobby, albeit one I don’t engage much in anymore. I’ve never felt it necessary to utilize a gun for self defense – ie. to have one under my pillow or in my car or on my person. I own them for their own sake because I enjoy them.

    I understand that you and a lot of other people feel differently. You have every right to do so, but I sure as hell don’t need to explain to you or justify to you why I have them and I sure as hell don’t need to you lecture me about a topic I know a lot more about than you. Your opinion on this topic means nothing to me. That’s all I have to say, feel free to have the last word.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:

    Scroll back. You engaged me, not the other way around.

    I never said you needed my approval. It’s a free country. I expressed my opinion. If you think it’s “creepy” maybe it’s because you recognize that something in your rationalization doesn’t add up.

    Father to father let me tell you that if you think your kids don’t (or won’t, depending on their age) know where your guns are or how to get access to them, you’re wrong.

    My dad’s a career soldier, and after his first tour in Vietnam — I was 14 IIRC — he managed to smuggle home a number of firearms, including a Chinese light machine gun with a drum magazine, an AK47 and a Schmeisser submachine gun (cool-looking weapon, by the way.) He was very careful, very responsible.

    Did I nevertheless show those guns off to my friends and play with them? Yes. Did he know? No.

    I want you to think about the fact — and it is a fact — that your kids will find your gun, will find the keys, will find the ammo. Does that mean your kids will meet with a tragedy? Of course not. That happens in only a tiny minority of cases.

    But you should ask yourself whether as a father, the pleasure of going bang, bang, bang, is worth taking that risk.

    PS: My dad voluntarily turned his guns over to the ATF. They were presumably destroyed.

  • Ok Michael, that deserves a response as I now think I see where you’re coming from.

    First of all, to mate gun and ammunition in my house will require opening two separate combination locks and I’m the only one who knows the combination.

    Secondly, the situation you describe is in my future, not my present and it’s an eventuality I’m well aware of. Currently my oldest just turned 7 and my youngest is 8 months. At this point in time my three kids do not have the ability to get to my guns, much less get past the combo locks, then the trigger locks, etc. That won’t always be the case, of course.

    At an appropriate time in the future I will face a decision – I’ll either have to get rid of my guns or provide my children with the training and knowledge to handle weapons safely. I very well may end up doing both – teaching my kids and then getting rid of the guns. We’ll see, I haven’t crossed that bridge yet.

    There’s no doubt guns are risky and dangerous objects, especially around children. However, that risk can be managed. Along the spectrum of risk there are several things that worry me much more than guns. Statistically, accidental gun deaths are generally much less likely to happen than other things that kill children. The risk should be taken in context.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Andy:

    Fair enough.

    I am about 20% political and about 80% father. I imagine you’re the same. It’s nice the 80% can share an honest moment.

    7 years and 8 months! You were smart. Mine are 13 and 11 years. I have one well into puberty and the other just entering. I’m thinking I may just lock myself into my bedroom with several cases of Scotch and come out in 5 years. It should be safe my then.

  • Michael,

    I’m at least 80% father too – it’s nice to know we’re more alike than different.

    Our first two kids are only 15 months apart (6&7) and then we have the baby. It really sucked at first having the two back-to-back, but now they get along so wonderfully it’s all been worth it. Of course, I’m not looking forward to the teenage years and your comment reminds me that I probably should start saving for my own stash of tonic.

Leave a Comment