As I write this, we are still absorbing the San Bernardino shootings.
My wife and I just went through the exercise of buying a car. To do this we had to verify our identities, go through a credit check, provide our Social Security numbers, etc. We had to provide current employers, and most recent employers if within four years.
The car comes with a unique vehicle identification number. The VIN is on everything: the car itself, the (mandatory) insurance policy, the registration, and the purchase contract. In the end, we leased the car, a first for us. That means we needed something called gap insurance, which covers the car if we total it during the lease, while the car is still the dealer’s property. (Funny thing, apparently I’m better off if the accident is my fault. God bless America.)
So of course this car needs plates, and the single greatest joy (the only one, really) of getting a new car is that the dealer deals with the registry. They hand you keys and you drive off (gingerly, because of the aforementioned gap insurance).
Oh, I forgot to mention, the old car? I got pulled over in it recently. Unbeknownst to me, the lights around the rear license plate were out. The cop let me off with a written warning. This is fixed now, but I dragged my feet a little because we were getting rid of the car, and I tried to drive it only in daytime. But when I realized I was driving past the same spot at about the same time just after dark, I had a moment of terror. The same cop might see me, and he would have to give me a ticket, right? Think for a second about why he pulled me over for that; it wasn’t really a safety hazard, the rest of the car was perfectly visible. But I could have been a thief trying to hide the fact that I was driving a stolen car.
Perhaps you can anticipate — well, wait a second. I had really hoped the old car would last longer, but it’s getting too old for my little family. It would be fine for a single person who just needs to get around. (Offers accepted! BMG discount!) I used to joke that my daughter, now 11, could have it when she’s 16. But of course she’d have to pass a driver’s ed class, get licensed by the Commonwealth as a driver, and carry insurance (and pay higher rates, of course, as a teen operator).
So now, perhaps — sorry one more thing. As you may have heard, there’s a lot of things being developed in the auto industry, most notably self-driving cars. As scary as self-driving cars sound, we appear to need them. Have you noticed no one honks when a light changes anymore? This grand Massachusetts tradition fell to the new technology of texting. We even banned texting and driving, and nobody argued that that impinged freedom of speech.
Last month Boston banned toy guns that look too realistic. Toy guns.
Why are cars so regulated? Plenty of people would argue that cars are overly regulated. Those arguments don’t get far, because cars are dangerous, and our society pretty much agrees collectively with that. We agree for example that every driver should be insured, because we don’t want an accident with someone who’s uninsured. We agree that cops should pull people over if something seems suspicious, and especially if the car is being driven erratically. And when someone drives drunk, we send them to trial.
To move on, let’s agree on two points:
We have no plans to repeal the Second Amendment.
Americans love guns, and want to have them. I don’t, and you may not, but they’re here and they’re not going away time soon.
So when we talk about control, we don’t get far. We certainly can’t control cars. Let’s talk about regulation.
Each gun should come with a unique identifier, a firearm identification number, or FIN. When you buy it, you go through everything I described above.
And the gun comes with a chip that can find it.
Many corporate laptops now, if stolen, can be wiped remotely. The chip the gun comes with, if it’s reported stolen, should trigger-lock it.
We could build rules into these chips. If the gun approaches a gun-free zone, like a school, a government building, or a social services center, it’s trigger-locked. I couldn’t possibly describe to you how that would work, but I know it can work. Computers are really fast now, and building a gun database that operates that quickly is already within our reach. We just haven’t done it.
Put another way, if a group of police officers is sent somewhere, the chips on their guns identify their location. If something goes wrong, and someone loses their gun, we know where it goes. If a suspect fleeing a scene is armed, we know where he’s going. Even if he abandons the gun we know where he abandoned it, and that says a lot about where he was headed.
Suppose you’re a law-abiding hunter on your way to hunt. Your three friends pile in to your car with their law-abiding legally registered chip-equipped hunting rifles, and the database recognizes the legality of that and enables them to work. But if the route takes them past a gun-free zone (or an area that doesn’t allow hunting, or it’s out of season), the triggers are locked.
The other thing the database recognizes is anomalies. Say, if four guns are housed in a residence where only one person is known to live. If all four are legally registered to the same person who’s known to live there, OK. If they aren’t, it gets checked out.
Only outlaws need to worry about this gross invasion of privacy.
