Welles on gun violence

[Le Chiffre]

"As the spaces in which men and women are expected to make relationships work keep getting smaller and smaller, you're going to see more and more people rushing out into the street, killing everyone they can find."
- Orson Welles, Someone to Love (1985)

"I take a terribly dim view of man's future because there are too many of us, and because we are sick, and we now have weapons that we're not grown up enough to handle."
- Orson Welles on the Tomorrow Show, 1975

Some interesting stats from Wiki-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

Number of mass shootings in the United States since 1920:

1920s - 3
1930s - 2
1940s - 3
1950s - 1
1960s - 6
1970s - 14
1980s - 21
1990s - 29
2000s - 36
2010s - 112 (and counting)

Number of mass shootings in the U.S. during Bill Clinton's administration (1993 - 2001) - 20
Number of mass shootings in the U.S. during George W. Bush's administration (2001 - 2009) - 27
Number of mass shootings in the U.S. during Barack Obama's administration (2009 - 2016) - 64
Number of mass shootings in the U.S. during Donald Trump's administration (2017 - 2019) - 51

39 mass shootings in the U.S. before Welles's 1985 statement (65 years).
189 mass shootings in the U.S. since his statement (44 years).

Number of mass shootings in the U.S. in the 90 years between 1920 and 2010: 115
Number of mass shootings in the U.S. in the 9 years since 2010: 112

[Le Chiffre]

Conservatives like to say, "Guns don't kill, people kill" and that an assault weapon like an AR15 or an AK47, bought for home defense, is just an object and cannot be blamed for violence. One conservative friend on Facebook went so far as tell me (angrily) that banning an assault weapon is about as absurd as banning a sewing needle, since that can be used for violence too.

Why not legalize the sale of nukes then? After all, it's not at fault. It's just an object. Good for home defense. Besides, if you don't legalize them, then only criminals will have them.

Slowly but surely, it seems that "home defense" weapons are inching toward the area of WMDs. If the government defines a mass shooting as the killing of more than three people at once, then shouldn't the high powered assault rifle used in such an attack be considered a weapon of mass destruction?

But then, here's another view:
Can assault rifles be classified as weapons of mass destruction?:
https://www.quora.com/Can-assault-rifle ... estruction

Remember this guy from The Monkees? He's been a comedian too:
Neighborhood Nukes:

[Le Chiffre]

NYT:

With proper care and maintenance, an AR-15 rifle manufactured today will fire just as effectively in the year 2119 and probably for decades after that.

There are currently around 15 million military-style rifles in civilian hands in the United States. They are very rarely used in suicides or crimes. But when they are, the bloodshed is appalling.

Acknowledging the grim reality that we will live among these guns indefinitely is a necessary first step toward making the nation safer. Frustratingly, calling for military-style rifles bans — as I have done for years — may be making other lifesaving gun laws harder to pass.

President Trump on Wednesday — touring two mass shooting sites in Ohio and Texas — said that “there is no political appetite” for a new ban of assault weapons. Never mind that a majority of Americans support such a ban.

Short of forced confiscation or a major cultural shift, our great-great-great-grandchildren will live side-by-side with the guns we have today and make tomorrow. That also means that we’re far closer to the beginning of the plague of mass public shootings with military-style weapons than we are to the end. Little wonder that major companies are now including mass shootings in their risk to shareholder filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Common-sense gun control measures can and do reduce accidental gun deaths and injuries, domestic violence-related deaths, homicides and suicides. Failure to enact nationwide mandatory comprehensive background checks, safe storage rules, red flag laws and robust licensing systems like those passed in Massachusetts is political negligence that will flabbergast future generations. How could they have allowed the sale of those weapons to civilians in the first place? Why didn’t they do anything about it after the mass murders began?

Laws that make it safer for Americans to coexist with weapons won’t remove the contamination of military-style weapons from society, but they will certainly save some lives.

Not only is confiscation politically untenable — the compliance rates of gun owners when bans are passed are laughably low - the distribution of these weapons across society makes even their prohibition nearly impossible. In 1996, Australia launched a mandatory gun buyback of 650,000 military-style weapons. While gun ownership per capita in the country declined by more than 20 percent, today Australians own more guns than they did before the buyback. New Zealand’s leaders, in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, launched a compulsory buyback effort for the tens of thousands of military-style weapons estimated to be in the country.

For context: In 2016 alone, more than one million military-style weapons were added to America’s existing civilian arsenal, according to industry estimates.

