Quick Draw Harreld and Why Language Matters

During 2010 seven individuals of varying prominence discovered they had something in common. The group included a major corporation’s CEO, U.S. Army General, CNN correspondent, Department of Agriculture employee, talk show host, major political party’s national committee chair, and a White House correspondent.

What did they have in common? Each endured the experience of joining the ranks of the unemployed. Because of the economy? No; because of something they said.

I call them “the Outspoken Seven.”

-- Nicholas Johnson, "Was It Something I Said? General Semantics, the Outspoken Seven, and the Unacceptable Remark," Institute for General Semantics, New York City, October 30, 2010 [drawn from an expanded, footnoted, unfinished manuscript with the same title]

[B]asically we always talk about ourselves. Our statements are the verbalizations of our preverbal tensions. It is these organismic tensions -- not the external reality -- that we transform into words.

-- Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know (2009), Ch. 9, p. 118, Wendell Johnson, "General Semantics and the Neuro-Biology of Communications"

Communicating with the dead is only slightly more difficult than communicating with the living.

-- Author unknown

UI President Bruce Harreld has put his foot in it with the current debate surrounding whether he said teachers "should be shot," or whether he said he "should be shot."

"UI's Harreld Sorry for Saying Unready Teachers Should Be Shot," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 15, 2015, 12:28 p.m.; hard copy: "Harreld Says He's Sorry for Teacher Comment; UI President is Under Fire for a Statement About Unprepared Instructions," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 16, 2015, p. A1

Vanessa Miller, "Graduate Students Say University of Iowa President Shiould Quit Over 'Should be Shot' Remark; Harreld Apologizes for 'Off the Cuff' Comment Made During a Meeting," The Gazette (online), December 15, 2015, 4:51 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: UI President Apologizes for His Remark That Unprepared Lecturers 'Should be Shot;' Graduate Students Say He Should Quit Over 'Off the Cuff' Comment," The Gazette, December 16, 2015, p. A3

Vanessa Miller, "University of Iowa President Harreld Tries to Clarify 'Teachers Should Be Shot' Comments; 'I Never Said Teachers Should Be Shot,'" The Gazette (online), December 16, 2015, 4:04 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Harreld 'Should Be Shot' Remark Misquoted; The UI President Says His Comment to Staff Inaccurately Reported," The Gazette, December 17, 2015, p. A3

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Harreld Tries to Clarify 'Should be Shot' Comment," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 16, 2015, 6:41 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI President Harreld Attempting to Clarify 'Should be Shot' Comment," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 17, 2015, p. A1

Corey Hickner-Johnson, "Harreld's Comments Out of Line," December 16, 2015, 5:33 p.m.; hard copy: Corey Hickner-Johnson, "UI President's Comments Are Out of Line," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 17, 2015, p. A9

One could probably organize a seminar around all the categories of issues this suggests for discussion.

There is the science of communication, and as the last two quotes suggest, the miracle that human communication ever accomplishes what the speakers intend.

One could inquire into the kinds of punishments that have been imposed on those whose words were found to be unacceptable -- along with an exploration of what our society's standards should be in this context, and the due process that should be followed in the fact finding preceding punishment. (That is the subject of the sources from which the first quote comes. If you'd like to see what the "Outspoken Seven" actually said, how the complaints against them were processed, and some commentary on what might have been preferable punishments to their being fired, click on the links following that opening quote.)

In the course of this discussion, one might compare Harreld's remarks with those that resulted in the firings of the "Outspoken Seven."

Finally, there is the matter of "executive communication 101" -- what Harreld did, why it was problematical, and how he made it worse for himself -- the subjects this blog entry addresses.

A law school colleague told me the story of running into a large law firm's hiring partner one day in the school. The partner inquired about a student the professor knew. The professor raved about the student in question -- how bright he was, how he was always prepared to recite in class, his quality writing. At that point the partner interrupted, "No, I know that, or at least assumed it. What I want to know is, can he tie his shoestrings?" In other words, does he have common sense, good judgment, and reasonable social skills -- what my mother's generation would have described as "the sense God gave geese."