Your gun carries an excise tax, and is inspected annually for certain (mandated) safety procedures (and of course to make sure it’s yours).
If the chip stops working, someone knows and sends you a polite note. If you fail to act on this note (you didn’t know the chip wasn’t working), the next note is less polite. If this remains unresolved for too long, you’re under arrest.
This would cost a bloody fortune, I know. It would require all kinds of infrastructure. Some of that would be offset with the excise tax revenue, but certainly not all of it, and our existing public safety structure probably wouldn’t mind knowing where the guns are.
We’re already collecting bulk data about phone calls and e-mails. We can’t collect bulk data about guns? We can. And the aforementioned fast computers can process the information really quickly and identify potential dangers.
I can imagine websites, something like Zillow, showing not just property values but how many guns are in a community. Google Maps can already show me what kind of car you drive, unless you park it underground and never drive it.
This is a big change to our culture of gun ownership, and it would be hard to do, but it is possible.
Does anybody think we don’t need a big change?
Jasiu says
I think this framing is worth looking into. The problem with “gun control” or even “gun regulation” is that there are no boundaries on what that means and those opposed to any curbs on guns can speculate wildly about what it might entail.
“Regulate guns like cars” is a nice, short frame that puts boundaries on the argument. It puts it into a container that everyone is familiar with because most of us have gone through the drill of obtaining a drivers license and buying/leasing a car. Claiming that “Obama is out to get our cars” is just ludicrous. If one gets their drivers license suspended or revoked, it is because they have done something to justify that restriction. Everyone knows why the regulations exist – not to limit individual freedom, but because the operation of a car is dangerous to others.
thebaker says
“To do this we had to verify our identities, go through a credit check, provide our Social Security numbers, etc. We had to provide current employers, and most recent employers if within four years.”
You must be confused … I just bought my wife a very expensive Mercedes-Benz for this Christmas. It comes with a HUGE Bow for all my neighbors to see. Anyway I paid cash and I didn’t need a credit check? Sounds like you took out a loan …
marcus-graly says
Not quite sure why, but they wanted one anyway.
drikeo says
You really should have gone with a jet instead of a car.
whoaitsjoe says
Step one is getting a conceal carry permit. In order to acquire this you need to fill out paperwork, picked up from your local police station, and submit it for approval. Typically this also involves an interview, fingerprinting, and a photograph. The police chief of the town you live in has authority to deny you the permit. You pay 100-150 (can’t remember how much exactly) and you have a conceal carry permit.
Now you want to go buy the gun. You have to go to the gun store, provide a unique PIN to process the transaction, fill out more paperwork, and have a background check run.
You then are able to purchase your firearm with it’s unique serial number that is engraved into the weapon, sometimes twice (my AK has it on the barrel and the receiver).
The big problem with this post is this once sentance:
Electronic trigger lock technology isn’t where it needs to be to be something practical or reliable enough that people will, quite literally, stake their lives on it.
Also,
Says every police officer who has ever violated someone’s fourth amendment rights while conducting an illegal search.
whoaitsjoe says
You also have to take a gun safety course. I took mine in Attleboro on a Sunday morning and it was like 5 hours long and extremely comprehensive.
SomervilleTom says
As I understand it (and described previously here on BMG) the fly in the ointment is that pretty much ALL of the information you just described is allowed or mandated to be kept locally.
Your police chief does NOT have to submit your fingerprint or photograph to any federal information system (and perhaps may be prohibited from doing so).
Similarly, the system used by the gun store is unique to that store, and whatever data (such as the unique PIN, paperwork and so on) is local to that store and is not even required to be accessible electronically.
I’m under the impression that the background check is similarly local and ad-hoc.
The serial number is NOT maintained in any federal database, and there is currently no automated and instantaneous way to, for example, identify the last legal owner based on the serial number. The serial number on your AK is NOT, therefore, analogous to a VIN on a vehicle.
These constraints are all the direct result of NRA interference, at every step of the way, with legislation to remedy these shortcomings.
The net result is to burden the local police, gun purchaser, manufacturer, and gun seller with all the inconvenience of gathering this data while providing NONE of the benefits.
Just a nit — when you refer to your “AK”, do you mean a semi-automatic weapon? I thought we were talking about a handgun. Do you consider an AK47 to be a handgun? Really?