Not only are the number of total guns in America orders of magnitude larger than other nations, the political imagination is far less ambitious. Consider a federal assault weapons ban that Democrats introduced this year. It is purely a messaging bill since there was no chance it will win support from Republicans and become law. Yet even this thought experiment falls far short: The bill bans military-style weapons, except for the millions of military-style weapons already in circulation.

America’s gun problem is far larger than military-style weapons, the mass killer’s rifle of choice. There are hundreds of millions of handguns in the country that take far, far more lives — both homicides and suicides. Given the quality of modern manufacturing, a great many of those guns will also be operational a century from now.

Thinking about guns as an environmental contaminant is useful in considering the threat they pose to ours and future generations. Like radioactive waste, a gun is most often handled safely. Depending on the type, it poses varying levels of harm to humans.

I put the idea of guns as an environmental contaminant to John Rosenthal, a gun owner and founder of Stop Handgun Violence. Mr. Rosenthal, whose early activism included being jailed for civil disobedience at nuclear power and weapons facilities, noted that, given the potential lethality of their products to humans over time, it is not surprising that both the nuclear industry (in 1957) and the gun industry (in 2005) secured federal legislation to help limit their liability.

Like many actual environmental contaminants, guns are not evenly distributed throughout the country. Nearly one-third of residents of the United States own a gun, two-thirds of gun owners own more than one and nearly half of all firearms in civilian hands are owned by 3 percent of the population. More than 60 percent of households in Alaska contain a firearm, while fewer than 6 percent of homes in Delaware can say the same, according to one study. Alaska has among the highest gun death rates per capita in the nation. More access to guns, more gun injuries and deaths.

The only way to cut the half-life of guns is to convince Americans that they’re safer without them. Yet with violent crime at historic lows and Americans still buying up semiautomatic rifles by the bushel, it’s tough to see what it will take to stop the spending. Meanwhile, fears about gun bans cause even more guns to flow into civilian circulation.

Those of us hoping for a major generational shift on guns are courting disappointment. Younger Americans are far less likely to own guns than in previous generations, but those who do are more zealous about them.

This doesn’t mean that cultural change isn’t possible in the long term. Perhaps children forced to participate in active shooter drills in kindergarten will develop a generational loathing of the weapons. Perhaps people who inherit arsenals from their relatives will dispose of the guns responsibly.

Perhaps financial incentives like a tax on guns per household, tax credits for buybacks or mandating that gun owners carry special insurance could move the needle slightly. We already know that even modest efforts to remove environmental contaminants from a community are worth it.

Perhaps if gun control advocates frankly acknowledge that military-style rifles are going to be present in American society for many generations to come, it will help assuage fears of mass confiscation and give gun owners the space they need to support sensible safeguards that will save lives.

The guns — even those that make mass murders more deadly — are here to stay.

[NoFake]

Short of forced confiscation or a major cultural shift, our great-great-great-grandchildren will live side-by-side with the guns we have today and make tomorrow. That also means that we’re far closer to the beginning of the plague of mass public shootings with military-style weapons than we are to the end.

That is, of course, if there’s anyone still left by then:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597k ... nd-in-2050

[Wich2]

To quote the work of another savvy artist of Welles' generation ~

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

[NoFake]

https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1329 ... 652112.jpg

[Le Chiffre]

Yes, when it comes to global warming, we're like a different kind of frog than the one in Welles's "Scorpion and Frog" story:
https://www.sciencealert.com/human-bein ... h7OUwS3Ps4

[NoFake]

True, Le Chiffre. And not just when it comes to climate change. (As we see when we look in the political "mirror.")

[Le Chiffre]

The political climate is also rising in temperature for sure. Leftist pundits keep telling liberals that they shouldn't allow themselves to become numb to Trump's outrages, which seem to occur almost on a daily basis. That's pretty difficult. I was starting to get numb to them before he even took office. Maybe that's part of the strategy.

That goes for mass shootings too. They're becoming too easy to forget, in the wake of every new one.

[NoFake]

Leftist pundits keep telling liberals that they shouldn't allow themselves to become numb to Trump's outrages, which seem to occur almost on a daily basis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... -database/

Your observation about mass shootings, Le Chiffre, is just as true. I think John Oliver said it well:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/08/john- ... night.html

[Le Chiffre]

John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Steven Colbert, Bill Maher; those guys are all great. The irony is that they probably all secretly love Trump since his chaotic administration furnishes them with half a show's worth of material everyday.