There are people who start every day believing they will be disrespected by others, and then look for examples. Given the attention paid to what executives say, and the difficulties associated with human communication under the best of circumstances, referred to above, they need to be more careful than the rest of us. They need good judgment. An ill considered choice of words, expressions, or stories, can harm an organization's morale, and an executive's reputation among those who may already harbor grievances and a willingness to think the worst -- however unchallenged the language might be among the boys in an all-male boardroom, barroom, or country club locker room.

As with sexual harassment by supervisors, the words used by Harreld (on the assumption he was not talking about literally shooting any UI employees) suggest a kind of tough guy approach to administration-employee, university president-faculty, relations that creates considerably more intimidation than if it came from a peer, or casual bystander. It reminds me of an occasion when I couldn't help but overhear a passenger in an airline's executive lounge shouting his demands of an employee into the phone. When he hung up, he turned to me, smiled and said, "I don't get ulcers, I give them." That's one style of management -- one I never found useful as a government official. We don't know what Harreld's style will be as he weighs layoffs and budget cuts. But his reliance on forceful figures of speech, like shooting the unprepared, even if not literally likely, are not reassuring.

There have been shootings of instructors on college campuses, including the one on which Harreld now resides (in 1991), as well as in K-12 schools across the country. As Corey Hickner-Johnson points out in the opinion piece linked above, one should be able to anticipate that attempts at lighthearted references to instructors being shot are probably not going to be well received by instructors -- even if the remarks do not inspire real harm from the deranged.

Words matter. TV host Glenn Beck infamously advocated that the best way for conservatives to deal with liberals was to "shoot them in the head." A correlation is not a cause, but many suggested that this kind of language from Beck, Sarah Palin, and others may have played some role in subsequently motivating the shot in the head of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, seven months later, on January 8, 2011 (along with the injury and death of 18 others).



There is an expression in the business literature, and elsewhere, that if you find yourself stuck down in the bottom of a deep hole, the first step to getting out is to stop digging. It has its application in Executive Communication 101 as well. Or, as law professors advise their soon-to-be new lawyers, once you've won your case, stop arguing.

After his gaff was called to his attention, Harreld's first instinct was his best. In an email exchange with the person who emailed her complaint about his remark, he replied, “I apologize and appreciate your calling my attention to it." She responded that she appreciated his apology and understood his remark to be rhetorical. Had he left it at that he would have taken a lump, but the story probably wouldn't have made it into the next news cycle.

Not content to leave this resolution alone, and rejecting the wise counsel from the adage that "yesterday's newspapers are used to wrap fish and line bird cages," he kept the story alive. That was his first mistake. The second mistake was that what he came up with by way of a defense made no sense at all. He contended that, in the context of a discussion of UI instructors preparation to teach, while saying that "unprepared teachers should be shot" would be inappropriate, that was not what he said. He claimed he said that if he was, or when he was, an instructor that if he was unprepared "he should be shot."

He thereby insured a second round of stories in the next news cycle, and since there was no recording of what he said, the rejection of his assertion by some of those present. It also created the sense that although he once seemed to understand what he'd done wrong and apologized for, he was now trying to excuse it as OK -- and with a distinction that was unpersuasive at best.

Watch this space.

# # #

The Militarization of America

July 5, 2015, 8:30 a.m.

Note: This column was written as a part of one of the Gazette Writers Circle projects; in this case, the militarization of local police in Iowa and across the country. I saw the issues as merely a sub-set of those raised by "the militarization of America," and best understood and addressed within that context.

Having done so, it is useful to make clear by way of this note that I fully recognize: (a) the United States needs a military, (b) there are occasions when our national interests do require that it be used (such as World War II), and (c) that those who volunteer to serve, and do so with skill and honor, deserve our respect, thanks, and far more GI-Bill-style practical support on their return than we seem willing to provide. At a minimum, they should not be blamed for the foolish decisions of our elected officials. One way of honoring them is to discuss and question those decisions, as I attempt to do, below.