It seems to me that, as you suggest, we already have the processes in place to collect the needed data. What we lack (by very obvious intent) is the network of information systems needed to make that data useful.
whoaitsjoe says
Not conflating with a handgun, by any means.
Not true. The PIN is issued by the state, an the database used for background checks is a federal one. It’s also a standardized process, so regardless what what store you purchase from, you go through the same process.
Wrong. When you purchase a firearm in mass, the serial number, with your name, goes into the NCIC.
This is accurate. It’s on file, but not in a searchable database.
SomervilleTom says
We had a similar discussion on BMG in early October. In that thread is a link to an NYT op-ed piece by Alan Berlow. From Mr. Berlow’s piece (emphasis mine):
Later in the piece (emphasis mine):
I’d like to see support for your assertion that the “NCIC” is anything other than the “60,000 separate locations” cited above. I’d like to see support for you assertion that the records of the NCIC are required to be digital.
What I hear from your comment seems to be at variance with Mr. Berlow’s column. Mr. Berlow has supported his assertions. I invite you to do the same.
whoaitsjoe says
Not NCIC.
All dealer sales are reported to the Mass FRB. Private transactions are also reported as well via FA-10 forms. The digital database is accessible to all law enforcement.
So, there must be 59,999 other locations for data for the rest of the country. I think we have reasonable gun laws in MA. With exceptions, but in general, reasonable.
thebaker says
Agree
That was a really dumb thing to say.
Christopher says
…then yes, MA has among the strictest gun controls in the country, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m not recalling a mass shooting in this state in recent years. Of course, if the state that originated the idea of minutemen romanticized by the gun rights crowd can find the will to regulate firearms certainly other states can. Then again, MA played host to the original Tea Party too, a historical episode the true context of which has been lost on those who claim the modern political label.
whoaitsjoe says
But it wasn’t something you could just do spur of the moment. I thought everything was pretty reasonable and the process was easy to understand and navigate. Some of the laws are pretty pointless, e.g. the evil features classification for rifles (standard size mags, bayonet lugs, folding stocks etc).
jconway says
And that occurred despite the Brady Bill being in effect or whatever MA gun control laws were on the books. Look, no one wants to pass the strictest gun control laws possible more than me. I am saying Obama spent a large part of his political capital trying to pass a measly background check that didn’t even get to his desk.
He could’ve appropriated the $500 million Operation Ceasefire and other inner city activists were asking for. I bet you had it been framed the right way, he could’ve brought on board Republican support. It didn’t happen.
The Democrats are using this as a wedge issue now, and it will have as much chance of passing as any of the anti-Roe, anti-gay, or anti-Obama bills filed by the GOP majority. President Clinton or President Sanders will not get this passed either, not past a GOP majority likely to stay in place until 2022. Massachusetts is more than capable of ending gang violence, with all the wealth and brain power we have, let’s work on that.
Christopher says
Granted, speaking about it is the one time I can remember Obama actually publicly sounding royally ticked off, but I haven’t seen him expend a lot of effort on it. Despite that the NRA and their allies insisted he was after your guns. I say continue to clobber the opposition with full force on this.
jconway says
How has the National Organization for Marriage worked out? It’s reduced to defending two bit hacks like Kim Davis, and has fallen woefully short of all of it’s stated policy goals. They are bigoted assholes, our policies are just. I am not arguing against the ends, I no longer believe the means that we have used in the past are going to save any lives any time soon. Proposing it and voting on it time after time after time is functionally the liberal equivalent of the Obamacare repeal effort we rightly mock as a waste of time.
If we can get a 60 seat Senate majority, and a Democratic House majority that does not depend on the votes of pro-gun Democrats, and a fully committed Democratic President-I am all for passing swift and merciless gun control that finally protects us from the NRA. 100%. I would note such a Congress so ideologically composed has never existed in the history of these United States, but we shouldn’t stop trying. We should always be asking ‘why not?’
In that spirit, why not focus on the stuff we can get done in the meantime that will save lives now? Why not have all of us suburban liberals volunteer in these inner city communities and help address this problem in our own backyards? Grassroots local activism will be far more effective than the federal government on this issue for quite some time.
Christopher says
I’m not asking for 50+ show votes in the same Congress trying to roll back the clock. I know that gun control isn’t likely to pass a GOP Congress. We’re Dems after all – there are LOTS of things we want that won’t get passed by a GOP Congress. Does that mean we should stop trying to elect Dems who will be more likely to do what we want on this and a whole host of other things? If at first you don’t succeed…
jconway says
Is our end to pass gun control for its own sake or is our end a broader push to reduce gun deaths? I am arguing it should be the latter in which case gun control is but one of the means to reducing gun fatalities, which are inexcusably high. Since pursuing that means exclusively has hit a brick wall where it won’t be pushed through anytime soon, I think it’s time to pursue means that could work in the meantime.
I don’t see what political advantage we get pursuing a Sisyphean battle in this Congress or even the next one pursuing something we know won’t pass. I won’t be possible until we have an ideal level of control like we did in 2008-2010. A two year period that may not be replicated and may not endure for much longer if it does.
Ted Kennedy has said in his papers he regrets not dealing with Nixon to get single payer and resents Harry Reid for killing his immigration reform
with McCain that Bush would’ve surely signed to make a wedge issue to win the Latino vote in 2008.
I am saying lets see if Speaker Ryan will consider this appropriation to a faith based organization that has a proven track record of reducing gun violence, he has made speech after speech when touring inner city neighborhoods claiming to care. If he shuts this means down too, then we know the only path is electoral trench warfare hoping we break through.
But I think it’s worth a shot, it certainly has a higher probability of suceeding than pursuing the same bills that have failed before. A bipartisan bill the President can sign that saves lives while he’s still in office is better than nothing, which is literally what every other proposal will amount to this Congress.
Christopher says
If we do only what you suggest we are managing the symptoms without curing the disease.
SomervilleTom says
I like this frame.
I suggest that there is, in fact, an underlying constitutional rub that needs to be addressed.
We have a long-established (and often challenged) premise that the ability to drive a vehicle on public highways is a PRIVILEGE granted by authorities, rather than a right. This key premise provides a relatively low barrier (in comparison to guns) for regulations governing suspension or revocation of a drivers license or vehicle registration.
The current understanding of the Second Amendment is that it provides a RIGHT to own and operate a weapon. For better or worse, this in turn allows the NRA and its proponents to place much more restrictive obstacles on the reasonable registration and tracking procedures contemplated here.
Christopher says
…that if the Bill of Rights were written from scratch today, it would in fact be the right to travel and the means to do so that would take precedence over firearm ownership.
scott12mass says
I think the underlying premise in the constitution is the assumption that the RIGHT to travel freely is unquestioned. The fact is that the methods of travel evolved far beyond what the framers could have imagined, driving, flying etc. and has necessitated the creation of controls for the PRIVILEGE of a particular method.
The RIGHT to own weapons is unquestioned. The framers could never have imagined weapons would have evolved as far as they have though. If we need to develop some controls over particular methods or PRIVILEGES that seems reasonable. We can’t and shouldn’t have our own tanks. As long as we never lose the RIGHT to bear arms, most reasonable people will be on board with some controls.
dasox1 says
“The RIGHT to own weapons is unquestioned.” Supreme Court justices question it. And, many others.
jconway says
It is an eminently sensible proposal. So is the UKs. So is Australia’s, in theory. But all of these proposals are dead on arrival in the United States and will be for quite some time. For decades even. Doesn’t matter about the polling or the framing, our constitution itself will prevent the kind of federal gun control needed to stop these massacres. Full stop.
We can continue down this road where gun control is the Federal Marriage Amendment of the left, or we can work on policies that are get the appalling 33,000 number closer to 0 that don’t involve regulating guns but involve saving people, and getting them not to shoot in the first place. More on this on another extensive thread I made on this subject.
I am done with policies that will never pass, I want to reduce gun deaths today. Not another death.
dasox1 says
I include in that, the R’s running for president and the leadership on Capitol Hill (at a minimum). In the wake of the shooting, the RNC quickly distributed talking points. Talking Pt. 1, “pray for the victims.” Every one of these clowns (original thinkers that they are) started their statements both oral and written by saying “I pray for the victims” or “the first thing I did was pray for the victims.” Every single one of them. Reince Preibus (a/k/a “Caterpillar Boy”), wants every American to know that God and Prayer is first and foremost on the mind of every Republican speaking out on this. And they claim that the Ds turn these mass shootings into political opportunities.
Next, every single one of them is opposed to background checks for suspected terrorists. They will not agree to back legislation mandating that those on the terror watch list under-go background checks. Huh? So, why have a watch list? 80+% of gun owners favor this but not the bought and paid for stooges of the NRA.
Just to be perfectly clear: THE LEADERSHIP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO LIMIT TERRORISTS’ ABILITY TO PURCHASE FIREARMS.
It’s just so discouraging….
Christopher says
…our THOUGHTS should be about what we are going to do to solve this and our PRAYERS should be for forgiveness that we haven’t done anything.
jconway says
The weakest form of gun control, background checks, which would’ve failed to stop yesterdays attack, failed to stop the clinic attacker, failed to stop Dylan Root, and failed in the Senate when Democrats were in charge. It’s not going to pass for the next 5 years.
All of us are going to hope the DSCC succeeds in giving the next President a Senate majority. It will continue to support anti-gun safety Democrats in red states, while targeting pro-background check Republicans like Toomey and Kirk to get a majority. This will further polarize the issue making it less likely federal gun control passes, as it becomes another wedge issue like abortion.
It’s not a wedge issue to me, it’s really personal. The policies I am endorsing that we could pass and fund, tomorrow, especially in a fully blue state like ours would save real lives, most of them black, right here and now. Let’s focus on that, let’s have Bloomberg fund that, we are just throwing money and resources out the window on this fight which we cannot win for several decades thanks to our flawed Constitution. You tell me how we overcome places like Wyoming getting 2 Senators anytime soon? Or Vermont for that matter.
Christopher says
…and in some cases ban certain forms of weapons and ammo outright. As the states do the car regulation as proposed it does make sense for them to take the lead on similar gun regulation. I haven’t read your other diary yet, but it bothers me that you seem to have given up.
jconway says
Wasn’t Ted Kennedy on that at one point? It also seems like a form Muslim baiting, so we can say in swing states ‘X Republican voted to allow Muslim terrorists to have guns’. It may be good policy, it wouldn’t have stopped this attack or the vast majority of gun killings that occur on a daily basis. Seeing as how the marathon bombers were off and on this list, I am not sure if it would’ve stopped them from getting guns.
I would rather be a part of solutions that work, and save lives, now, rather than turning this into another wedge issue to beat Republicans over. Our system is designed to prevent meaningful federal gun control from passing. The only form of control that has worked at preventing mass shootings is the kind Britain passed. Is America ever going to come close to passing that any time soon? No. Not to mention it relies on intrusive policing tactics that I am anathema to endorsing without substantially reforming police departments first. They certainly haven’t earned their right to arms either lately.
Kill the filibuster, get a court to overturn Citizens United, win the 2020 redistricting round or all of this is just symbolism designed to win over soccer moms in Colorado rather than work. Rather than waste the next 5 years lecturing the country and Republicans like Obama is doing, I am going to continue to financially support and volunteer with organizations reducing gun violence in my community. I suggest all of us who care about this issue do the same.
Christopher says
The wrong person might get on the list, and yes, mistakes happen. Maybe there is a place for common ground where both sides prioritize vigilance in defense of the innocent while making sure those who should not have guns don’t. If the NRA is so concerned about law-abiding citizens then they should be first in line demanding that ONLY law-abiding citizens can access guns. That’s a facade of course; their board is stacked with representatives of manufactures who only want to sell more product.
dasox1 says
I wasn’t advocating or not advocating for any policy. I was simply lamenting the fact that Republicans will not support anything despite what’s happened.
jconway says
It’s a faith based initiative that doesn’t change existing gun laws and has reduced gun violence by 63% in communities where it has been implemented. It’s the rare policy window where we can help police be better community members, reduce gang warfare, and actually put words behind saying we value black lives.
We spend a paltry $8 million a year at the federal level on preventing veterans suicide, funds that have apparently not been allocated, and next to nothing on broader suicide prevention. Funding suicide prevention and community justice programs could reduce up to 75% of the 33,000 fatalities we experience yearly. They won’t stop mass shootings. Only English style gun control can do that. That kind of control won’t be passed in a land with Madisonian checks and balances, a far right supreme court broadly interpreting the second amendment, and lobbyist dollars awash in Washington.
