State of the Onion

For the record, Cap has always been hard on gun violence.

Marvel Comics was wrong. I know that is probably one of the most crazy over-generalized statements you have ever seen written on this blog, but stay tuned because I promise I can top it. Now, I do not mean that Marvel was wrong for selling their collective souls to Disney, (though I still have doubts about that,) or that they were wrong for going ahead with making an Ant-Man movie, (I have less doubts about that one,) or even anything to do with Spider-Man 3. What I mean to say is that Marvel got it wrong when they wrote their Civil War storyline, but I'll come back to that.

NRA President Wayne LaPierre, recently made statements that blames video games for the violence of places like Sandy Hook and Aurora. Using words like "corrupting shadow industry," "vicious, violent video games," and "I'm wearing women's underwear," (I may have paraphrased on the last one,) he sounded the old tired trumpet of the dangers of video games that people have been repeating ever since one kid in the 80's was crushed to death under a falling wall of geometric blocks while trying to emulate Tetris. I am not saying that there is not some merit to what the old stuffy white guy is saying, as violent video games have the potential to desensitize us to a certain point, but speaking as a nerd and a gamer, he could at least have used better examples. I mean Grand Theft Auto hasn't had a new title in 4 years, (though it will soon,) and Mortal Kombat? First off, you might as well vilify Doom and Wolfenstein, since your drudging up fifteen-year old arguments, and secondly, how does that relate to gun violence. Are we afraid our children will soon be committing violent spine-ripping-karate killings?

However, if we are going to talk about the negative aspects, I think we need to address the positive ones as well, and video games, like guns, do have some positive aspects. There have been many studies that have shown that video games help to socialize children, teach children lessons, improve hand-eye acuity, give children experience in reasoning and complex problem solving, and even act as an outlet for some of their more violent aggressions. Similarly, guns can help people protect their homes, hunt their food, and let off some steam at a target (that my or may not look like deer, or a ninja.) Yet, what really irks me about LaPew's argument is how typical it is: Guns don't kill people, Sonic the Hedgehog does, and when its coming from the president of the National Rifle Association it really looks like nothing more than a game of "pass the buck to the nearest convenient bogeyman." (Which I think is now a flash game you can get on the iPhone.) All the NRA is doing is trying to pull off a really bad magic trick by getting people to look in one direction instead of the other, but after 25 years, its become old and tired. Even worse, it only serves to stop people from talking about the real issues surrounding the recent rash of tragic deaths that have happened in this country, because there is one true difference between guns and video games... unlike guns, video games are nationally regulated, the same as violent movies. Gun laws, however, change from state to state and really that's just leaves us with a net that has some very big holes.

So, back in 2006, 600 civilians (60 of which were children) died in a tragic explosion started by a super-villain named Nitro. The event sparked a national outcry and an almost immediate legislative response from the US Congress. The result, in the Marvel Universe, was the Superhuman Registration Act that started the event known as the Civil War. For anyone wanting to learn more about the Civil War cross-over storyline, follow the link, but the events that followed are not really what I want to talk about. You see, this fictional catastrophe took place in Stamford, Connecticut and it was one of the first things I thought of when I heard about the tragic events of Sandy Hook Elementary, which is only about 40 miles away from Stamford.

Wayne LaPierre (Visual approximation)

In the comic book world, the tragedy in Connecticut sparked almost immediate debate and legal action, so why did the past tragedy in the real-world Connecticut not do the same? (Mostly, because protecting the rights of spandex crime-fighters is not high on the Tea Party's to-do list)... sigh... In all honesty, I have to apologize. I've been trying very hard to avoid talking about this subject, but after watching the state of the union address and hearing attacks by Wayne La Old Guy against video games, and hearing people really just talk at each other instead of having any sort of meaningful discussion, I need to vent, and since all my friends have blocked my number and that cute girl at the grocery store took out that restraining order against me, I am venting to you... Where was I?... Oh yeah, the legislative points that Vice President Bidden came up with are an excellent start and a lot of them are worth implementing under Federal law. Also, we need to start giving agencies like the ATF better powers in controlling the sale of unregistered and illegal weapons, which seems like a no-brainer, but apparently is a volatile topic... How dare we give the agency responsible for regulating our firearms the means to actually regulate our firearms.