Text below [in brackets] was submitted to The Gazette, included in its online version, but omitted from its hard copy edition. -- Nicholas Johnson
_______________

The Militarization of America

Nicholas Johnson

The Gazette, Gazette Writers Circle, July 5, 2015, p. C3
Philadelphia police crowd control 30 years ago? Dropping a bomb from a helicopter; 60 homes burned.

Not the typical response of the thousands who do “protect and serve.” But today’s militarization of local police with hand-me-down Army equipment is worth examining — in context.

Because it’s only a small part of the militarization of America.

We are the world’s pre-eminent military power. Of the top ten military nations we spend more than the other nine combined. With our military presence in over 150 countries, and provision of weapons to others, we have militarized the world.

Expenditures reflect values. There is little political objection to the trillions of debt from credit card military adventures. We accept the opportunity costs as we reject universal, single-payer health care, starve our public schools, cut programs for the poor, and watch our infrastructure crumble. “We’re number one!” we cry, notwithstanding low international rankings for test scores, infant mortality, and life expectancy.

Our national anthem celebrates “the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air.” Our sporting events often begin with a vocalist and spectators singing that song. Athletic contests in many cultures serve, in part, to prepare young men for battle. Our most popular sport is our most violent: football. Those games sometimes begin with a flyover of military fighter planes. [Photo credit: Brian Ray, The Gazette.] See footnote, "Fighter Planes Flyover of Kinnick Stadium," below.

We have a [“ready, fire, aim”] militarized media, its cheerleaders for war ready to support every military action. [Never mind we haven’t been attacked, and there’s no realistic threat.] War coverage is dramatic and improves ratings, whether baby wars (Granada), “pre-emptive” wars (Iraq), or perpetual wars elsewhere. [TV stations used to “sign off” at night with visuals of flags and fighter planes. As Mason Williams said, “Every night, before it goes to bed, television gets down on its knees and prays to war.”] [Photo credit: unknown.]

We have militarized our homes and ourselves. Our children play with video games that train them as military sharpshooters and drone operators. Roughly 40 percent are living in homes with guns. The U.N. reports America’s gun death risk per 100,000 population is 20 times the average for other countries.

There are 50,000 suicides and homicides each year; 60 percent involve guns. (Homicide is the second leading cause of death of 15-25 year olds.) Some estimate guns in homes are 16 times more likely to harm occupants than intruders.

Given those odds, Americans must really love their guns a lot — a love that surpasses all understanding.

It’s natural such a nation would have a National Rifle Association (NRA) opposing virtually every form of gun regulation, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, retention of databases of gun purchases, background checks on purchasers at gun shows and changes in the registration of firearms.

With the expansion of permits to carry, we see the militarization of other institutions as well. There are guns on college campuses, in schools, malls, movie theaters, bars and even churches. And there are the all-too-regular reports of deaths — genuinely grieved, but all too quickly forgotten.

We have militarized our politics and governing. Few elected officials are defeated for supporting increased defense appropriations or the NRA’s agenda. Many have military bases or defense contractors in their districts. Coupled with the NRA’s campaign contributions, large membership, and ability to defeat its opponents, military-industrial complex and NRA victories are not surprising.

We’ve already militarized law enforcement.

The 1878 posse comitatus act makes it a federal crime to use “any part of the Army ... to execute the laws.” However, with many exceptions, plus the Insurrection Act, it’s a low hurdle.

In 1932, President Hoover ordered Army General Douglas MacArthur and Major Dwight Eisenhower to use the infantry to disburse the WWI Bonus March veterans from their Mall encampments. President Eisenhower used the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to integrate the Little Rock schools in 1957. When riots followed Dr. King’s 1968 assassination, President Johnson ordered 2,000 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers flown to Washington.

Sometimes Army intervention aids big business. In the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, President Harding ordered the Army to support mine owners against 10,000 miners. Since the 1890s union organizing and strikes have often yielded to government force — including the Army.

In October 2002, the activation of USNORTHCOM marked the first time since George Washington that a military commander’s mission is our own homeland.

Militarized nations need blanket surveillance of their civilians. We have that, too. The NSA plus 15 other spy agencies we know about.

That’s the context. Now let’s talk about the militarization of police.

• Nicholas Johnson, as U.S. Maritime Administrator, had responsibility for military sealift to Vietnam. www.nicholasjohnson.org, FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

_______________
Fighter Planes Flyover of Kinnick Stadium
The two photos, above, were taken in Kinnick stadium in Iowa City during the Iowa-Ohio State football game, November 20, 2010.

The flyover demonstrated America's militarization by blending the Star Spangled Banner, being played at the time, with the low, swooping flyover of the stadium by four T-38 fighter jets.

For the most part, the crowd seemed to love it: "The military flyover came at the end of the 'Star Spangled Banner' and was followed by loud cheering and a standing ovation by many Hawkeye football fans."

Although I've not thoroughly research the matter, I am unaware of any writing at the time (beyond my own) questioning the propriety of an institution of higher education promoting militarization. "UI spokesman Tom Moore [chose to specifically acknowledge that] 'The purpose of the flyover was to honor all of our military personnel."

The primary focus of objections only related to the height, and clearance of the stadium, at which the fighter jets were flying at such high speed. Haley Bruce, "Officials Say Kinnick Flyover Too Low," The Daily Iowan, December 13, 2010 ("Officials said a flyover at Kinnick Stadium during the Iowa-Ohio State football game last month may have violated Air Force regulations by being hundreds of feet too low, the Associated Press has reported"). [Photo credit: Rob Johnson, The Daily Iowan; "Four T-38 jets fly over during the national anthem at Kinnick Stadium on Saturday, Nov. 20, 2010."] And see the follow up, "Pilot in Low Kinnick Flyover Blamed Other Air Traffic," Associated Press, The Gazette, March 31, 2014.

_______________

James Edward Johnson, Comment on Facebook, July 5, 2015, 10:11 a.m.
Generally, I agree, but with one exception. Allowing people to privately possess the tools of self-defense is an acknowledgement that total control (through mass surveillance, overwhelming force, and general denial of our Constitutional rights) by the police is an undesirable goal. This is the heart of the values represented by the Second Amendment - particularly as extended thought the 14th. We should not have standing armies or a militarized police force. But, to secure the rights that may be protected by state power, the people should be directly enabled to secure those rights.

Since moving to Chicago, it has become clearer that disadvantaged people are, too often, both unprotected or threatened by the police, and at risk from a small number of criminals who terrorize their communities. The individual right to self defense, and the ancillary right to retain the tools for that purpose, exist so that people are not dependent on forces that threaten their liberty just as much as they promise to protect the people from other threats.

As a society, we should work to improve the integrity of our police, repeal laws against victimless crimes that enable police harassment of the people, and ensure educational and work opportunities that strengthen communities against such state and criminal threats.

However, the people hurt by these systemic problems should not have to wait on the rest of us to take remedial action. I support the Huey P. Newton Gun Club because I believe they take these rights seriously. We should not conflate their actions with the actions of a militarized police that acts offensively.

# # #

Second Amendment, Second Thoughts

January 17, 2011, 9:30 p.m.

Presenting, and Responding to, a Blog Entry's Critics
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
A week ago I wrote about the carnage in Tucson, Arizona, and provided statistics about the number of gun deaths in America each year. "Guns Do Kill -- 30,000 Americans a Year; Just Americans Toasting Toast," January 10, 2011 ("Even in the lawless, wild west of old, Iowans had the sense to forbid six-shooters in bars and taverns. Iowa's legislators, yearning for the past, missed that nuance, and have provided that even those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time can legally drink and carry a gun at the same time.").

It's a subject I have written about before:

Related: Nicholas Johnson, "Branstad and Public Transparency," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 5, 2011, p. A7, embedded in "Governor Branstad's 'Transparency,'" January 5, 2011 (urging more media stories that "associate those appropriations [of taxpayers' money to for-profit corporations] with the legislators who voted for them, and how much those legislators received in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses from the recipient of the appropriation.").