The vast majority of the mass shootings in recent years have been conducted by previously law abiding citizens who passed background checks. The only way we can stop mass shootings is via England style gun control. Anything else is lipstick on the NRA’s pig, lipstick they will fight tooth and nail to avoid putting on. Let’s bypass fighting a pig in it’s pen and focus on putting the resources communities desperate for hope need right now.
drikeo says
Flimsy background checks that do not check nearly the quality of data they should. This study from George Washington University concludes that more than half of all mass shootings could be stopped with better background checks (mental illness and domestic violence histories are rampant among mass killers). That Robert Louis Dear could pass a background check is an indictment of how toothless our ad hoc system can be.
I’m all for doing what can be done at the local level in the face of federal inaction, but larger reforms like meaningful background checks, limited clip sizes and a personal license/gun registration system remain worthy goals that could take a huge bite out of gun violence in this nation.
Christopher says
There’s plenty of low-hanging fruit to go around regarding closing the gun show loophole and banning high capacity magazines. Let the other side cower behind the Constitution and if we must, propose an amendment to break this debate wide open.
nopolitician says
I agree, the Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere, and that a lot of people love their guns. That is why nothing changes.
However, people love their guns a lot more these days than they did 50 years ago. Something has changed. Maybe we need to go after that, similar to what was done with smoking.
I heard someone describing the gun industry in terms of drugs today; he said that instead of going after the “users”, we should go after the “dealers”. Of course, our drug policy hasn’t really worked, and conventional wisdom is that we have to actually make people less likely to want to use drugs rather than trying to prevent them from using them.
So why not go after the things that drive up demand for guns?
Movies are part of the problem. I have read that gun manufacturers have been big on product placement in movies. Maybe we need to address that.
What about advertising for guns? We certainly have stopped or hobbled other forms of advertising, could this be something to tackle?
What about more of a campaign to discredit guns? Focus on the senseless deaths they cause. Suicide by gun? Let people know about it. Push the negative hard, really hard.
I’m sure there are other things, but hopefully you see my point. Guns have been brought out of the closet. They used to be a dirty little secret, something that generally was only owned out of necessity. They have become a symbol of pride, something that people buy even when they don’t need them. They have become sexy. It’s time to unsexify them.
whoaitsjoe says
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-videogames-guns-idUSBRE9460U720130507#IdfPF6JDwfeMqrk0.97
Being slightly more than casual COD player, I can tell you that COD Ghosts, from 2013, was the last game to feature real-world firearms, such as the Remington R5, and MTAR. Now they are fictitiously-named, although relatively easy to identify (The Weevil, in the latest installment, is carbon copy of the FN P90) but at least they aren’t necessary plugging gun brands in kid’s minds, now.
jconway says
I’ve killed and maimed millions across a variety of virtual realities, even committed a genocide or two along the way, hasn’t affected me in real life at all. They have violent movies in England too, they don’t have our massacres or inner city violence. We can solve the latter right now at low cost with Republican support, we can solve the former in 10-15 years.
nopolitician says
I’m not saying that the constant marketing of guns via movies and video games makes people more prone to violence – I’m saying that it makes guns sexy, desirable, and ubiquitous, ensuring that they are more readily available when the next nut job decides to explode.
Make no mistake – this is brand-based marketing. How many people who grew up in the 1970s watching cop shows knows the model of the guns that the cops had? But not, “Glock”, “Sig-Sauer” and a whole host of other guns are baked into the consciousness of many people (especially younger). We should be asking how that happened, and reverse it.
SomervilleTom says
My wife and I saw “Spotlight” last weekend (a fabulous movie, by the way).
The two previews (I don’t even remember the movies they promoted) were obscenely violent. My wife and I each sat in our seats and squirmed while the on-screen carnage unfolded.
We agreed that we would FAR PREFER to see full-on hard-core pornography, full of thrusting and sucking and whatever, than the ENDLESS succession of car-crashes, explosions, shattering glass, fireballs, cannons, machine guns, and who knows what that unfolded on that screen. All preceded with that STUPID text about the preview being “approved”.
I don’t know whether it’s cause or effect, but I’m confident about saying that nation that chooses this material as “entertainment” is deeply disturbed.