I read an article in the New Yorker back in 2004, a piece by Malcolm Gladwell called "Big and Bad". In it, Gladwell explores the curious mindset that many Americans have with what makes a car “safe”. He points out that in Europe and Japan, when you ask consumers which car is the safest, they almost always say a small car, like a Camry or a Jetta. The reason: low to the ground, light, and nimble, such cars allow you to avoid accidents. Little skidding, no roll-over, and not so heavy as to prevent a necessary swerve.
But as someone who is quoted in the article points out, the following is a mindset almost exclusive to North America:
The metric that people use is size. The bigger something is, the safer it is. In the consumer’s mind, the basic equation is, if I were to take this vehicle and drive it into this brick wall, the more metal there is in front of me the better off I’ll be.
Ask Americans which car is the safest, and they invariably choose the big ones: the Ford F150s, the Lincoln Navigators, the H2s. They figure when an accident happens, it’s safest to be up high, and with as much ‘tank’ between you and the other car as possible.
It’s an ‘active’ versus ‘passive’ outlook. Other consumers around the world hear safety and think, “How can I best avoid an accident?” Americans, on the other hand, think, “If I’m in an accident, how can I avoid getting hurt?” There’s an inevitability to it that’s a bit saddening: Americans are expecting an accident to happen. It’s coming, so be ready for it.
The irony, as Gladwell points out, is that the big, heavy SUVs cause more accidents to begin with. They’re fulfilling their own prophecy, so to speak.
It’s what happens when a larger number of drivers conclude, consciously or otherwise, that the extra thirty feet that the TrailBlazer takes to come to a stop don’t really matter, that the tractor-trailer will hit them anyway, and that they are better off treating accidents as inevitable rather than avoidable.
I bring this up, because yesterday the NRA released its student-safety plan, entitled School Shield. Its “solutions” are pretty much what you would expect: armed guards, armed teachers, relaxing concealed carry restrictions on school grounds.
But what reminded me of the Gladwell SUV article was some of the other, architectural recommendations: replacing exterior windows and classroom door glass with bullet-proof glass, welding door hinges to their frames to make the doors harder to breach. They’re basically saying the same thing about school safety and guns that Americans say about auto safety and SUVs: “It is inevitable that a madman with an AR-15 will walk into a school and start shooting, so turn every school into a fortress to make it harder for him to do so.” It’s as if the problem is that schools make it too easy for guys with guns to breach them, not that there are bad guys with guns to begin with.
Is that the country we live in now? Where it’s considered inevitable, almost normal, to expect gunman to enter schools (or any public place) and gun down innocents? Obviously, if it is inevitable, then the only solution is to put guards everywhere and add iron plating to every single point of ingress in every single public building. That’s what “School Shield” recommends: turning a school into a shield against the inevitable.
Or, we can say that we can choose to live in a country where we don’t accept that the accident is going to happen. We can choose the small car when we decide we want safety, because when a potentially deadly situation occurs, that car allows us to control it and more likely avoid it.
The problem isn’t that there’s an accident coming and we have to put steel around us. The problem is that we can try to avoid the accident to begin with, and we’re not.
— You’re right to be amazed, Atrios.
That’s the little-cited Third Amendment. Back when we were severing our ties with the British and starting our own little party, this was a big grievance. One of the many “taxes” the British put on the colonists was for us to pay to house their troops, and if no barracks were available, the troops would just set up anywhere. Your house, maybe.
It doesn’t have much relevance today. There has been the odd case here and there that’s cited it, but the most direct case (Engblom v. Carey, 1982) seems to have more to do with a labor strike dispute. It’s a perfect reminder of how the Bill of Rights were written in a specific time, quite different from our world in 2013.
Remember Billionaires for Bush? The satirical, ironic ‘protestors’ who’d dress up in top hats and tuxes and hold signs supporting the GOP agenda? I think, in this current debate on gun safety (in which few are calling for an outright destruction of the 2nd Amendment; more focus on the ‘well-regulated’ part of it), we could use another satirical protest group, shouting at the top of its lungs that it will NOT QUARTER A SOLDIER IN A TIME OF PEACE WITHOUT MY CONSENT!!! Let’s treat all the Amendments with the same over-the-top vigor that the gun lobby does with the 2nd, and see if we can include a little perspective. The Bill of Rights wasn’t written in a vacuum. They were looking out their window at a very specific world and thinking what they wanted to do. That window view is much different today. You don’t ignore the Constitution. But you need to start looking at its spirit in order to keep it relevant in this completely different era.