I am not saying people don't have the right to own guns, because truthfully I think they do. In my opinion, you have the right to own a gun, a crossbow, a samurai sword, a lightsaber, or whatever, but you don't have the right to use that weapon against another human being without absolute justification. I also am not opposed to mandating responsible training with said weapons, or even certain limits on things like magazine capacities, ammo types, or reclassifying things like assualt weapons to not fall under that category, "gun." However, this is not really about my opinion on what should and shouldn't happen, because my opinion is only the say of one man. As much as I have a right to be heard so does everyone else, but as long as people keep shutting down the dialogue with pat arguments and overused cliches the discussion is never going to get any where, and right now that is what we need most, discussion.

The biggest obstacle is people who use the Second Amendment like the Mighty Club of +2 Clubbery. The right to bear arms was put into the constitution as another type of check against the tyranny of government. I get that. (Personally, I kind of wish they had put in a few checks in there against the stupidity of government, but our founding fathers were statesmen, not psychics.) We all agree that the constitution was a good document, and almost infallible... except for that part about the three-fifths compromise, or that bit about women not being able to vote, or that other section regarding African American rights, or that time when liquor was unconstitutional, and that section about how people with the last name LaPierre can't wear silky under garments... you get my point. So, we also have the freedom of speech, but you can't yell "Godzilla," in Little Tokyo or "Leonard Nimoy," at a Star Trek convention, either will get people trampled. There are caveats to all the rights. You have protection against illegal search and seizure, unless you are a student attending school. You have the right of protection against self-incrimination, unless it comes to your computer password, (seriously, look it up.) You have to right to not quarter troops in your house, unless you're really drunk, etc. So talking about limits on the Second Amendment is not really such a bad, terrifying, or unheard of thing.

Except, the I am sure that the death to incident
ratio is probably not as high with hammers.

So hwo do we being? I have no idea. I'm not sure where we should begin our discussions, but I know it should not be handled in meme form, because that only serves to minimize the argument and make it supercilious. For instance, there is a meme out there proclaiming that in 2011 only 323 were killed with assault rifles and 496 people were killed by hammers. Now, I feel bad for all the people who died of hammer injuries, but that was never the issue. What the meme completely tries to gloss over is the fact that there were still 323 people who died from assault weapons in 2011. Those people were fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors, and what the meme is really saying is 323 is somehow a number of acceptable loss. Yet, if even one person dies and we could have prevented it, shouldn't we have tried? Shouldn't we still try? I am not a fan of making laws for no reason other than to justify the jobs of elected officials, but amking some kind of federal law (any kind) might have helped prevent possibly 323 deaths in 2011. That may seem like nothing when compared to hammer fatalities or kitchen knife assaults, but for the families of future potential victims (not to mention the victims themselves,) a stricter federal law could be hugely important. These deaths should not be disregarded like some blundering and acceptable statistic that we can do nothing about, because we can.

I don't know what the solution is, and I doubt anyone has a perfect answer, but personally, I hope that the people in Washington are willing to take a cue from their fictional counterparts in the Marvel Universe and at least sit down and begin talking about how to solve the issue at hand, (like adults). Then again, this is a Congress that couldn't even pass a one page bill for relief-aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy. So, at the very least I can recommend to you, my reader (and I mean that in the singular sense), to at least pick-up the Marvel Civil War graphic novel. It really is one of the best and most poignant storylines that any mainstream comic continuity has ever tackled... So at least you can read about a government that passes bills, even if it is just fantasy. (I told there were more crazy over-generalizations to come.)