I don't have Cable TV anymore, but I'm looking forward to hearing them on Trump's second caving to the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country.

Here's Welles's great 1944 Eversharp program on Lobbying, which he describes as our country's "fourth branch of government":
https://orsonwelles.indiana.edu/items/show/2187

[NoFake]

Thanks, Le Chiffre! Quiet dynamite. And as sadly, infuriatingly true now as it was then. (I’m amazed he lasted past Program No. 1. Would love to have been a fly on the wall at sponsor Boeing’s next board meeting.)

[Le Chiffre]

I should mention that the Eversharp series (8 programs, recorded quickly) was never broadcast, although a few parts of it were recycled into the Commentaries series the following year, including parts of the Lobbying program (toned down).

My conservative friend on Facebook struck again, quoting Shane:
"A gun is a tool, Marion, no better or no worse than any other tool - an axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."

Does that mean anyone should be allowed to own one? It seems stricter gun control, in the form of stronger background checks, for example, is proactive, as opposed to punishing a psycho for killing people with a high-powered assault rifle, which is reactive.

Here's Wiki on the Proactionary Principle:

An ethical and decision-making principle, the proactionary principle is formulated by the transhumanist philosopher Max More as follows:

"People’s freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity...Protect people’s freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress."

More's first principle, freedom to innovate, would place the burden of proof on those who propose a restrictive measure...According to the proactionary principle (and cost-benefit analysis), the opportunity cost of imposing a restrictive measure must be balanced against the potential costs of damage due to a new technology, rather than just considering the potential damages alone.

It seems to me that the number of mass shootings we've had in recent years satisfies that burden of proof.

Another guy online, the moderator of an NRA discussion board, claimed that stronger background checks were the first step towards confiscation, which to me indicates the level of paranoia that many 2nd amendment fanatics have succumbed to.

[Wich2]

Chief (and gang) -

My conservative friend on Facebook struck again, quoting Shane:
"A gun is a tool, Marion, no better or no worse than any other tool - an axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."

Ye gods, but that simplistic view in the face of so much maiming and death gets tiresome... Just put "automobile" in the place of "gun" throughout that bromide - and see where it leads, in reference to regulation.

Another guy online, the moderator of an NRA discussion board, claimed that stronger background checks were the first step towards confiscation, which to me indicates the level of paranoia that many 2nd amendment fanatics have succumbed to.

Merciful heaven. This latter tired old claptrap is just as useless as the former. "Paranoia strikes deep; into your mind it will creep." I'll let a Republican from back before the Lemming Era have the last word:

[Le Chiffre]

Very nice, Craig, thanks a lot. I'll feed that to my conservative friend (henceforth MCF):

Here's his latest:

Thoughts on the G7 at this point:
- President Trump continues his role as the bill collector. Very effective so far.
- President Xi is very uncomfortable, and will likely not have a discussion with President Trump at this summit. He will probably want to have a discussion later this year, as his economy continues to fail.
- PM Frederiksen, in regret, will likely schedule a meeting with President Trump. If she has no path forward to paying what is owed, we will own Greenland in early 2020.
- President Macron will continue neutrality, until such time as Brexit is complete.
- PM Trudeau, unfortunately, doesn't have a clue. He would do well to step down, as he is not serving the Canadian public as they wish.
We'll see how the rest goes.

For some reason, I started thinking of the old Plasmatics classic, MASTERPLAN:
http://musicdb.laadhari.com/Plasmatics/ ... yrics.html

Masterplan Masterplan Masterplan
It Makes You Feel So Sure
Masterplan Macho Man Masterplan
It Makes You Feel So Virile
Masterplan Delivery Man Masterplan
You'd Like To Rule The World
Masterplan Masterplan Masterplan
You Like Controlling Minds

*

Another interesting point found online, although I'm not in favor of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment entirely:

People do not need assault rifles.

Historically 2nd amendment was written after the English left and there were still fears that they might come back.

It was also written at a time when there were no police, firemen or paramedics. There was no national army. So the 2nd Amendment was dreamt up at a time when private militias were needed. Nowadays America has emergency services, and an army, navy and air force to boot. The 2nd Amendment is a dinosaur from a vanished age.

In the 228 years since it was ratified not once have we seen the American nation pick up their guns to overthrow an oppressive government.

*

Finally, I wonder if Welles ever saw JOE, made in 1970, the year after the Manson murders and the same year he started THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. A stretch perhaps, but does this climactic scene remind anyone else of Hannaford shooting the dummies of the hippie John Dale?: