“Red Herrings – when smoked herring turn reddish and can be used by ne’r-do-wells to put bloodhounds off their scent while escaping pursuit …”. That is the supposed etymology of the phrase.
So much of Media today is just monetized distraction. Paid stories or stories that sell. “Look over here! No. Don’t look at that… Hey, yoo hoo… OVER HERE!”. Red herrings.
Governments do it too. Often. Throw out some tasty morsel to distract and bury something distasteful. Or damaging. Maybe provide a juicy alternative to distract from the more difficult or contentious thing. Sometimes it is HOW things are said, or WHEN, and other times it is WHAT is presented for our consumption. Something is described as routine when it is anything but, or it is put out at the end of a news cycle, late at night on a Friday. Often, when something odd is touted on the front page, or “Top of the Fold”, I look on some buried page for the important stuff – and find it.
Is Iran funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to attack Israel because its partner, Russia, asked for a US distraction from Russia’s war with Ukraine? Essentially a second front. Too absurd?
As of this writing we have sent Ukraine about $75 billion and it has become the #1 recipient of U.S. aid. Ukraine almost certainly would have fallen by now without us. That’s the first time a European country has received so much since Truman’s Marshall Plan after WW2. And, just to be clear, I think we should continue that funding. Israel doesn’t get that much, relatively. Iraq and Afghanistan got more. Still, it IS a diversion … we have largely forgotten the Ukraine, for now (February, ’24 as Israel pummels Gaza tunnels).
In another post I discuss root issues and causes; the REAL issue and underlying cause behind
so many of the things we call problems today. And how we end up focusing our energies on, being distracted by, the wrong thing. We develop solutions for something that is only an ephemeral issue instead of throwing our collective might into the real solution. This is similar; a focus on the wrong thing.
Let’s chat about unnecessary deaths in the US. Fun topic. When there is a mass shooting spree, which happens all too often around here, we get calls to control guns. Not all guns usually; just automatic military style guns. Because hunting is a sacred cow in the US. It becomes a huge fight, a big distraction. From whatever else is going on. Should we prevent these? Absolutely. Is the debate over automatic weapons a red herring? Um…
Now, if my cavalier language is upsetting, let me apologize in advance. I am very much opposed to killing. More than you know. If you have personally been affected, do not read further. I intend to elicit emotions.
Let’s look at some numbers. Here is a chart from CNN. There sure are a lot of killings and they are increasing! We need to ban guns, automatic weapons especially!
But wait, a mass shooting here is defined as anything where more than 1 person is shot. Not ten, a hundred, or a thousand. And the overall numbers are pretty low (admittedly, not for the person or family represented). In 2022 644 died. That same year 42,795 (NHTSA) people died needlessly in car accidents. 26,993 killed themselves with guns. Police acknowledged killing 649, possibly innocent, humans with guns. And there were 411 ‘undetermined cause’ deaths by guns (Johns Hopkins/CDC). Mass shootings were less than 2% of gun deaths (Gun Violence Archive). And what was the weapon of choice? Handguns, not automatic rifles: by 78%.
So why the focus on mass shootings and the subsequent rants, on both sides, about automatic large bullet capacity weapons when, really, that is a small fraction of the needless annual bloodshed in this country.
Part of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution is the 2nd amendment, commonly known as the ‘right to bear arms’. Interestingly, just an aside but seems somehow poignantly, ironically, relevant here; Alexander Hamilton was a signatory on this and was shot and killed later. Oops.
The second amendment was written in the context of the times. Countries had armies that kings controlled, often crushing any popular dissent. One complaint raised in the Declaration of Independence was that King George’s American army was independent of the people and more powerful than local government. Hence “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.” It was to keep us free of governmental tyranny. The idea was to not even have a federal peacetime standing army, just ‘well regulated’ state militias. Interestingly, James Madison drafted this and included an opt out for conscientious objectors – suggesting (to me) the notion of compulsory militia service for everyone else.
I forget who popularized the notion that if Ukraine had not given up its 4000+ nukes (at our bidding, for an arguably safer world – same for Kazakhstan and Belarus) Russia would never have invaded. In fact Russia committed NOT to invade if Ukraine gave them up (Budapest Memorandum of the Non-proliferation Treaty).
I bring that up because, after the Afghanistan war, ‘surplus’ weapons were offered to all governmental agencies across the nation. My local PARKS department asked for (and got) grenade launchers. A neighboring police department picked up a few armored Humvees with machine guns. A tad over the top perhaps. The word ‘overkill’ springs to mind.
If President Trump were to decide to crown himself king, put golden plastic ‘TRUMP’ signs on the front of the Whitehouse, and set the National Guard against his opponents, how would an unarmed populace defend itself against that? Cleverness? Rely on the Judiciary? Congress?
Michael Moore, for all his whininess, raised a significant question in his movie ‘Bowling For Columbine’: Why in other countries, where there are more guns per capita, is there so much less gun violence (eg Canada etc)?
So now I come full circle: why the hoopla after mass shootings and the call to get rid of automatic weapons when their use in domestic killings is minimal? Is it a red herring? Is it to sell a deeper political divide, more guns (gun sales take off whenever there is a threat of limiting them), just common sense to go after what you can when you can, an easy way for politicians to seem upset and stay elected, or maybe to disarm future dissent?
I am not suggesting it is any of those reasons. I am not suggesting we need to keep automatic weapons legal and available to all. I do feel it is unnecessary for my neighbor to have 3 AK47s. I am not really even talking about guns, just using them as an example. I am suggesting you might wonder what is behind the story, might be curious. Always.