Open Carry: Just Because You Can Doesn't Mean You Should

On Saturday the Medina County Gazette of Medina, Ohio published this guest column of mine: 

I frequently visit Medina with my husband and two young children because that’s where I grew up and my parents still live here. The Gazette tells me that next time I'm on the Square with my kids, I might see people from the activist group Northeast Open Carry patrolling the area with firearms in holsters or strapped to their backs. If I do, I won't call the police since there's nothing illegal going on. The law is already firmly on the side of open carry advocates. They aren't even required to show their IDs when questioned by police.

But I won't stick around. Police who carry firearms are trained and hired to serve and protect. Concealed carry requires at least a permit.

But a man just strutting around with a gun, he’s a total unknown. Maybe he's had sufficient training in firearm use and safety, maybe not. Maybe he's a schizophrenic about to have his first onset of serious symptoms. Maybe he's generally paranoid with lousy judgment. Maybe he’s a perfectly stable, responsible guy. The point is, I don't know.

What I do know is that Joe Smith or whoever is holding a deadly weapon and could easily kill me or my kids from hundreds of feet away. 

To Joe Smith or whoever, I didn't ask for your protection, and more importantly, I don't need it. The Medina crime rate is much lower than both the Ohio average and national average crime rates. (The city is ranked among the safest 15 percent of Ohio’s communities, according data compiled by USA.com. Most of the rare robberies and thefts that happen in Medina do not involve a deadly weapon at all. So unless you are on your way to the shooting range or to hunt, why are you flaunting your firearms in public spaces?

Just because you have the legal right to openly carry shotguns, assault rifles, and semi-automatic pistols in public doesn't mean it's a good idea or without risk. The Constitution gives the Westboro Baptist Church the right to protest military funerals with signs saying “God hates fags.” That doesn't mean they should or that doing so won't cause trouble. It also doesn't mean that the public should accept such behavior as “normal.”

People of Medina live without fear. It's not that crime never happens in Medina, but the number of crimes there that could be prevented by a random stranger walking around with a gun are so low that they're negligible. 

In a safe place, adding guns only adds the risks that come with them. That's why most people in Medina clear the area and might even call 911 in response to seeing a random stranger casually patrolling public spaces. Nobody here needs to be “educated.” We already felt safe, and Northeast Open Carry activists are taking some of that peace of mind away. 

Martha Knox is an artist and blogger living in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She is the daughter of David Knox, the managing editor of The Gazette.

That's my point of view visiting my quiet little hometown in Ohio. Now for my perspective from where I live today. 

A couple years ago a man was shot and killed on my street. It was 4:30 in the afternoon. I heard the shots from my living room, looked out the window just in time to see the shooter and his accomplice run away. Minutes later I stepped out on my porch to see a body lying on the sidewalk across the street. He died on the way to the hospital, one of America's many victims of violent crime, most often connected to the illicit drug trade. 

I live in Philadelphia, a city where hundreds of people are murdered and thousands more are injured with guns every year. Many more, including children and youth, are traumatized by witnessing gun violence in their neighborhoods. Here in Philly, if I saw someone walking around with a gun, even though Pennsylvanians have a right to open carry, I would call 9-11, because here the odds that violence will ensue is likely.

The idea of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns is based on nothing more than wishful fantasy, and is in opposition to actual evidence. And yet people all over the United States are trying to change American society into one which encourages vigilantism and is poised for conflict with deadly weapons anywhere, anytime.  

Let's be clear what's happening here: Open Carry Activists already have the right to do what they are doing. What they want now is to change the culture into one which accepts them flaunting those rights. 

Is this a change we Americans want? We already have horrifically high rates of gun violence compared with other industrialized nations. If guns being carried by just about anyone, anywhere, anywhere become the norm, do we really believe that most of those people will be sufficiently trained and cautious at all times? How many people ignore speed limits, thinking they can handle higher speeds, despite the threat of fines and accidents?

Are we really going to ignore the fact that the proliferation of firearms increases the numbers of suicides and accidents involving guns? Or that a desperate criminal will exhibit far more risky behavior such as grabbing a gun from an innocent citizen or shooting innocent people before responsible, armed citizens have a chance to fully assess the situation?

Flaunting rights to openly carry around firearms in public make no sense in safe communities such as my hometown or communities like Philadelphia which are already plagued with gun violence. It makes no sense period. 

The simple truth is that more guns don't protect people. They increase the chance of people getting shot. Forget the wild west fantasy, that's the science, that's the reality. 

Civil Magistrate in VA Permitted to Discriminate

Bud Roth, a civil magistrate in Virginia, employed by the county, paid by taxpayers, appointed by the court system to officiate civil contract marriages, has been permitted to refuse to marry certain couples based on their religious beliefs. 

Read the detailed account including a video recording of a conversation one of the betrothed had with Roth at Friendly Atheist. 

What minority does the guy discriminate against? Why non-theists, of course! But given the language used by both Republican and and Democrat politicians speaking about marriage over the past couple decades, should we be surprised?

We all know what religious bigots many Republicans can be when it comes to marriage equality. But here's some quotes from prominent Democrats: 

"I'm for domestic partnerships having legal protections, but not the same sacrament, not the same name, because I favor protecting the institution of marriage as it has been understood between a man and woman." -Al Gore in 2000 

But, Al, the civil union part of marriage (which is the only part government has a hand in) is not a sacrament. 

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." -Hillary Clinton in 2000. 

Hillary, guess what, the oldest and most common type of marriage in human history has been polygyny, not heterosexual monogamy. Also, what the hell does what ancient societies did have to do with the institution of marriage today, anyway, particularly considering how the state of women's rights has progressed! 

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian - for me - for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix." -Barack Obama in 2008

Barack, if that whole sacred aspect of marriage is just for you, then why the hell are you bringing it up during a political campaign? Could it be that you are encouraging voters to trust you because you are Christian (because after all, secular people simply can't be as morally upright as good Christians such as yourself.) 

Of course now all three of these political figures have evolved in their views regarding gay marriage. Now they all think legal gay marriage is just hunky dory.

Who cares that all that old rhetoric was incredibly insulting to atheist and agnostic couples (who actually have lower than average divorce rates.) Nevermind that such rhetoric helped solidify in the minds of Americans that marriage and religiosity are inseparable, and that marriage that is not regarded as sacred and sacrament is a less serious, less solid undertaking.

If Bud Roth wants to be a minister and officiate religious ceremonies then he should go do that. But if he accepted an appointment to officiate civil ceremonies for the state, he has no business turning away couples based on religious beliefs or lack thereof. 

Demonizing Mothers In Greatest Need

"Just remember, you don't come first anymore."

These were words said to me by a friend over the phone after I told him I was pregnant with my first child. This took me way off guard as this was a liberal friend who I knew through the Humanist movement. An awkward silence followed, after which I struggled to articulate a response. I finally said something like, "I think we both come first. After all, I can't take good care of a kid if I don't take good care of myself."

Why would such a reminder be necessary or appropriate? I was an adult woman with a career, great marriage, financial security,  good health, and family support. With all that going for me, the only way I'd be an awful parent is if I'm an awful human being.

I doubt my friend thinks I'm an awful human being. But I also doubt he'd have made that comment to my husband or any other father.

There is a pervasive message in our culture that when women become pregnant and then mothers, we're taking on some monumental endeavor, opposed to one that is, while significant, commonplace. It is as if, such as in this Shel Silverstein drawing, we're escorted to a pedestal, after which the only options are to climb atop to be revered as goddess-like matrons, or fall short of expectations and be despised.

For over a decade, legislation such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has turned on women before their children are even born, criminalizing the abuse pregnant women inflict on themselves due to mental illness, addiction, and/or desperate circumstances, because that damage extends to a fetus.

The most obscene example of prosecution and imprisonment of a woman because of severe health issues suffered while pregnant is the case of Bei Bei Shuai. Shuai attempted suicide with rat poison after her unborn child's father left her. Friends found and saved her, but after treatment, an emergency c-section and the subsequent death of her baby, she was charged with murder and imprisoned. At one point the prosecution offered a deal if Shuai would plead guilty to feticide, but she refused. In the end, she plead guilty to criminal recklessness. But not before she'd already spent over a year behind bars.

There are other cases, such as that of Melissa Ann Rowland, a mentally ill addict with a record of child abuse, who was charged with murder for not having a c-section that would have saved her fetus. Rennie Gibbs who was charged with murder for her use of cocaine, resulting in the stillbirth of her child. Neither of these charges resulted in convictions, but the persistent trend is disturbing.

Alabama has prosecuted 60 addicts who used while pregnant. One well-publicized case was Amanda Kimbrough, charged with chemical endangerment for the use of meth during her pregnancy and leading to the premature birth and immediate death of her child.

Most recently, Tennessee passed SB 1391, a bill that allows women to be charged with assault if their children are harmed by their drug use. It passed despite warnings from pretty much the entire medical establishment that the law would discourage addicts from seeking treatment while pregnant.

Imani Gandy of RH Reality Check wrote:

Multiple medical associations and counseling services, as well as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Tennessee Association of Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Other Addiction Services, opposed SB1391 as the dangerous threat it is.  

These doctors stressed that any such law would continue a frightening trend of women who fail to seek out prenatal care – 23% of pregnant women in Tennessee receive none at all, and the trend is more common among women of color. A 2009 review by the National Institutes of Health found that 30% of women in a study failed to get prenatal care because of substance abuse problems.

The only aspect of SB 1391 that saves it from being a totally heinous attack on women who suffer from addiction is an amendment which gives women the option of abandoning charges if they enter an approved treatment program. Of course by that point, the damage is already done. 

There are two issues with these laws that criminalize the behavior of pregnant women. The first is an issue of choice. The biological reality is that a fetus, while a discreet human organism, is completely dependent on the woman as incubator for his or her survival. There is no perfect comparison to this situation in the real world. However it says something that we do not force people to be organ donors, even in death, and even though doing so would certainly save lives.

A woman who neglects or abuses her children can have those children removed and placed in the care of other adults. This is not an option if the "child" is a fetus. If fetuses are given the same legal rights as children, then every pregnant woman no longer has the same rights that everyone else has over our bodies. 

In his stand up, George Carlin said:

If a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being then how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being then how come people say "We have two children and one on the way." instead of saying "We have three children."

Carlin makes the point that culturally and legally, we acknowledge the difference between a fetus and a baby that can live independent of its mother's body. Laws such as SB 1391 are little more than anti-abortionist attempts to establish a legal precedent out of line with these societal norms.

The second issue with these laws is the harmful outcomes.

As much as people might despise a woman who smokes crack cocaine while pregnant, much mental illness and addiction is exacerbated if not caused by the conditions of poverty, and are therefore preventable. Putting the mentally ill and addicts in prison only makes a bad situation worse.

We now have evidence that growing up in the conditions of poverty are more harmful to a child than being a "crack baby."

Now, after nearly a quarter century, the federally funded study was ending, and the question the researchers had been asking was answered.

Did cocaine harm the long-term development of children like Jaimee, who were exposed to the drug in their mother's womb?

The researchers had expected the answer would be a resounding yes. But it wasn't. Another factor would prove far more critical.

That other factor: poverty.

Of course if poverty can have a worse impact on a child than exposure to crack while in the womb, harsh conditions of poverty can also impact the health and choices made by pregnant women. Poverty is associated with increased drug abuse and more prevalent mental illness. People like to point to rich addicts such as Phillip Seymour Hoffman and say, "See, anyone can be an addict." The implication being that it is simply a matter of personal will. But these arguments fall apart when we look at the statistics and the horrible impact poverty has, particularly on children and the women who bare and raise them.

More than one in five children are growing up in poverty, and 75% of households under the poverty line are headed by mothers. What business do we as a society have imprisoning women who suffer from serious health problems when we don't have a universal, comprehensive health care system, we're cutting supplemental food programs, Head Start, and public schools in poor communities are failing. If we want better outcomes for children, we need to give more support to the adults who bare and raise them.

They say that behind every great man is a great woman. This Mother's Day let's remember that behind every exceptional mother, there's both a history and present community of support.

Friendly Atheist Gives a Platform to Anti-Choice Atheists

Hemant Mehta, of the popular blog Friendly Atheist has twice in one month given a platform to anti-choice activists who act under the banner of freethought. This comes at the same time as President of American Atheists David Silverman's statement:

I will admit there is a secular argument against abortion. You can’t deny that it’s there, and it’s maybe not as clean cut as school prayer, right to die, and gay marriage.

As a humanist and feminist (I used to think I could just say "humanist" and that then "feminist" would then be assumed. Now I'm starting to wonder), I am deeply disturbed by this, and dearly hope it is not reflective of a shift in the tide regarding abortion rights.

Back to the Friendly Atheist. February 17th Mehta criticized those who vandalized posters advertising a talk by Kelsey Hazzard of Secular Pro-Life. He then went on to post the video of Hazzard's entire talk, commenting:

Without getting into her actual arguments and whether they’re fair or flawed, I’m amazed that I haven’t seen a presentation like this at any of the atheist conferences I’ve ever been to. (At least I can’t remember seeing one like it.) If conference organizers are trying to reach out to a broader spectrum of people, Kelsey seems like a natural choice for a poised speaker who has a very different perspective to bring to the secular table. Even if you think she’s way off base, she represents not-an-insignificant portion of our community. It’d at least be interesting to see the two sides of this argument hash things out in front of a crowd.

Of course there haven't been presentations like this at any freethought conferences; their arguments are irrational, emotionally manipulative, and anti-women's-rights.

Ok. You're an extremist.

Whether performance enhancing drugs should be allowed use in professional sports is an interesting debate. Continuing a debate over a women's rights issue that should have been considered settled 40 years ago is unsettling, even alarming.

Secular White Supremacists such as the Creativity Movement have a very different perspective to bring to the secular table. Should we invite them to our conferences and help disseminate their video propaganda online, too?

Finally, "poised speaker"? Who the hell cares how poised the speaker is when she's spouting ignorance such as that abortion is a "quick and easy solution" and that part of How You Can Help is "Don't become pregnant before you are ready." It's like listening to fiscal conservatives characterize living on social assistance as luxurious and that the solution to poverty is for poor people to stop being poor.

Then on March 11th, Mehta did something even worse. He featured a guest post by Kristine Kruszelnicki, President of Pro-Life Humanists: Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here's Why I'm One of Them. 

Kruszelnicki opens up with the argument that since polls show that there's a lot of anti-choice atheists, they deserve a seat at the table of this movement. No, they don't. There is no magical percentage at which their arguments become any more rational or humane. If 19% of atheists were white supremacists, they still wouldn't deserve a seat at the table, and neither do anti-choice atheists. That is unless the secular movement wants to sink itself into a sandpit of mediocrity.

After admitting that the scientific evidence shows embryos and fetuses to be non-sentient, Kruszelnicki presents a weak and purely philosophical argument as to why we should bestow even a 2 week old embryo with rights equal to that of the woman.

Kruszelnicki pretends to address the issue of body autonomy, but she really doesn't. At one point she compares the responsibility the pregnant woman has to the embryo/fetus to the responsibility anyone has to an abandoned infant they discover on their front porch. As if 9 months of pregnancy and birth could even be compared to making a call to child services.

Kruszelnicki essentially argues that while a woman is pregnant, she and the embryo/fetus share her body, and thus have equal rights to that body. But physiologically this is not accurate. The facts are that the woman and embryo/fetus are two separate entities, connected by the latter's dependence on the former's body for survival, and in a situation which poses certain risks to the health of the woman.

A much better analogy than the baby on the porch would be a brother who needs a kidney to live, and his sister as a healthy, perfect candidate for organ donation. Do we legally compel people to donate their organs? No. Not even in death.

I'm bothered by Mehta wanting to have this debate within the secular movement because by even engaging in a debate with anti-choicers (opposed to mocking and dismissing them) we give legitimacy to their arguments.

But I'm more disturbed by the fact that Mehta put this out there without actually engaging in the debate himself. It seems that to Mehta that raising the visibility of anti-choice atheists is more important than defending women's reproductive rights.

The Friendly Atheist has no excuse, because as he knows from his own previous posts on abortion, equating abortion with baby killing sends us down a frightening path.

Day Care Should Be Free

In honor of Labor Day, I've decided to write about an issue that has bothered me since the birth of my daughter two years ago. Although it should have bothered me long before that. The only reason it didn't is because, until I had my own child, it never occurred to me.

We should have free, public day care in the United States. Just as we have public schools and public libraries, the services of firefighters and police, day care should be free to the public and funded by tax dollars. And we should have this because it is fair and in the interest of not only parents, but our society at large.

Consider these facts:

According to the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, the average cost of day care for a single child over one year is $11,666.

According to the 2008 Census, average household income is around $52,000. Single custodial parents (who care for 26% of America's children) are obviously earning less than that, although the majority of them still do not qualify for or take advantage of social services such as food stamps, rent subsidy, or Medicaid.

According to analysis of 2008 data by Emmanual Saez at the University of California-Berkley, the bottom 90% of American household's average income is just over $31,000.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, child care workers average around $20,000 annually, with the highest paid still barely reaching $30,000. (So basically, those workers - mostly women - can't afford to send even one of their own kids to the very facility they work at caring for other peoples' kids.)

As of 2006 the average full time Walmart employee (working about 34 hours per week at just over $10. per hour) earns $17,874 per year.

The typical working parents of young children are just barely getting by financially, many in the gap where they aren't quite poor enough to qualify for aid, but also aren't earning enough to save for emergencies, retirement, or their children's college funds, much less for well-deserved and psychologically-needed vacations. They are literally on the edge of poverty, and face rapidly rising costs of medical care and insurance, food, gas, and higher education, while wages stagnate.

Obviously huge numbers of Americans simply can't afford professional child care. Even the crappy little one-room day cares loaded with crying infants, where the TV is blaring all day long, and exhausted caretakers are overworked and underpaid are too expensive for most American households. A single mother working a job making $30,000 a year simply cannot afford full time professional day care, but she must work in order to provide housing, food, and medical insurance for her family. So who exactly is taking care of the kids?

Retired and unemployed relatives and friends is one answer. And is that a good solution? I question the quality of care children receive by people who might be alone with them for 40+ hours a week, and whose only qualification may be that they happen to be around and have been pressured into it by a sense of family or friendly obligation. I also question how fair it is to older relatives, usually grandparents, who may not be in the best health, and after earning their retirement now have to go back to work full time doing the highly stressful job of caring for babies and toddlers.  

Then there are the parents who sacrifice earnings and career to care for kids. Many highly educated, productive working mothers (and some fathers) are leaving their careers or at least cutting back heavily on work to raise children, and then finding themselves at a huge disadvantage when they return to their career. Women are especially at a disadvantage if their marriage ends in divorce. Society is losing out on the benefits of these peoples' work.

There is obviously a problem here.

But if I bring this issue up to my middle class, liberal friends, they mostly just sort of shrug their shoulders and say something like, "Well, yeah, it probably should be made a little more affordable for some people."

Bullshit, I say. This is outrageous! The cost of just about everything is outpacing wages too quickly. Children are not a luxury or accessory. They are members of our society who need to be cared for until they mature, and we as a society have a responsibility to them and to the parents and guardians who raise them. Day care should be a free, public service. And it should be as simple and easy as enrolling a kid in public school.

Happy Labor Day, folks.