Less is Nothing

I came into the 2016 campaign thinking of Ben Carson as one of the smart guys in the Republican field.  He made a living operating on brains, which I'm given to believe is somewhat challenging.  I never expected him to know things about public policy or foreign policy, having never worked in government, but I thought he'd be good at common sense things and thinking on his feet.  Don't surgeons have to literally think on their feet?  Shouldn't quick decisiveness be a strength for a brain surgeon?  I feel like if something went wrong during my brain surgery, Dr. Ben would decide what to do about it halfway through my autopsy.  He's like a glacier with glasses.  But, even though it seems like Ben really REALLY thinks before he speaks, he still says things that make no sense to anyone.

In case you missed it, Ben decided he needed to go on TV and comment on the latest episode of America's longest running reality show "Lots of People Get Shot for No Particular Reason".  Like Survivor, it was never really a good show, but we have no intention of cancelling it.  Anyway, Ben figures that if he were ever confronted with a gunman, he would just rally everyone in the room to attack the gunman and stop him.  As far as I can tell, here's how Ben's fantasy plays out:

Scene: Dr. Ben is teaching a class about brains or whatever when suddenly a guy in a black jacket busts in with an assault rifle.

Ben: Hello Sir!  Do you intend to shoot all of us?
Gunman: Yes, that's the plan.
Ben: OK, can you give me a minute to rally all of these unarmed people to attack and stop you?
Gunman: Sure, that sounds fair, I'll just hang out here in the doorway for a minute.
Ben: OK everybody, out of your chairs, we're going to stop this gunman!
Student #1: Ummm, I'd really rather just sit here and maybe not get shot.
Student #2: Agreed.  Your plan seems flawed since he has a gun and we're unarmed.
Student #3: Yeah, I like being alive and if I just run at the guy with the gun, he's probably going to shoot me.
Ben: NO! NO!  You guys don't get it.  If you all run at him, some of you will probably die, but some of you might not.
Student #2: Yeah, we're definitely not doing that.
Ben: Excuse me, Mr. Gunman.  Could you give me a little more time with this? These people aren't really understanding the plan.
Gunman: Alright dude, but like, three more minutes.  I really need to get started with this.

And scene.

Now, to be honest, I don't really care what Ben thinks or says because Ben isn't going to be President and I already knew that.  Still, I was struck by the fact that Ben's solution to a mass shooting still involves a few innocent people dying, just not as many.  I've had this same concern for a while about the standard Republican response to mass shootings (most Republicans are smart enough to at least avoid suggesting that the victims were just too cowardly to live, I thought Ben was smarter than that too).

Usually, after one of these tragedies, Republicans will go on TV to talk about it.  After they get done sending thoughts and prayers, and before they get to the part where they accuse anyone talking about gun control of exploiting a tragedy for political reasons, they opine about how this all could have been prevented by a good guy with a gun.  What a wonderful world it would be if we were all constantly surrounded by armed vigilantes with itchy trigger fingers.  Everyone knows the best part of the old west was the constant possibility of being hit by a stray bullet.  Free lead everyone!

Also, Republicans have fantasies in which they play the role of Clint Eastwood, but most people aren't capable of just shooting someone.  That's why cops and military people need a lot of training, and frequently need a lot of counseling after they shoot someone.  That's why every time one of these shootings happens we talk about mental illness.  Killing someone is harder than Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina imagine it being, probably because they're both sociopaths. 

Any time someone opens fire on a group of people, even if there's a decently trained armed citizen in the crowd, a few people are going to get shot before the gunman does.  We can't shoot people before they start shooting other people unless Ben Carson is also working on a pre-crime division for the FBI (and I really hope he is, I would just like to see Rand Paul's reaction).  Sometimes these things happen in movie theaters.  Does a shoot-out between a crazy person and a vigilante in a dark theater really sound like a good idea to you?

While we're here, this is a little off topic, but let's quickly dispatch with another stupid argument.  I've heard politicians argue that we don't talk about knife control after a stabbing.  Yes, if you want to kill one person you can use almost anything you want if you're creative enough.  But if you want to kill 10 people in 3 minutes before the cops get there, a knife or a hammer won't get the job done.  Also, knives have other legitimate uses and guns are really only used for shooting stuff.  Anyway...

I don't think we should be willing to accept "less innocent people dying" as a valid goal.  That may be a realistic outcome, but I think we have to demand "zero innocent people dying" as the actual goal and work backwards from there.  I'm not saying ban all guns.  People already have them.  I also don't want to walk through a metal detector every time I go anywhere, although I feel like that's where we might wind up and I guess I can handle that if I have to.  Come to think of it, I already made a proposal http://somethingclever13.blogspot.com/2012/07/hunting-is-stupid.html

What I'm asking for is better leadership.  When you're talking about innocent people dying, less is meaningless.  I want a Presidential candidate with a proposal to get us to zero.  Why don't we demand a higher bar for our candidates?  I made this point on another topic recently.  In a country of 320 million people, only one of us has to be in charge at a time.  Is it too much to ask for one person with a new idea?