Sunday, April 15, 2012


I should take notes about such things, but I don’t. I do recall, however, having read in various reports about substantial evidence revealing that a remarkable percentage of soldiers in battle during World War II were loath to aim their weapons at other human beings, a.k.a. enemy soldiers, with the intent to kill them; and indeed failed to do so. They would aim above or to the side when firing, rather than at the enemy. I have read also that subsequent research resulted in different military training techniques that would ensure more reliable results. The normal human being, it seems, lacks the required killer instinct; and the most effective way to instill the necessary discipline was, ironically perhaps, to draw upon such feelings as a natural empathy and compassion, appealing to the trainee’s instinct to protect and save—whether his brothers at arms or endangered civilians who would otherwise become innocent victims to violence.

My thoughts returned to these surprising facts as I read “A Veteran’s Death, the Nation’s Shame,” Nicholas D. Kristof’s disturbing column about veteran suicides in today’s op-ed section of the New York Times. It’s a huge problem, and one that draws attention to the psychic damage inflicted by the traumatic experience of war on the human mind. Is it possible, I wondered, that those soldiers in World War II were spared the worst of the after-effects suffered by our veterans today precisely because they had not been so effectively trained to kill, and because so many of them had by their actions declined to do so? I was particularly struck, in Kristof’s article, by the story of the young man who, on his return home, was impelled to purchase a gun identical to his military weapon to lay beside him in his bed at night in order to be able to sleep—a powerful image of the deluded sense of security provided by a deadly technological device.

And then I found myself thinking about George Zimmerman, the man who killed the black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida a few weeks ago. It’s my conjecture that Zimmerman was as horrified as the rest of us by his action. Another article in today’s op-ed section, “Young, Black, Male, and Stalked by Bias,” by Brent Staples, refers us to the history of Zimmerman’s 911 calls, documenting the man’s increasing propensity to profile people with the outward appearance and skin color of his eventual victim. Without the gun tucked into his waistband, the probably unconscious racial bias that led to his suspicion and his call to the police would have resulted in nothing worse than the needless dispatch of yet another patrol car to investigate his complaint; the gun, however, gave him a sense of power and entitlement to exercise his own authority that led to the taking of an innocent life. It was, I suspect, the arrogance and empowerment promoted by the possession of the weapon that led to the unintended and profoundly tragic consequence we all know about today.

From there my thoughts turned to television news reports about the NRA convention in St. Louis and the “7 acres” of weapons on display at the associated gun show; to the shamefully pandering remarks of Republican candidate Mitt Romney and the boastful public claim of the NRA president that Obama would have that organization to thank for his ouster from the White House, come November; to the multiple recent reports of death by gunfire and the mayhem that has taken the lives of police officers in the line of duty as well as innocent civilians minding their own business; and to the NRA sponsored laws passed in two dozen and more state legislatures, enabling untrained citizens to purchase weapons, frequently without background checks, to carry them without let or hindrance, and to use them with virtual impunity. And we are talking here not simply about hand guns, nor even simply about rifles and shotguns used for “sport.” We are also talking about the kind of weapons and ammunition that are designed exclusively for the taking of human life, if necessary in large numbers.

Why do people take it into their heads to buy such things? The only two explanations that come to my mind are these: paranoia, on the one hand—an inordinate and misplaced fear of other human beings; and on the other, a delusional obsession with holding the power of other people’s life and death in one’s own hands. Perhaps, too, this weaponry is the ultimate plaything, the toy to end all toys for the minds of boys who have never quite grown to men.

It is appalling that we allow ourselves, as a nation, to be bullied by a minority into accepting their irrational interpretation of a principle given expression in very different circumstances more than two hundred years ago. The founding fathers, to whom they make their appeal, would have been as astounded and appalled as the majority—yes, the sane majority—of Americans today by how their words have been twisted to support an ideology so clearly misguided in intention and disastrous in outcome on our city streets. They would have been equally astounded and appalled, I think, by cowardice and venality of those who surrender so easily to the power and money wielded by what is essentially, in the national context, merely a small interest group.

Is it not time for us to make clear to our politicians that we do not wish for them to be governed by the NRA? The Mayors Against Illegal Guns are setting a good example for other politicians to follow. How many more have to die at the hands of the angry, the resentful, or the merely insane before we as a country decide that something must be done? At the very least, given almost daily news reports of gun misuse and an ever-growing death count, such initiatives as requirements for background checks and restrictions on the sale of guns designed exclusively for battleground use should be of the highest priority. And at the very least, too, let’s not vote for a man who panders to the threats and paranoiac fantasies of the gun lobby.


Anonymous said...

right on!
The city cultural agrees with you but it is the folks in the suburbs and rural areas that need to be convinced.

CHI SPHERE said...

I was a hospital corpsman in Vietnam and spent most of my time in the highlands in triage listening to wounded soldiers while treating their wounds and issuing morphine. A very small percentage wanted to serve and kill. The few I still know regret ever having to participate in the war that had no positive results for anyone. None of them own guns or hunt. It may be because they were corpsmen or Docs as we were called.
None of us slept well for years after our duty ended. To this day I have thoughts I must dismiss and memories of that ridiculous war and my involvement.
It was the first televised war in history. My parents wrote to me frequently and I to them. I moved in the theater each day and about 50% of my mail reached me weeks after it was received in Saigon. I returned in the spring of 1968 after being wounded in the Tet offensive south of Khe Sanh. I contacted other returning corpsmen who were in my company and we formed a group with psychiatrists who were also a part of the war. We all had PTSD which I understand was named after the Nam, the abbreviated term most vets use when speaking of that war.
I did attend one gun show with a friend several years ago in Albuquerque out of curiosity. I lasted about an hour and left with a feeling of remorse. Those people I do know who own guns say they keep them for personal protection in case someone enters their home to do them harm or for protection after the BIG ONE hits us in California.
I recall frequent gun related incidents after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. In the aftermath police in New Orleans confiscated thousands of guns from residents in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who wasn’t law enforcement. Louisiana residents felt that their constitutional rights were violated and proceeded to sue the city of New Orleans with the help of the National Rifle Association. A local resident reported “There were vans with thugs in them. They were breaking into any businesses where there was no sign of anyone around in them. They didn’t mess with us in here because I stood out front with my shotgun,” said Joann Guidos, owner of Kajun’s Pub.
Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church. So since the end of the Civil war we have been "under the gun".
Acres of guns are likely to find their way into the hands of persons who really have little idea of how to use them or keep them from children. My greatest concern is the damage that will be done by returning vets in the tens of thousands who will own them and are afflicted by PTSD. It is only a matter of time when these damaged vets will act out their anger, guilt and frustration in ways they can unless a massive national effort to assist them with their PTSD is initiated. I seriously doubt this will occur. The potential for widespread random incidents of violence is very likely.
Is there room to be optimistic or time to act on this need? The answer is obvious. If one thinks of the housing bubble as a canary in the mine I fear we have an eagle waiting in the wings of the theater.
It has always struck me as odd in the extreme that the word theater is used by our armed forces to describe acts of violence on a scale that defies belief. War is not fiction.
Theater is a collaborative form of fine art that uses live performers to present the experience of a real or imagined event before a live audience. War is not fine art and the audience is not present to be entertained or enlightened.
Is humankind able to learn fast enough to overcome the madness of war, poverty, lack of education and environmental degradation? Time will tell.

PeterAtLarge said...

Thanks for the long and thoughtful response, Gary--and for the interesting piece of history about the origins of the NRA. I imagine the good colonel and general would be quite surprised by the subsequent history of their organization. The "lack of marksmanship" they deplored may in fact have had to do with the phenomenon I mentioned: that soldiers lack a "natural" killer instinct, and aim away from fellow human targets.

Thanks, too, to anon, for the added insight.

Paula said...

This was a great post. I have read some of the same statistics you have. Studies have shown that a larger percentage of weapons have been found to have been fired with every war since the civil war. It's obvious that the military is trying harder and harder to breed the human morals out of recruits. Need I mention all the scandals involving our troops outright murdering civilians?

Jake Roberts said...

I have enjoyed reading your post. It is well written. It looks like you spend a large amount of time and effort on your blog. I appreciate your effort. Please check out my site.I
Toy guns for sale