Tuesday Trivia and Open Thread

"Romans 10:9" - Mountain Goats

On the train heading back to DC from the City of Brotherly Love.  Sorry for the dearth of posting, but the schedule has just been crammed during the day and, for some reason, I have had the semblance of a busy social life for the last week.  This too shall no doubt pass.

- I am convinced that the chance of any gun control legislation getting through Congress is virtually nil for the simple reason that the GOP House majority is batshit crazy.  Nothing, however minimal or reasonable, will get passed by them.  Kudos to New York though for passing a far reaching bill.

- Similarly, this batshit craziness could well lead to a default on the debt.  I think Obama is actually going to stick to his guns.  Indeed, believe it is essential that he do so.  But I cannot believe that a majority of the GOP House caucus will permit him a victory on this issue.  And I don't think Boehner will be willing to forgo the "Hastert Rule" so soon after doing so on the "fiscal cliff" issue.  As a result, really bad shit is likely to ensue on the debt ceiling front.

- Except that Boehner had to ignore the Hastert Rule again today in order to get the Sandy relief bill through.  I don't know if that means he really can't do this on the debt ceiling or that he absolutely will need to do this on the debt ceiling.

- This pleases me on a day in which I had to pay my quarterly (and rather substantial) homage to the federal government despite being permitted no representation whatsoever in Congress.

- David Broder is dead but his spirit lives on.

- My predicted Denver - Green Bay Super Bowl seems to have failed to materialize.  Indeed, the only game I picked correctly in last weekend's NFL playoffs was the win by personal favorites the Patriots.  I am now predicting a New England - San Francisco Super Bowl, which will be known as the Elitist, Bi-coastal, Un-American Bowl.

What is capturing your attention?

Comments

[paula]

Too sick for words: "Truthers claim 1/Sandy Hook never happened, 2/It happened but was carried out by the government as a way to justify taking away guns, 3/the Jews did it and the government is covering for them. This is actually gaining some traction beyond the psycho sector.
http://nbcnews.to/V3wkyV
Beam me up, Scottie.

[Bill H]

"Similarly, this batshit craziness could well lead to a default on the debt."

Actually it might well lead to a partial shutdown of government operations, but not to default on debt. The debt ceiling is about the creation of new debt not about existing debt, and there is sufficient revenue coming in to pay interest on current debt. All of this talk about default is posturing to excite the public. We might well default on payment of wages and contract payments, but the present debt is not at issue.

[kathy a.]

no, the debt ceiling is about meeting existing obligations, bill. and it is not excusable to stop paying employees -- or to stop paying creditors.

[Eric Wilde]

Flew down to Bangalore this morning. The weather is beautiful here. Too bad I'm cooped up in front of a computer all day.

Tomorrow I'm off to Bhopal for a friend's wedding. Weddings in India are something to behold!

[Bill H]

kathy, I said the debt limit is about ongoing operations and you say it is about "meeting existing obligations." I fail to see any difference other than phrasing.

We have a contract with Lockheed to build some ships. Is that an "ongoing operation" or is it an "existing obligation?" Well, it's both, but whichever way you phrase it, if we stop paying on the contract Lockheed will stop building the ships. No work is being done and no payments are being made.

Inexcusable not to pay salaries? Sure, if the work is performed. But it's certainly not inexcusable to lay off workers; have them not perform work and not get paid. Companies do that all the time when they run out of money.

And "not paying creditors" is not the same thing as "defaulting on debt." The payment to the creditor is held on the creditor's accounts payable, and is considered as delayed rather than defaulted. At some point the creditor writes it off and it becomes defaulted, but in the case of the US Treasury that is not going to be short term.

[kathy a.]

bill, it would be profoundly irresponsible to refuse to raise the debt ceiling -- on the order of shooting hostages. the impact would not only be on our creditworthiness, but there would be immediate and devastating impacts for millions of individuals, not to mention the economy.

i think this is a morally reprehensible tactic, to gain what these clowns see as a political advantage. this is the same group that got us into those unfunded wars; the same group that insists on lavishing more wealth and breaks on the already-wealthy. they worked hard to run up the deficit; and now they want to take it out of the hides of the less fortunate. people live on their social security checks and their paychecks. people depend on the services of the government. i do not see any redeeming value whatsoever in creating chaos and hardship, intentionally.

[kathy a.]

back to guns, which i'm sure will be the big topic after the gun plan is announced. the NRA continues to keep it classy with an ad calling obama an elitist hypocrit, because his kids get secret service protection, and he has said that putting armed guards in schools is not the total answer.

* obama's kids, like obama himself, have been the subject of death threats. i expect that if other kids are specifically threatened in that way, they should get special protection, too.

* obama is no different from any other president in receiving secret service protection for himself and his family.

(OK, he's a little different -- his race has inflamed a certain segment of unhinged people to the extent that they claim he is not a legitimate citizen; they claim he is not a legitimate christian; they claim that the country has been taken over, and liberty is at stake. so he probably gets more death threats than average.)

* armed people everywhere are not the answer. JFK had protection, and was killed. reagan was surrounded by people with guns when he was shot. there was an armed guard at columbine. when some nut with a gun showed up outside the empire state building a while back, a bunch of people were accidentally shot by off-duty people responding. (and so on.)

the NRA has spent a few decades peddling extremist fear, and promoting anarchy and terrorism. guns win, end of story for them. there is NO gun safety measure that they find acceptable. they have successfully promoted a culture of violence and fear, then argued that the only answer is to threaten others on a constant basis with being shot. it's a perpetual motion machine. the answer to fear is guns; the answer to guns is more guns.

remember that saying, if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?

[Bill H]

I apologize, kathy, for not being more clear. I most vigorously DO NOT advocate failing to raise the debt limit. I am merely pointing out that the consequense of failing to do so is not the "default on debt," supposedly remedied by the 14th amendment, that is being bandied about, but actually is a partial shutdown of government, which actually would be worse in terms of its impact on 99% of the people of this nation.

[kathy a.]

no problem; think we are more or less on the same page, bill. the words i use probably aren't the most accurate, especially talking about economics.

still -- if we personally just stop paying bills for stuff we already bought, our credit rating becomes something like "nuclear waste." i'm not seeing any commentary suggesting that this is a good path for the nation. i mean, even the business people are very twitchy.

even threatening to not raise the debt ceiling -- call it a shutdown of government, call it being a deadbeat -- makes our nation look like an unworthy risk. at some point, even the most bleeding-hearted among us stop believing that relative who doesn't keep those promises. personally, the perception of risk is amplified when the crazy seems to be behind it; extortion tactics, too, are not a sign of stability.

[low-tech cyclist]

On the debt ceiling, it looks as if the GOP's gonna crack on this one. Even the Koch Brothers and Rush Limbaugh are saying the better choice would be the continuing resolution.

I suspect Boehner will ignore the Hastert Rule once again on this one.

On March 27, the continuing resolution expires that currently authorizes funding for the U.S. government. If they don't want the U.S. government to spend as much money as it does, they're free to propose a budget for the rest of the year that specifies what they would and wouldn't like to keep paying for. Then we can all argue about their proposed cuts.

But my guess is that they'll chicken out then, just the way they'll chicken out now on the debt ceiling - because they're afraid to say just what programs they'd like to cut.

[low-tech cyclist]

I am convinced that the chance of any gun control legislation getting through Congress is virtually nil for the simple reason that the GOP House majority is batshit crazy.

Tru dat, but we've got to give it our best try anyway. If a horror like the Newtown massacre isn't going to rally good people to act, I'd be afraid to think about what it might take.

[kathy a.]

i agree; gotta try.

besides, i'm sick of being terrorized by the gun lobby, and the sickness it has wrought. i believe terrorism is the correct word for it, too. they mean to scare everyone into a constant state of panic.

[oddjob]

"Let's be blunt and acknowledge the biggest threat to the world's biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over the Republican Party,"
- Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan, in a speech he delivered last September in Sydney

"A group of House Democrats accused Republicans of having "weaponized" the debt ceiling Wednesday, and are pushing to abolish it.

The lawmakers blasted GOP members as taking the economic wellbeing of the nation hostage to achieve political victory, and are hoping to scrap the debt limit once and for all as a danger looming over the economy...."

There's no chance this will pass, but it's still worthwhile for them to do this.

[nancy]

Finally -- "Please Cancel My NRA Membership" -- an an Op-ed at the Oregonian .

A schism within the NRA is what we desperately need. That, and for more people to follow the money.

[kathy a.]

thank you, oddjob. the australian treasurer's quote cannot be repeated often enough. also, go team; even if that measure won't pass, it is a righteous statement.

nancy -- i love the oregonian op-ed. that's exactly what it's all about. and the NRA's role as a well-funded industry organization needs a lot of attention just now.

if you have not seen obama's speech, you should. it is very good.

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

I'm not an expert on this -- I guess no one really is -- but my understanding of a failure to raise the debt limit is that the government would begin missing all manner of payments, including to its bond holders. I believe that there is no real mechanism in place to order the priority of payments and the government on a daily basis spends more than it takes in.

I don't believe that anyone -- vendors, bondholders, entitlement recipients, employees -- would be spared.

I would welcome any definitive links on this subject -- cannot recall where I saw this discussion of the problems of trying to prioritorize the debt.

[low-tech cyclist]

SC and Bill - I'd recommend these two Wonkblog posts, one by Brad Plumer and one by Ezra.

I think the truth is, nobody really knows. But the absolute best-case scenario is that you're sucking 6-7% of current spending out of the economy at a time when our economy has been growing by 2-2.5%, which would throw us into a pretty severe recession, that fucks everyone up just as they were starting to get some control of their lives after the last one.

And that's if everything works perfectly and we don't have an accidental default on sovereign debt. That's a real riverboat gamble, IMHO.

[oddjob]

I believe that there is no real mechanism in place to order the priority of payments and the government on a daily basis spends more than it takes in.

That is correct. The last time around, back in the summer, the Dept. of Treasury Inspector General determined that because Congress had never stipulated any order in which payments of obligations was to be done the best way to do it was to pay them as they came due, and that at this point trying to do it any other way wasn't really feasible.

[oddjob]

(I forget where I encountered that info. but I saw it yesterday or the day before, most likely at either Talking Points Memo or The Plum Line.)

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

Thanks -- it was the Brad Plumer piece that I saw. And I believe that confirms what I noted above -- that the government really doesn't have the ability to distinguish between payments being made by its many agencies.

[Bill H]

Nobody really knows? The government has shut down twice in my lifetime, and neither time did anything particularly noteworthy happen, other than a lot of screaming and yelling. Interest rates did not go up, the US debt did not become toxic, and there was no worldwide economic panic. A lot of government workers had to stay home, the USPS was still part of the government so mail didn't get delivered, soldiers on the battlefield did not run out of ammunition, Navy ships did not sink for lack of fuel...

Payments being made by its many agencies? Payments are made by the Treasury Department, based on invoices sent to it by various agencies. That's what Treasury is for.

Politicians have one goal; their reelection. In order to do that they need to keep the public in a state of panic, too freaked out by propaganda to be able to stop and realize what is actually going on. Pundits have one goal; to keep people reading their crap. To do that their crap has to be dramatic and exciting.

[low-tech cyclist]

Nobody really knows? The government has shut down twice in my lifetime, and neither time did anything particularly noteworthy happen, other than a lot of screaming and yelling. Interest rates did not go up, the US debt did not become toxic, and there was no worldwide economic panic.

Bill: just to clarify, the government-shutdown part of this has nothing to do with the uncertainty of what might happen with the debt ceiling.

That's the predictable part - a 7% hit to the economy that would throw us back into recession if it lasts a nontrivial amount of time.

Fortunately, the last time we had one of these, in the 1995-96 winter, the economy was a hell of a lot healthier than it is now, despite the fact that a lot of us were still talking about a 'jobless recovery' at that point.

The uncertainty comes from two sources that I can see:

1) We really might screw up and miss some Treasury bond payments by accident, which really would throw the global economy into a tizzy, believe it or not. Probably all the IT systems would do their revised jobs right, and this won't happen. But I wouldn't bet the house on it.

2) As Ezra pointed out at the link, the markets might have a significant adverse reaction to the sheer dysfunctionality of our government if this is allowed to happen. But nobody really knows what sort of reaction they'd have - what direction, how big or small, you name it.

Payments being made by its many agencies? Payments are made by the Treasury Department, based on invoices sent to it by various agencies. That's what Treasury is for.

Ummm, NO. The whole point is that though the Treasury will need to borrow money to keep making payments, it won't be able to on account of the debt ceiling. Its computer systems have no mechanism for prioritizing payments (other than paying the interest on bonds but nothing else, since the bonds are on a different system), so it would either keep sending out checks, and bouncing 40% of them, or it would have to be shut down.

Pundits have one goal; to keep people reading their crap. To do that their crap has to be dramatic and exciting.

While there's a certain amount of truth to the 'can't believe what you read in the papers' attitude, there is such a thing as taking it too far, because you can't know very much firsthand.

Other than what we learn from the media, how do we know there ever was an Iraq war or an Affordable Care Act? That way lies madness, or retreat to a self-sufficient agricultural commune.

Getting more specific, SC has blogged with Ezra. I haven't, but I've been reading Ezra's various blogs since he was about 20. He isn't the sensational kind, and he isn't the sort to get his facts wrong.

[low-tech cyclist]

On other subjects, Lance Armstrong is genuinely loathsome, not because he doped or lied about it, but because he and his posse tried to ruin the lives of people who testified about his drug use.

And what is it about Mormons making shit up out of nothing? First Mitt Romney (memo to LDS Central: given the wide public awareness of Mitt's lies, and the strong support for Mitt among Mormons, your silence equates to condoning it all), then this Notre Dame football star with the imaginary dead girlfriend.

[Bill H]

l-t-c, I admit that I was overly dismissive in my last statement. A shutdown would certainly be harmful, but I still submit it would not be the utter disaster that seems to be the consensus.

As to we "might screw up and miss some Treasury bond payments by accident," if Treasury is truely that incompetent, then they could do that whether the debt ceiling is raised or not. The whole issue of its effect on the long term debt is a smoke screen. Its effect on the people of this nation is not, and it was a bit silly of me to suggest otherwise.

We certainly are in agreement on Lance Armstrong, who I regard as scum, and on the Mormon Church. I watched their participation in the Prop 8 debacle in California, and clearly recall their role in the S&L collapse. Virtually every S&L official arrested in those days was a high official in the Mormon Church.

I was also repulsed by the reason the Mormon linebacker went to a Catholic school. He "prayed on it," forsooth. If he went to BYU he would have had to remain "chaste."

[low-tech cyclist]

Bill, I'm glad we're on the same page as far as the LDS and Lance Armstrong are concerned.

As far as the Treasury bond payments are concerned, the debt limit creates problems that wouldn't otherwise exist. If the Administration decides to simply shut off all other payments besides the debt, then chances are everything will work OK, since apparently the computer systems that make debt payments are separate from those that do all the other payments.

But the Administration seems to be signaling that they don't believe they have even that much authority to pick and choose, and if they don't, then things will go haywire when we hit the debt ceiling.

