The gun debate

Two more terrible mass shootings in the last week, one racially motivated  in Buffalo, New York, the other a suicidal youth in Uvalde, Texas, have brought the debate over guns back to the fore. 

As usual Democrats have called for banning assault rifles and more gun control generally, and the GOP has blamed mental health, lack of armed teachers and the rest of its regular litany of alternative explanations that might divert the conversation away from gun control.  So no surprises there.

What is becoming clear is that the argument is not about guns at all, but about identity. It has morphed into a debate about individualism versus collectivism.  The individualists want the right to bear arms in part because they do not trust the state to provide protection; indeed many do not trust the state at all and think their guns are their last line of defense against what they perceive as state oppression.  The collectivists believe that some curtailing of individual rights (gun control) is needed to reduce the number of gun-related deaths, at the same time trusting, indeed expecting, the state to protect its citizens.  This dichotomization of identity happens to line up with the rural vs. urban divide and the right/left divide.    

On the vertical axis is the rate of gun related homicides, on the horizontal a function of the ratio of democratic to republican votes in the 2020 general election, for all fifty states. There is a clear relationship between high rates of gun related homicides and right-leaning states.  What is so tragic is that in the twenty years since the Sandy Hook shooting, not to mention Columbine and all those since, almost no action has been taken by either party; the Democrats are stymied by the filibuster in Congress and an increasingly right-leaning Supreme Court.  

The GOP on the other hand has no excuse for inaction, and anyone interested in curbing the rate of gun related homicides in America should be asking the GOP two questions. First, from the list of possible causes (mental health, for example) what actions have been taken? Then two follow-up questions; if the answer is nothing, then "why not"? and if the actions have been taken then "to what extent have the worked"? My guess is that in those states favoring solutions other than gun-control, little if anything has been done. But if things have, we need to know if anything worked so that the same measures might be applied elsewhere. 

The Rittenhouse Verdict

The jury's verdict in the Rittenhouse case has, unsurprisingly, been controversial. Much stems from the confluence of two issues; the use of deadly force and inequitable treatment based on race. As has been pointed out, had Rittenhouse been black instead of white, is it almost inconceivable that he would not have been arrested on the spot (or even shot by the police) rather than allowed to return home to turn himself in later. That (among other things) is one aspect of the racial component. Another might be his becoming a cause célèbre for Fox, which again would be unlikely to have happened were he a black teenager. That afforded him an expensive, high profile and well prepared legal defense team instead of an over-worked public defender.

However, those were not the questions the jury had to consider; it was asked rather to determine the very narrow question of whether someone carrying a weapon has the right to use deadly force to defend him or herself in the particular circumstances of the case. There were three different instances; in the first, Rittenhouse was chased by an unarmed man; in the second he was attacked by a man wielding a skateboard; and in the third he was threatened with a hand gun. In the first two, Rittenhouse shot and killed his assailants; the third was seriously injured. 

Rittenhouse was acquitted in all three instances. His defense was that even when being threatened or attacked by someone who was either unarmed or armed with an everyday object (a skateboard) he was  justified in fearing for his life and hence justified in using deadly force.  While it seems a stretch that he would be in fear of his life when set upon on by someone who was unarmed, the defense suggested that had Rittenhouse been overpowered, his assailant would have taken his gun and used it to shoot him.  Although to the man on the London omnibus, that seems highly unlikely, it cannot be unequivocally ruled out, which may explain the jury's verdict.  The jury also did not consider (or were not asked to consider) whether putting oneself needlessly into harm's way in a somewhat provocative manner made the claim of self-defense less robust. 

Ultimately, the verdict seems to pave the way for anyone carrying a gun to claim that the person they shot might have taken their gun and used it against them, making their killing justified based on that hypothetical scenario. A similar case concerning the killing of Ahmaud Arbery is currently underway and the same defense will almost certainly be used. Gun rights activists assert that the "Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy With A Gun". The problem with that philosophy is that who the good and bad guys are is in the eye of the beholder. The trajectory we appear to be on leads almost inexorably to everyone needing to carry a gun. That's not what I think of a civil society and is certainly one I don't particularity want to live in. 