Nicholas Johnson, "Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves; Additional Risks from Armed (Campus and Other) Police: Accidental Self-Inflicted Wounds," May 9, 2008 ("It was pointed out that those who keep handguns in their homes are 16 times more likely to have those guns used on family and friends than on criminal intruders (e.g., as a result of suicides, accidents, mis-identification, or the gun being stolen and used by the intruder). Accidental shootings of unarmed, innocent civilians by police officers sometimes occur -- including in Iowa City. It was noted that police are sometimes shot with their own guns as a result of losing them to an attacker in a scuffle. What was not discussed was the danger to the police themselves from . . . themselves. We were reassured that our police would be well trained. And I assume they are. But it turns out that isn't always enough. Indeed, some of the accidental, self-inflicted wounds (and death) occur during that very training.").

Nicholas Johnson, "A Public Health Response to Handgun Injuries: Prescription -- Communication and Education," American Journal of Preventive Medicine (May/June 1993) ("So long as we are unwilling to adopt effective, fail-safe solutions--actually removing these instruments of carnage from our midst--the price exacted for this "freedom" will continue to be thousands of lives of children and adults.").

(And see this morning's [Jan. 18] New York Times: "The contention . . . is that the good guys can shoot back whenever the bad guys show up to do harm. An important study published in 2009 by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine estimated that people in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during the assault than someone in a comparable situation without a gun. . . . Monday was a national holiday celebrating the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. While the gun crazies are telling us that ever more Americans need to be walking around armed, we should keep in mind that more than a million people have died from gun violence — in murders, accidents and suicides — since Dr. King was shot to death in 1968. We need fewer . . .. That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started." Bob Herbert, "How Many Deaths Are Enough?" New York Times, January 18, 2011, p. A25.)

The January 10 Giffords blog entry produced a significant number of hits -- and criticism.

And so, in an effort to provide the remedies of the First Amendment to this discussion about the Second Amendment, I'm going to reproduce some of it here.

Some were comments appended to the blog entry. One of the most impressive rational responses, I thought, came in the form of an email I'm reproducing at the bottom of this blog entry. First, the comments:

Jeff Morelock said...

You forgot some other info...

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

So I guess cars, alcohol, Tobacco, sex, getting fat and a bunch of other stuff kills people too
1/10/2011 08:49:00 AM

He's got a point. It's a risk perception, risk assessment, point -- if what you're concerned about is death or serious injury. It's like being afraid to fly, but willing to smoke cigarettes and travel in automobiles -- both of which pose much greater risk of death than airplanes. My only reactions are two: (1) most of the deaths from "suicide," "incidents involving firearms," and "homicide" -- which he lists -- do involve deaths from guns. (2) Aside from them, the only other product on the list that, when used for the purpose for which intended, will cause death, is tobacco. Eliminating handguns (an impossibility, as the email writer explains) would at least eliminate deaths involving handguns -- a device manufactured for the purpose of creating violent trauma, whether to a fellow human, animal, or paper target. Automobiles, prescription drugs, and sex are seldom deliberately used to produce death, and at least have alternative purposes and uses.

Vinney B. said (in part),

Gun control in this country would only cause more problems than it would solve. Guns sold on the black market would create more crime and a deadly element worse than what we have now. Similar to our drug problem. Imagine the amount of our hard earned taxpayers money we would have to spend to fight it. It would be a losing battle. Similar to our drug problem. Criminals would still have guns knowing that most Americans may not.
1/10/2011 04:49:00 PM

He also has a point -- one expanded on by the email writer. But handgun injuries and deaths can be reduced, even if they cannot be eliminated -- any more than guns can be eliminated. Even the most avid "anti-gun control" advocates support the idea of education in gun safety and operation, and keeping guns out of the hands of psychopathic killers. There are more handgun deaths from suicide than homicide. There are suicide prevention programs that could help reduce those deaths and might be acceptable to gun owners. And most of those who want to regulate "guns" in some way or other make a distinction between the handguns that can be concealed and the rifles used for hunting -- although, as no less a person than the former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney demonstrated, they can also cause human injury (and death).