Maybe they're bluffing, but they don't seem to be. Hopefully the GOP will cave on the debt ceiling and decide to fight things out over the sequester and the CR, and we won't ever find out what Obama would have done if push came to shove.

[low-tech cyclist]

Paul Krugman has a blog post up titled: "All Your Base Are Belong To Us: What Is the Question?"

The question (the first one, anyway) is: "What happen?"

The answer, of course, is "Someone set up us the bomb."

[low-tech cyclist]

Another "what color is the sky in their world" piece: the Independent Women's Forum (one of those right-wing ladies-against-women outfits) had a confab to figure out what they could do to attract more women to the GOP.

When prodded by audience questions, the panelists said that contraception was a non-issue. As Hemingway put it, contraception was thought up by Democrats who found it tested well in focus groups despite being a completely settled issue.

Well, it should be a settled issue, shouldn't it? But between Republicans being against the mandate that insurers provide contraceptives for free, Republicans supporting 'personhood' amendments that treat the newly fertilized egg as having the same rights as you and me, and claiming that hormonal contraceptives kill this 'person' by preventing its implantation in the uterine wall, Republicans defunding Planned Parenthood given the opportunity, Republicans supporting laws that give pharmacists the right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions on moral grounds, and so forth, it's not quite settled, is it?

“I just want to say one small word and the word is sex,” audience member Leslie Paige, 55, said when she got the microphone. She works for advocacy group that pushes for smaller government and described a situation in which college-aged women see Republicans as “a bunch of prudish, anti-sex, anti-reproductive freedom people.”

Paige suggested Republicans create a bumper sticker that reads, “We Like Sex Too.”

Problem: college-age women see Republicans as a bunch of prudish, anti-sex, anti-reproductive freedom people, because they are in fact anti-reproductive freedom.

Solution: a catchy bumper sticker.

Good luck with that.

[kathy a.]

the GOP always sees their horrid policies as some kind of image difficulty, not as a set of terrible policies that will make life worse -- because they are intended to make life worse.

molly ivins used to write (decades ago, during the reagan administration) about country club republicans vs. evangelical republicans, and their mutual loathing. ltc has captured something from the country club end of things -- these ladies understand the draconian measures pushed by the other end of the party as not really applying to them and theirs.

[Sir Charles]

Bill,

I think you need to distinguish a government shutdown from a failure to raise the debt ceiling. They are two distinct things and the latter has never occurred before.

In a government shutdown, the full faith and credit of the United States is not at issue. Bond holders are not faced with the prospect that obligations will not honored fully or timely. Government bonds are relied upon by all manner of investors, particularly institutional investors, who seek liquidity and certainty from such investments. A failure of the U.S. to meet such obligations is really moving into unknown and deeply dangerous territory.

[paula]

lt-c---bumper sticker.
Honk if you're rich and resent paying taxes.

[nancy]

Josh Marshall put up a thoughtful post, speaking for those of us who are not gun owners. And in view of something I read earlier in the Journal, Pediatrics , the intro to his piece hits close to home: young boys are likely to pick up an unsecured gun out of curiosity.

The mother of my son's best friend during his early elementary years kept an inherited gun collection, about which other parents were unaware. Household troubled, the Dad was an unstable academic with addiction problems, PTSD. Abusive. Also unknown to me. The boys spent their afterschool time with me, mostly. But the memory still makes me shudder. It wasn't until their nasty divorce was underway, that I learned of the guns. While the guns were hers, as community property he hotly wanted to lay claim. Priorities. Her sons knew about those guns though and I've no idea if/how they were secured.

[paula]

I may have said this on an earlier post, but a few years ago, former Mass Health Commissioner Deborah Prothrow-Stith told that, unlike when we were growing up, when kids go over to a friend's house, today's parent needs to call over there to ask if there is an adult at home and a gun in the house. I thought she was kidding, but she said, no, guns won't always be obvious and kids are curious, like you say, Nancy. An old gun can kill, too.
DP-S was one of the first physicians to study gun violence as a public health issue. She's written extensively about the connection between the two and headed up a violence research center at Harvard School of Public Health after she left the state job.

[nancy]

Paula -- this was maybe twenty years ago and pre-Columbine. Parents at our little parochial school did sort of sign on the dotted line and assure others that their homes were 'drug free' -- no box to check on the voluntary form for 'gun free' as I recall. It was the revelation of the plural 'guns' that freaked me out with these folks. Somewhere we've an old pellet gun and 16 gauge bird-shooter (no ammo that I'm aware of) stored away. But this family's stash was obviously not like that. Yes, I imagine parents these days ask blunt questions. With no hesitation.

[kathy a.]

as mentioned on other occasions, a 9th grade classmate shot and almost killed his best friend, while they were horsing around with a pistol they thought was unloaded. i hate guns.

thanks for the links, nancy. i'm with marshall -- guns scare the living shit out of me, and i don't want them around the places i go.

while i think most gun owners actually believe in safety measures and don't see a civilian legitimacy for high-power weapons and high-capacity magazines, there are an awful lot of loud-mouthed NRAbots out there. somehow, they think that if they yell "second amendment" loud enough and make enough threatening noises, everybody will see their "wisdom" -- or, probably more likely, they just do not care about my rights; they have the guns and so they win.

there was a spirited but civil discussion on my local online paper a couple of weeks ago -- lots of locals expressed the "keep your guns out of my life" sentiment. not so much civility in a dicussion this week; i called the NRA ad about the obama children reprehensible, so one of the gunbots naturally said i personally am reprehensible.

yeah, whatever; i'm not exactly alone in my sentiment (morning joe; susan eisenhower did a piece in wapo this morning); not feeding trolls. but it worries me that a person so quick to condemn a person (as opposed to an idea) is also *extremely* enthusiastic about guns as the solution to all problems.

[oddjob]

a 9th grade classmate shot and almost killed his best friend

Josh Marshall's got a reader's reply up about how he accidentally killed his best friend with the guy's rifle back when he was 15. He had it laying on his legs while his buddy was talking about it and then it went off (without either of them deliberately pulling a trigger) and the bullet tore into his friend's middle.

[oddjob]

"After a tough election season and an equally tough lame duck session of Congress, House Republicans are regrouping at an image makeover retreat in Williamsburg, Va. this week.

But it's not looking so good.

Reporters quickly noted that a session for lawmakers called "Discussion on Successful Communication with Minorities and Women" will actually take place in the "Burwell Plantation" room at the resort where the retreat is being held.

It turns out, according to NBC News, the room "is named after the Burwell Family, a wealthy family that owned many slaves in 18th century Southern Virginia."...."

Hat tip, Sully.

[oddjob]

House GOP promises to pass a 3 month increase to debt limit, thus putting it after the next spending deadline in late March (the one after which the government will shut down because it has no authority to spend any money because Congress has not yet authorized that).

This means the debt limit is, for the time being, not going to be hostage to spending cuts, and that now the threat will be a government shutdown instead. That makes more sense, but it's still juvenile hostage taking behavior.

[nancy]

More intentional gun carnage as pastime. Killing bald eagles. If you've been fortunate enough to see these creatures in their habitat, this stupid assholery is difficult to imagine.

Wonder if someone from the NRA will comment -- they've pretty much laid claim to the eagle as symbol.

[paula]

OJ---Burwell Plantation Room. Rolling on the floor with laughter. Stop it! Does it have that wallpaper with moos-hung trees, white women in hoop skirts with parasols, and black women with kerchiefs working in the cotton fields? Oh, my sides are splitting.

[oddjob]

Well, it certainly falls in the category of "sh*t you can't make up."

;)

[kathy a.]

gun nuts: each making the neighborhood that much safer from the "bad guys". [h/t BJ.] you know that's gonna be their story, right?

[nancy]

kathy -- The story sounds like those we read about blasting off guns in the air regularly in Iraq. Bullets that go up...magically don't come down. Woo-ha. Fireworks gunnery. Jeebs. In Medina. Cowboy drunken Darwin awards all 'round + arrests. Something about disturbing the peace and reckless endangerment. I so hope these guys are NRA membership cardholders.

[paula]

Here's a great op-ed on guns. Somebody here may know her, actually:
Depressed, fearful, one of the walking wounded: Take away my gun, please! http://nyti.ms/UXIKXw

[kathy a.]

wow, paula. strong stuff.

there are so many reasons that i do not like guns; one set belongs to the loss and damage that are so easy with a weapon, the ease of accidents and intentional discharges alike.

another end of it is that i grew up with a violent and abusive mother. my dad was in the reserve and had some weapons, and fortunately mom was afraid of them. but when she was good and drunk, she had no boundaries; the worst example was the night she choked me, and i found myself regaining consciousness on the floor. we spent our childhoods hyper-aware of risks.

nothing amplifies one's concerns about risks more than having one's own children. i already refused to have weapons in the house; for many years, i felt so strongly about guns that my kids were not allowed to have toy weapons. when i finally caved, my son got enough super-soakers for his birthday to supply a regiment. i did not want guns, even though some kids once attempted to carjack us in our own driveway -- i just gave them the keys. it wasn't worth anybody getting shot.

there was a really bad patch when my son was in his teens. there were some incidents where he was stoned out of his mind, tearing things up. one horrible night was so unbelievably awful that my husband restrained him on the floor and i called 911; he was yelling for his sister to get a knife from the kitchen and kill dad.

this was not my real son, a sweet funny and brilliant kid who (after the bad patch) grew into a smart caring and hardworking young man. i'm very grateful that our local police responded by talking him down, and taking him for a mental evaluation. coulda been a whole different ball game if my son had gotten his hands on a gun during this period of high distress, when he was not himself.

the police and ambulance naturally attracted a lot of attention on our quiet little suburban block. and i was startled to learn that the sons of two other families on the block -- both accomplished young men -- also had bad patches in their teens. when i started talking about it, i leaned the same was true for kids of colleagues and friends.

[kathy a.]

* learned, not leaned.

anyway, the author of the piece paula linked was talking about the ease of suicides when a weapon is available -- and the annual suicides by weapon are an astronomical number, around 20,000 per year. i suppose that many people do not really care, since the deceased "chose" to exit. those people are ignoring two huge points: first, that people who feel suicidal but survive do not usually feel that way after a while; and second, that suicide is really a hideous thing to do to everybody else. it is a giant "fuck you," and all those left behind cannot help but feel guilty that they could not help stop it.

there is also a third point, the horror when suicidal people take others with them. both the perpetrator of sandy hook and the mall shooting guy that same week committed suicide; but they didn't go down alone. when my doctor's husband became despondent -- giving no clue he felt that way -- he killed his wife and two young girls.

the NRA people oppose any measures -- they always seem to think that more guns are better, and that they have some magic powers that overcome in any scenario. it is not a matter of good guys vs. bad guys; it is a matter of guns being very good at killing, and humans being human.

[paula]

kathy---if you dig deep enough, you'll probably find most parents have had a troubled teen or two. Now that it's over, you can take a deep breath, then be grateful for your good luck and well-honed instincts.

I don't have the numbers handy, but have written a lot about suicide in the last year or so. Somewhere in the back of my mind is a line about most or a large number of gun deaths being suicides. Accidents also are high on the list. Men are more likely to kill themselves with guns than women. And, David Hemenway at HSPH says mass killings usually are suicides with collateral damage.

So, filling the country up with guns makes it easier for more people kill themselves intentionally, and other people accidentally or without much concern. And, they can do it with a lot of noise and gore. Every day is Halloween.

Maybe the point of owning guns is not really about protection or even the commission of a crime?