A Vigilante Society

Two stories in the news this week illustrate the United States' decent into a vigilante society; the first is the trail of Kyle Rittenhouse, accused of murder for shooting dead two people and wounding a third, allegedly in self defense.  Rittenhouse, who was not from Kenosha, Wisconsin, had traveled across state lines claiming to want to protect Kenosha property owners from having their stores looted or destroyed by demonstrators protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake, who is Black, by a White Police office (who has not been charged int the shooting). The other is the case of Ahmed Arbery, who was chased down and shot by three self-appointed vigilantes. In both cases, self-defense is being cited as justification for the killings. Yet in both, untrained civilians with no, or in the Arbery case highly dubious, legal authority took it upon themselves to mete out their own personal version of "justice".  We are in danger of substituting the rule of law for the rule of the most heavily armed. 

Fantasy worlds

"Rttenhouse appears to have been living in a fantasy world where police and car dealerships are more endangered than unarmed Black men in traffic stops, and where he was a warrior and self-defender, rather than a youngster who foolishly enrolled himself in a midwestern version of the Children’s Crusade. I can only imagine his fear when he saw the crowd coming for him—and the crowd’s fear, when it saw that a near-child was wildly firing a rifle better suited to a person with judgment and good training. I do not expect that the jury will be forgiving".

So writes Graeme Wood, staff writer at the Atlantic, in his last paragraph (August 28th).

But it's not clear to me that Wood isn't living in fantasy world too. Recall George Zimmerman and the self defense legal strategy. I fully expect a jury will acquit Rittenhouse, assuming charges are even brought.

Wood himself provides the basis for Rittenhouse's defense - that he was in fear for his life. Certainly by the time he was being chased and fell to the ground he could make that claim quite legitimately; given the circumstances I could imagine those chasing him could easily beaten him without mercy and even killed him. So the last two killings clearly fit the category of self-defense; and, if as has been alleged, he was attacked by a protester leading to his first shooting, then it likely applies there too.

That he came, at least in the eyes of the protesters, spoiling for a fight (as I imagine the prosecution will argue) and therefore put himself intentionally into harm's way does not, in my view, sufficiently weaken the self-defense argument.  In both instances, although he was armed, he does not appear to have been the aggressor; and that is going to be critical.      

Blue flu

I heard something deeply disturbing from a friend yesterday. Some friends of his from his childhood days who are in law enforcement told him that there has been a recent surge in handgun sales; mainly women (and I'm assuming white women), who apparently are "really frightened" (his words).

My immediate supposition is that these are people who watch Fox and who have been fed a diet of anti-Black vitriol (wrapped up as defending law and order and our heritage!) and incessant reporting of every violent incident committed by a person of color anywhere in the nation. (Fox needs to be shut down but  they hide behind the First Amendment to peddle their brand of thinly disguised hate speech).

But I digress; so their fear, he said is in some sense real because, and I'm quoting as best as I can recall, "the police as simply not going to respond [to 911 calls] because of the potential liability".

This is outrageous. It is symptomatic of the sense of victim-hood of those like Trump, who have been in positions of power an privilege and are now fearful that they are finally about to be reined in.  It has nothing to do with "liability" - qualified immunity hasn't been dismantled yet - so is likely just another case of the "blue flu", a way for the police to flex their power. In a sense, it's extortion: "leave us alone or we won't keep you safe" is the implied threat. And it's more invidious and less honest that going on strike - but then this isn't a bargaining situation, so what would they be striking for?

If that's the road we are on, there is no alternative to but dismantle police departments and replace them with a service that is committed to the welfare of the communities they are supposed to serve. More training is largely ineffective when it is working against the deeply embedded culture of bias and violence that so many police departments seem to suffer from.

Gun control

The AR-15 has become the poster child (literally) for the case for and the case against gun control. But banning assault weapons really misses the point. First, a very small proportion of shooting deaths involve assault weapons. But because they they are generally high profile "mass shootings" this particular gun gets more coverage than other weapons. Second, there are really only two uses for guns; for sport (which may or may not involve killing) and for killing, which may be homicide or self defense. Few if any hunters use assault rifles, so in the sporting category, we are talking about target practice. In that context its unclear that the government need get involved in the choice of weapon sportsmen chose. The area in which there is a legitimate concern for government action is when weapons are used for killing people. And they can be used in two ways, call them offensively (homicide) or defensively. Banning ARs will, as gun rights advocates rightly point out, make it more likely that those owning ARs will be criminals (once the ban is in place, owning one would in and of itself be a criminal act). America is a county swimming in guns and a home invasion or other crime in which threats of violence are used will be carried out with a gun. Some would argue that when confronted with an armed assailant, the best course is to comply and or wait for law enforcement. But there are those who want the right to chose otherwise; who believe that by the time law enforcement arrive the crime will have been committed and the the best, if not the only way to meet such a threat is with a response that is of commensurate force. This may or may not be a correct assessment but it is a choice nonetheless that is it not clear to me that the government should constrain.