Finally, among those commenting is . . .

Anonymous said...

Pathetic. What happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions (something that you and other liberals do not believe in). Yes, believe it or not it is people who kill, not guns. You pose as an academic individual, but you seem to forget that murder predates firearms. Do you honestly believe that banning firearms will decrease violence? People who want to kill will always find a way. How about placing the blame where it needs to be placed: on the man who committed the crime.
1/16/2011 03:30:00 AM

My impression -- with no more data to support it than Anonymous offers -- is that almost everyone in my acquaintance I can think of (including "liberals," once there is a definition that enables one to identify who they are) believe that "people [should take] responsibility for their own actions" and support "placing the blame . . . on the man who committed the crime." (a) I don't believe that "banning firearms will decrease violence," but I do believe that, could it be done (which it can't) it would not only decrease handgun violence, it would eliminate it. (b) Even if "violence" cannot be reduced, violent fist fights, or knife attacks, are (again I'm guessing, without data) probably far less likely to cause death when they do occur, than the expression of violence with firearms.

And now for the thougtful email:

In almost all cases I agree with the liberal/progressive position on issues.

Gay marriage, living wage, single-payer national health care.

One of the few areas where I differ is gun control.

Of course "gun control" means different things to different people. Some NRA members (which I am not) would say that gun control means hitting the target. Others would say it means a policy similar to those in Canada, Japan, and many European countries where it is extremely difficult for a civilian to own any firearm, let alone a handgun.

A couple points:

1) As with most 'hot button' issues, most people have made up their minds on this and have dug in their heels, so there is no point in trying to "convert" anyone. That is certainly not my intent.

2) If the democrats want to win elections they will have to compromise on this issue. I really don't care one way or the other, just sayin'.

3) As mentioned above, there is a wide range of "gun control." I think requiring background checks, "cooling off periods," and gun safety courses is reasonable. Possibly even requiring that each gun be test fired, to allow law enforcement to have a record of the unique striations that each gun creates on the bullets that are fired from it. Beyond that, I think that the Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to own any gun that the police routinely use (i.e., not surface to air missiles or hand grenades). After all, what makes cops different from other humans? Only training. Gun owners could be required to have the same training.

4) It may sound trite, but it seems true that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." Very similar to our failed "war on drugs."

5) Personally, I think it's all but pointless to carry a gun for protection. Typically, a would-be mugger/rapist is going to point a gun at their victim and that person will not be able to draw their weapon without getting shot. However, I would not try to prevent people from carrying a gun if they want (again, assuming they go through a background check, gun safety course, etc).

6) It's too late for gun control if that means eliminating all guns. For better or worse, guns are a part of our society and have been from the very beginning. There are something like 200 million privately owned guns. Even if we could magically eliminate all new guns, it would be next to impossible to confiscate more that a small percentage of the guns already in private hands -- and then there's that pesky Second Amendment.

7) Beyond the number of guns a person can carry it doesn't matter how many guns a person owns. Why? Because they can only shoot one at a time -- the rest will be left in their basement or gun safe. We often hear that some criminal owns 50, 75, or 100-plus guns. As if that's supposed to be extra scary or something. It may indicate that the person was or is obsessed with guns. But it doesn't make them any more potentially dangerous that the guy who owns a couple semi-automatic handguns.

8) I have owned one gun since I was 14 years old. It it is a .22 caliber rifle. It is considered tame by most standards because of the small caliber and the fact that it is a long gun. It is the type of gun that would be the last to be outlawed even by the the most frothing at the mouth anti-gun fanatics. In actuality though, it could be very lethal in the hands of a lunatic. It holds 19 rounds and will fire them as fast as the trigger can be pulled. I have a high power scope on it which makes it extremely accurate from a long distance. I'm not a particularly good shot, yet I can hit push pins stuck in a tree at 150 feet. I suppose my point is that any gun, even a .22, can be used to kill people. John Hinkley used a .22 in his attempt to assassinate president Reagan.

9) People often refer to "assault weapons" and the repealed assault weapons ban. In actuality, most assault weapons are just "gussied up" hunting rifles. They just look scarier than a deer rifle. As a practical matter, banning them has very little effect. What is more important is the ammo. I remember seeing a demonstration on TV years ago of different types of bullets being shot from a common hunting rifle at watermelons. Some (the ones with a steel jacket) went right through the melons without much damage, others just blew them apart.

10) I rarely shoot my .22 and when I do it is just for fun -- target shooting. While the primary purpose of most guns is to hunt or for personal protection, target and skeet shooting is a legitimate (and fun) sport.

11) I'll end with one for the gun control folks. There are way too many people (mostly males) who think that if they just had a gun they would be able to protect themselves and their family in any situation. That's often not the case. In fact, the opposite may be true. If the criminal sees a gun they may start shooting when they otherwise wouldn't. Or, the criminal may get the person's gun. When under stress must people will not exactly have a steady hand like Clint Eastwood -- they will be shaking and trembling and not able to hit anything more than a few feet away. In the situations similar to that in Arizona this past Saturday [January 8, 2011], it will often be very difficult to shoot the criminal without hitting someone else. Also, lets suppose one or more people do start shooting at the criminal and a gunfight ensues. Then the cops show up and they have no idea who the good guys are. Or, other armed citizens join in and mistakenly shoot one of the good guys.

That said, there are definitely scenarios where an armed citizen could save lives -- the Long Island RR massacre comes to mind -- a crazy guy walking through a train randomly shooting people. But those situations are rare.

Bottom line, things rarely go down the way they do in the movies.

-- Sherman Johnson

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Guns Do Kill -- 30,000 Americans a Year

January 10, 2011, 7:00 a.m.

Just Americans Toasting Toast
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
America's flags are at half-staff. The country mourns the victims of six more handgun deaths. Those among them receiving the most media attention are the very popular Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, federal judge John M. Roll, and a nine-year-old girl, Christina Green, who played on the boys' baseball team, had just been elected to her student council, and came out to meet her member of Congress for the first time. E.g., Marc Lacey, "Federal Charges Cite Assassination Plan," New York Times, January 10, 2011, p. A1.

Meanwhile, the munitions makers, gun manufacturers, handgun retail outlets and shows, and their very generous campaign contributor and powerful lobbying arm, the National Rifle Association, like to disassociate themselves from America's handgun homicides.

One of their favorite lines is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." To which one of the popular rejoinders of sanity has been, "Yeah, and toasters don't toast toast, people toast toast."

They are hoping that the fallout from Saturday's events will soon blow over and handgun sales will not only return to normal, but may actually increase.

Sadly, although the memories of Saturday will gradually fade, the nation's deaths from handguns will not. Over 30,000 Americans will die from guns. Of the 18,000 homicide deaths, 68% will involve guns. Few if any Japanese will die from gunshot wounds; their rates of gun deaths are a minuscule fraction of ours.

According to the CDC's latest statistics, of 18,361 homicides 12,632 were death by handgun. "FastStats: Homicide," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of course, homicide is not the only cause of firearm deaths. The total death toll is closer to 31,000.

Firearm—In 2006, 30,896 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18–20), accounting for 17.3 percent of all injury deaths that year. Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 54.6 and 41.4 percent, respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 2006. In 2006, the age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide decreased significantly from 2005 by 3.5 percent, from 5.7 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population to 5.5. However, the age-adjusted rate for all firearm injuries was the same in 2006 as in 2005—10.2 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population (Tables 18–20).

CDC, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 57, No. 14, April 17, 2009, p. 11.

And for every firearm death there are twice as many firearm injuries.

Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths annually between 1980 and 2006 (See Figure 1).2,3 It is the second leading cause of death from injury after motor vehicle crashes.4 An estimated two nonfatal injuries occur for every firearm death.5,6 The 2006 age adjusted death rate from firearm injury is 10.2/100,000 with an estimated nonfatal injury rate of 23.6.7 Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults.8,7 Deaths peaked in 1993 at 40,000 in the early 1990s and fell below 30,000 in 1999. Yet even at these lower levels, firearm injury represents a significant public health impact, accounting for 6.6% of premature death in this country (Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) prior to age 65).9 The fatality rate of firearm violence is more than twice the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ “Healthy People” goal for the year 2010.