Banning ARs will create an asymmetry that puts the person who chooses to confront an armed assailant at a disadvantage, to some degree forcing their hand.  And since the government essentially grants that citizens have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves (which the AR ban does, since it only seeks to ban one type of weapon, not to prevent an armed response to an armed (or unarmed) assailant), then in banning ARs, the government is not acting on moral grounds but practical ones; and that choice limits the right of those who chose to use deadly force in self defense to use what they consider the most effective means enacting their choice. If the government was acting on moral grounds it would expunge all stand-your-ground laws, make it illegal to use deadly force in any setting even self defense and ban all weapons, hand guns as well as ARs. If the magazine size is the issue then hand guns with magazines of 10 rounds or more which can be quickly reloaded ought to be treated the same way as California treats ARs -- only small capacity magazines are allowed and a special key be required in an effort to slow down the reloading process.

An argument for banning ARs might be that this would tilt the "balance of fire power" in favor of law enforcement; but ironically there are those on both sides of the debate who think that might not be such a good thing. The anti-federal government survivalists won't trust national law enforcement and the left tents to distrust local law enforcement. Of course the left is more likely to opt for a legislative solution than an armed one.

Its time to get beyond the symbols and begin talking about the real issues; access to weapons (and ammunition) in general, the relationship between law enforcement and those they are sworn to protect and serve, and the root causes of violent crime. While we are fixated on images of the AR-15 we will never make progress in solving some very real issues.

"That's not who we are"

Culture is not always monolithic. Think of a cluster analysis. At some level all nodes are in a single cluster; but change the criteria for links and different cliques emerge. If the criteria for ties is language you get one picture; if similar attitudes towards foreigners and immigration is the tie a different picture will emerge. That's the clustering that has emerged, in large parts due to Fox and Trump over the last three years.

So it is worth considering the differences between two broad cliques; those who are fearful of (non-nordic / anglo-saxon) foreigners and those who aren't. They are probably more conservative, more likely to support traditional social policies and oppose liberal ones. One group (and this is just based on impressions, not data) is strongly libertarian, self-reliant, independent, deeply suspicious of outsiders, and fearful of the future.  The other embraces diversity, welcomes strangers, is unafraid of change.

So, when politicians react to mass shootings, hate crimes, and white nationalist / supremacist rhetoric with the now hackneyed response of "that's not who we are", first one has to ask who are "we". If the clustering is all Americans then sadly, yes, that is who "we" are. If we weren't, this wouldn't keep happening at rates reminiscent of a "shit-hole" countries like Sudan or Zambia (adjacent to the US in the per-capita homicide league table), or seventh in the world in total annual homicides.  Viewed from the perspective of these two cultural cliques, then those saying "that's not who we are may be confused about which group they belong to. It's not who the members of their cluster are, but it is who the other cluster is. 

"Thoughts and prayers" the Republican equivalent of "talk to the hand", has worked well for 20 years in shutting down discussion of the antecedents of gun violence, generally coupled with "now is not the time"; and of course for Republicans that time is never. In part its because their base is largely drawn from one of these two cliques.  Indeed, the divide between the two camps' values is increasingly aligned with both geography and party politics, exacerbating the disconnect between the two network cliques as opportunities for cross-cutting ties wane.  That in turn leads to a hardening of extreme views that become self-reinforcing within the clique. Social media helps reinforce this process.

Perhaps this time, with two incidents separated by less than 24 hours in which 30 people were killed, perhaps this time it will be different. But if the past is any indication, it probably won't be. A chronic inability to face a serious domestic problem - that's who we are.

The Heller Decision

I'm re-reading the Heller Decision, written for SCOTUS by Antonin Scalia. He makes the argument that the first ('prefatory') clause does not limit the scope of the second ('operative') clause to 'well organised militias'. I'm not as swayed by this argument as I was when I first read the opinion, but something else came to mind.

He concludes his analysis of the operative clause noting "we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation". One rather odd aspect to this interpretation is the addition of the notion of confrontation. That in itself seems to limit the scope of the Amendment, and begs the question" does this right not exist in the absence of confrontation? If a confrontation is simply an argument or a disagreement, is one justified in carrying a weapon to any setting in which differences opinion are to be expected?

That is the first puzzle of the majority's ruling. The second is the notion of "arms". Scalia frequently uses weapons as a modern day synonym for arms. Note that the constitution does not refer specifically to firearms, which it could have done given that they did exist at the time of its drafting, but to arms in general. Knives must surely therefore be considered a subset of arms in general.

However there are numerous state regulations limiting the carrying of knives. For example this website summarizes the rules relating to the carrying of knives: "Carry laws forbid an individual from carrying, concealed or open, certain knives. For example, some states forbid an individual from conceal carry of knives over a certain length but open carry of that same knife is legal. Other states forbid the carry, concealed and open, of certain knives. Most knives that are barred from carry are ones deemed by society to have no utility uses and, therefore, their only use is as weapons".

That knives whose sole use is as a weapon are regulated. In New York State, for example, it is illegal to carry "a dirk, dagger, or stiletto with the intent to use it as a weapon against another". It might be argued that this permits the carrying of knives if the bearer is not intending to use it as a weapon, but that seems inconsistent with Scalia's addition that the Second Amendment applies "in case of confrontation".

Moreover, some types of knives are barred from being "kept" (owned) at all. As the "Knife Up" website notes: "Ownership laws forbid individuals from owning certain types of knives that society has deemed “deadly weapons” or “dangerous.” Most of the time, these knives were once associated with unlawful people such as gangs, the mob, and outlaws. It is for this reason that the Bowie knife has been outlawed in so many states".

So it appears that both the ownership and the carrying of knives are quite heavily regulated at the State level, but ought to be covered by the Second Amendment in the same way as guns are. So either the NRA is wrong about the limits to regulation the Second Amendment affords, or the States have on their books a raft of unconstitutional restrictions on the owning and carrying of knives. 

"Tac" everything

As an outsider, Americans seem to have a much stronger admiration / hero worship for members of the armed forces that the Brits (with the possible exception of WWII fighter pilots).

That translates into a marketing of things military; 'tac' lights or 'tac' glasses, for example ('tac' being short for tactical which is itself short-hand, as I understand it for "used by the military or the more heavily armed branches of law enforcement". Try Googling "tactical" and see what comes up. 

That in turn reinforces the fascination and demand for all sorts of military and military-style products; at the intersection of this and a fascination the projection of with lethal force, America has created a demand for the same weapons the military uses like the AR-15 (army) or the Glock hand guns (police departments). It seems that for many, probably NRA members mostly, their sense of identity is built in part on looking like the military, and that is behind their visceral opposition to any ban on semi-automatic assault rifles.  America, or at least parts of it, not only has a gun problem - it has a gun culture problem. 

Gun control, again

Another mass shooting, and as usual the gun rights faction of congress (and Fox) give us: "thoughts and prayers" and "this is not the time".

Senator Dick Durbin pleaded that "this should not be the new normal", but if one is being realistic it has been the "normal" for years. Every atrocity is followed by the same pattern of rhetoric from both sides and every time nothing changes. That's our normal now.

The "bump stock" an ingenious modification to a semi automatic rifle that gives it roughly the same rate of fire as a manufactured fully automatic is a simple and cheap way of circumventing an overly  narrowly written law restricting the sale of fully automatic weapons. That is a simple loophole that should be closed for starters. 

But the broader problem is the assertion of "rights".  The right granted by the second amendment, ignoring the debate over whether it was intended only to apply to a "well regulated militia" ignores the externality that flows from its granting.  The right of an individual to "bear arms" indirectly represents an externality, in the "costs" that flow from non-self-defense gun related homicides. Without cast iron prevention, it is inevitable that innocent people will die.

Thoughts and prayers are nice, but getting a little old. Nicer would be collective action that prevents another mass shooting.

The Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

First, a "militia" has three seemingly relevant definitions:

a) "A military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, esp. to supplement a regular army in an emergency, freq. as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers"

b) "A paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology, esp. one that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army."

c) "The name of various military units and forces, raised locally (and usually for the purpose of local defence) from the civilian population of an area, and distinguished from professional standing armies as the latter developed."

So the first question is: which definition of a militia best fits Amon Bundy's group and those like his?

It can't be a) since it is clearly not "to supplement a regular army in an emergency". 

It probably isn't c) either since i) there is no threat against which they are mounting a defence and ii)  standing armies have been developed.

So that leaves b), "A paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology". 

Next, consider the second clause: "being necessary to the security of a free State". It's hard to see exactly how such a "paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology" is necessary to the security of a free State. 

Arguably groups like this represent the opposite, a threat to a free state and the power of an elected government. They are simply anarchists, refusing to accept the rules collectively created for the functioning of a society.

So the question we must eventually confront is this; do we want an amendment in our constitution that protects the right of anarchists to get what they want at the barrel of a gun?

Nature or nurture? Reflections on 'American Sniper'

After watching "American Sniper" this morning, Judith asked me what I thought. That was a difficult question partly because I know from experience she wouldn't agree with my views, but partly because I had a variety of reactions to the film. In what follows, I'm not going to deal with the errors and deceptions at the very top that took the US and a few of its allies into Iraq, nor with the blunders, political and strategic, made while the campaign was being conducted, but focus more narrowly on the portrayal of Chris Kyle and the implications of the way Clint Eastwood chose to represent him, both in Iraq and back in the US, in his film.

First, I felt it was poorly made. It didn't tell a particularly coherent story, nor was the character development convincing. Too much time was devoted Kyle's work in Iraq, and too little to the disconnect he and other veterans feel when getting back to the US. One scene that did work was was late in the film, after his last tour; he is seen sitting in a bar shortly after a fierce battle, and behind him the television news is reporting on basket ball. Another were the scenes, all too brief, of his interaction with wounded veterans. 

The scene in which Kyle kills the Iraqi sniper stuck me a almost comically fanciful; there was nothing for him to shoot at, yet miraculously, he hits this unseen target over a mile away. There are two things wrong here - either Kyle had a better view of his target than the film showed so while he was an exceptional at his job he wasn't supernatural; or he took a shot in the dark, and while lucky, put all his fellow marines and SEALs in danger.

This was not the only point in the film where artistic license may have painted an unfortunate picture of US activities in Iraq. The decision to go door to door routing out Kyle's nemesis seemed to be based more on emption than strategy. I was left with the sense that dedication and commitment of a lot of brave men and women was being squandered through poor decision making, tactical and organizational miss-steps, and a lack of a clear strategy. I was left wondering whether the film was accurate, which reflects poorly on the running of the campaign, or whether the story was embellished and hammed-up for dramatic effect, which reflects poorly on its iconic director. Of course it may be a bit of both, but I hope that while the top level political decision making was deeply flawed, the mid-level tactical decision making was, in reality, better than was portrayed in the film.

Another powerful scene was the footage at the very end, I assume real, of the crowds who turned out to watch Kyle's funeral procession. No question that he was exceptionally effective at what he did; but would there have been this kind of turnout for the battlefield medic who had saved the most lives? I doubt it. And that speaks to a disturbing trait, the celebration of violence against "the other", a manifestation of intolerance and a lack of empathy and understanding. This has broader implications than the demonetization of Arabs or Muslims; it is also manifest in hate crimes at home against gays or blacks or Latinos. Ironically, despite the heroic portrayal of a patriotic cowboy turned military super-star, what fuels the hatred and violence is usually fear. It also underscores the sentiment that problems can be resolved by the use of force, which we have seen recently see in the militarized police response to numerous situations of unrest and protest.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people who hate what America stands for (not, incidentally, a simple construct) and who are hell bent on killing Americans and destroying what they consider evil. But we seem unable or unwilling even to see the conflict through the eyes of impartial bystanders, let alone our adversaries.

While watching film I was struck by recollections of WWII movies I'd seen growing up that recounted, indeed glorified, the heroism of resistance fighters in Norway ("633 Squadron") and France. Those portrayed in American Sniper, a little clumsily, as the villains of the piece could easily be seen in the same light as the WWII heroes of the resistance by those who consider themselves under occupation. And if the argument is made that the US is not an occupying force in Iraq because Iraq has its own government, think of the Vichy government. Some Americans feel contempt for the French for collaborating with the Germans; but do they think the same way about the Iraqi government and those willing to support it?

Is this widespread xenophobia, fear, hostility, aggression and an infatuation with projection of power through force a universal human trait or is it something country specific? Ultimately, I am left only with questions, not answers, and the sense that the world is complex and often rather depressing.

Charleston, SC

I wonder what it will take to stop political ideology, partisan gridlock and lobby groups like the NRA from preventing us taking any meaningful steps to reduce the seemingly unending stream of senseless gun violence and all too pervasive racial hatred that still persists in our so-called post-racial society. Jon Stewart hopes that this doesn't become the new normal. I think it's too late: it's completely normal. The ritual expressions of horror and surprise("how could this have happened?" "we don't know what he was thinking but he must have been mentally ill" "now isn't a time to make political points") followed by... nothing. Again and again and again.

Columbine, Sandy Hook elementary school, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Aurora Theatre, The Sikh temple shooting... those are the ones I can remember. But there are many many more. The last time in which a full calendar year passed without a mass shooting was 2002; and before that 1985. And as tragic as this is (on average 34 people killed every year) it pales by comparison to the number of homicides by gun which were averaging over 26 EVERY DAY (data for 2006 to 2011). The majority (72%) involved handguns and almost 80% were obtained legally.

Several hand-ringing journalist asked whether this was about guns, or race or mental illness (and Fox disingenuously suggested it was an attack on Christianity). It doesn’t have to be about one or the other; in fact here' it's probably all three. Picking one to avoid talking about the others as one are trying to do is just kicking the can further down the road - yet again. We are Douglas Adams' proverbial bowl of petunias in free fall towards the earth.

Gun ownerhip unrelated to gun homicides

In an idle moment recently, I regressed homicide rates against rates of gun ownership and the World Bank's Gini index for 62 countries. Gun ownership was not statistically significant (p = 0.58) while the Gini index was (p < 0.001) It appears, oddly, that the NRA is right when it says that guns aren't the underlying cause of gun-involved homicides: income inequality is.

Gun Control

I'm not a big supporter of the NRA. Its knee-jerk reaction that anything the federal government does on gun related issues, particularly Obama's administration, is almost by definition a violation of the second amendment and is as predictable as it is silly. However, it is right about two things and the left does itself no favors by ignoring them.

First, assault rifles aren't really the problem. The number of shootings in which these weapons are involved pales in comparison to the number involving regular semi-automatic handguns and revolvers. Assault rifles are much harder to conceal than handguns making them suited mainly to deranged (probably suicidal) lunatics. Yes it looks like the weapons carried by the military and law enforcement, but it's not fully automatic so it's still just a rifle. What is looks like, and why that matters, I will return to later.

Magazine capacity is more of an issue; when the shooter has to stop to replace an empty magazine, there is an opening to tackle (or more likely shoot) him (or her, though very rarely 'her'). The longer the shooter can continue his rampage without changing magazines the more people he will likely injure or kill. But a Glock 17 holds 17 rounds, and is quickly changed out for a fresh magazine.  The left's mantra about banning assault rifles misses the point and undermines more serious proposals.

The the second issue, and the one nobody seems comfortable talking about is cultural. This morning, a woman was held up a knife point by an attacker who had managed to get into her car. She bravely tackled the assailant who fled. Then, according to ABC news and the local police 'Baker took matters into her own hands:  "I didn't mean to run him over - I was just trying to stop him so he didn't hurt anybody else" she told reporters.

There are two thing here that give me pause. First, she ran the assailant over with her car. This could not possibly be construed as an accident. Doing so involved pointing the vehicle towards him, and pressing the accelerator. Had he died (and there was no way she could have know that he wouldn't), this would, in other circumstances, have been a case of vehicular manslaughter or second degree murder.

But more troubling still, and this points of the wider cultural issue, was the (female) anchor's comment at the end of the piece: "She made a lot of Texans proud, this morning. I like how she said 'she messed with the wrong witch' ".

There were a variety of courses of action Dorothy Baker might have taken after her attacker fled, other than pursuing him and then running him over. But apparently vigilante justice, old testament eye for and eye vengeance, is the one that anchors, and presumably by implication audiences, want to see. That seems to me to be a more fundamental problem than whether or not private citizens are allowed to own  a rifle.

The commercial success of AR-15 style weapons owes something to good marketing; after all, owing a tool used by professionals is a tried and tested marketing message and works as well for guns as for power tools. But the other part of the wider issue is society's willingness to treat the marketing of guns as if they were no different than drills or diapers.

It seem to me that we don't have a gun problem; we have a gun-culture problem.