Firearm & Injury Center at Penn, Firearm Injury in the U.S., Final Resource Book Updated 2009.

And so how has the Iowa Legislature responded to this carnage? Why by giving the NRA what it wants in exchange for its campaign contributions and members' votes -- an increase in gun sales as a result of a new law creating an ability for virtually all Iowans to carry concealed handguns, notwithstanding the judgment of their local sheriff that it's dangerous to give them a permit to carry. Tom Alex, "Iowans flock to sheriffs to apply for gun permits," Des Moines Register, January 5, 2011 ("Several Iowa sheriffs' offices reported receiving 10 to 20 times as many weapons permit applications on Monday as they do most days. Monday was the first day government offices were open since Saturday, when a law took effect that requires sheriffs under most circumstances to issue permits to carry concealed weapons. Sheriffs previously had greater discretion to deny or restrict such permits.").

Even in the lawless, wild west of old, Iowans had the sense to forbid six-shooters in bars and taverns. Iowa's legislators, yearning for the past, missed that nuance, and have provided that even those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time can legally drink and carry a gun at the same time.

Of course, it doesn't help when politicians say "don't retreat, reload," or put gun sights over opponents congressional districts (as Sarah Palin did with Congresswoman Giffords' district), or talk show hosts speak of "Second Amendment solutions," or say that when ballots don't work there are always bullets. If America's largest corporations think what they say in their multi-billion-dollar advertising on radio and TV is powerful enough to manipulate human behavior, it's hard to believe that illusions to assassination are totally harmless. See, e.g., Paul Krugman, "Climate of Hate," New York Times, January 10, 2011, p. A21; Froma Harrop, "Despite gunman's mental state, it was still a political attack," Dallas Morning News, January 11, 2011.

Harrop writes,

House Speaker John Boehner['s] . . . contention that this was "an attack on all who serve" wasn't quite right. Jared Lee Loughner['s] . . . attack was not against "all who serve." It was on a Democrat who had been vilified by a gun-waving right wing that Boehner's party tolerates and feeds with self-pitying visions of oppression. Democrats have no Palin-like figure putting political opponents in the cross hairs of gun sights . . .. There is no Democratic version of Giffords' recent Republican opponent . . . "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." . . . Jeff McQueen, a tea party "leader" . . . told NPR: "We have a choice of four boxes if we want to make political change in this country. We can go to the soap box, we can go to the ballot box, or we can go to the jury box, and hopefully, we won't have to go to the bullet box." . . . Tom Ashbrook responded: "Bullet box! Are you talking about armed revolution?" McQueen answered . . ., "Have you seen ammunition sales in the last 12 months?" . . . [T]he Republican senatorial candidate in Nevada, Sharron Angle . . . added, "I hope we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies."

But however much debate there may be regarding the impact of speech, there should be very little debate regarding the impact of guns. The numbers are overwhelming.

Of course the real problem is all the frustration building up in those Americans who are still convinced they don't need a toaster to toast toast.

Related: Nicholas Johnson, "Branstad and Public Transparency," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 5, 2011, p. A7, embedded in "Governor Branstad's 'Transparency,'" January 5, 2011 (urging more media stories that "associate those appropriations [of taxpayers' money to for-profit corporations] with the legislators who voted for them, and how much those legislators received in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses from the recipient of the appropriation.").

Nicholas Johnson, "Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves; Additional Risks from Armed (Campus and Other) Police: Accidental Self-Inflicted Wounds," May 9, 2008.

Nicholas Johnson, "A Public Health Response to Handgun Injuries: Prescription -- Communication and Education," American Journal of Preventive Medicine (May/June 1993) ("So long as we are unwilling to adopt effective, fail-safe solutions--actually removing these instruments of carnage from our midst--the price exacted for this "freedom" will continue to be thousands of lives of children and adults.").
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #