by Glenn Beck
The other major difference is that the right to alcohol was not enshrined by our Framers in the Constitution. So while the tactics used to change public perception may be similar, the stakes are not. If prohibiting alcohol was a test of the government’s potential to be a nanny, prohibiting guns is a test of its potential to be a tyrant.
Those who are serious about finding real solutions to gun violence understand that effective change has to come from the bottom up. That means harnessing the collective grief we all feel after a tragedy and using it to promote real change—not in statutory codes, but in the hearts and minds of people, especially our children. We must be honest enough about our failings to be willing to take another look at our schools—how we educate our kids and how we protect them while we’re doing it; to rethink personal responsibility—as parents and as law-abiding gun owners; and to engage in reasonable debate with reasonable people who are willing to have honest conversations—not as gun-grabbing ideologues, but as parents and friends.
With those principles as our foundation, let’s take a look at how we can improve on both sides of the issue.
Guns
For all the reasons explained in Part One, I am not in favor of more gun control (sorry, “gun safety”) legislation. I do not believe that government can heal the broken hearts and minds of those who think that picking up a weapon is the answer. However, there are still plenty of commonsense things we can do.
First, while it’s virtually impossible to know exactly how many existing gun control laws are on the books, no one disputes that it’s a staggeringly high number. However, many of those laws are either not enforced to their fullest extent or are disregarded altogether. Call me crazy, but I’d rather hold off on rushing a bunch of new laws through in the wake of tragedy until we can reasonably assess whether the ones we already have actually work.
Here’s one example: When purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer, a buyer must fill out ATF form 4473 for a background check. Lying on this form is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. According to a report done for the Department of Justice, 72,600 people lied on this form in 2010 alone. Of those, “prosecutors pursued just 44.” Not 44 percent: 44 total cases. In other words, only .06 percent of all people who committed this felony by lying on an ATF form were prosecuted. Does something about that seem wrong to you?
Given how badly most gun control advocates want to expand the background check system, it might be nice if we first pushed to fix the system we have. After all, if we don’t prosecute those who lie on this form, then what is the point of the form? People with a clear issue in their past will just lie and hope for the best, while everyone else still has to go through the motions.
When the NRA brought these lack of prosecutions up to Joe Biden, they reported that he responded by saying, “[W]e simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
You don’t have the time? To enforce the law? To prosecute felons?
It’s incredible that a federal government that won’t use the power we’ve already given it is now asking for so much more. But even if we prosecuted everyone who lies on their forms, the background check system itself would still be broken. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) depends on certain federal agencies, like the Defense Department, along with each individual state, to continually supply the system with lists of those who have a criminal record, have failed drug tests, or have been judged mentally ill.
But those updates just aren’t happening. The Defense Department has yet to report much of anything and, according to Newark, New Jersey, mayor Cory Booker—who agrees that the system is flawed—“19 states have provided fewer than 100 records of individuals disqualified on mental health grounds” since the NICS began. And, surprise, surprise, Congress hasn’t been helping. From 2009 to 2011 they “appropriated just 5.3 percent of the total authorized amount,” leaving the NICS underfunded. Just to be clear: I’m not fan of this system, but don’t tell me how great it would be to expand background checks when we clearly can’t even manage what we already have. And while several of President Obama’s recent executive orders on gun control were focused on some of these problems, we’re a long way off from fixing them.
The next thing we can do is make it easier to put gun traffickers away. Since I’ve included so many of Mayor Bloomberg’s quotes that I disagree with in this book, here’s one that I am with him on:
[M]ake gun trafficking a federal crime. Every year, illegal trafficking channels put tens of thousands of guns in the hands of criminals. But there is no clear and effective statute that makes gun trafficking a federal crime. Prosecutors who want to combat traffickers have no choice but to rely on a weak law that prohibits “engaging in the business of selling guns without a federal license,” which carries the same punishment as trafficking chicken or livestock. (emphasis added)
If we all agree that keeping guns away from criminals is the goal, then this is just absurd. A Department of Justice study from 2001 revealed that almost 79 percent of criminals got their gun somewhere other than a retail store. And that makes sense—people who acquire things with the intent of using them for harm generally don’t walk into a Walmart to buy them.
Finally, I do believe that putting armed and trained officers in our schools will help save lives. In Simpsonville, South Carolina, a town of about eighteen thousand, an officer who previously worked in a community service office relocated his desk to the elementary school. “All I needed from the school is a desk and Wi-Fi,” the officer said. “[I]t didn’t cost a dime.”
So far, the teachers love it, the kids love the officer and give him high fives every day, and the parents feel safer. As he told NBC News, in explaining why he made the move, “I’d rather be here and not be needed, than be needed and not be here.”
This is a model that can and should be replicated across the country—and, in many cases, it won’t require any hard decisions about spending or budgets, just a strong majority of people who want to do something that will actually make a difference.
Entertainment Violence
By now you’ve seen that entertainment violence is not the red herring that those from the industry, along with the controllists who think that banning guns is the only answer to all of society’s ills, say it is. The evidence of its impact on our children is, for anyone willing to give it a fair hearing, indisputable.
What’s also indisputable is how hard it is to shield our kids from these images. As a father of four, I’ve experienced this firsthand. We try so hard as parents to be role models and to show our kids the right path, but eventually we have to let go. When that time comes—and it always will—all we can do is pray that they remember what we’ve tried to teach them. It’s not foolproof, but if we do our jobs, they’ll usually do theirs.
In the meantime, there is plenty we can do. First, know the ratings system. All video games sold in stores are assigned a rating by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). While there are plenty of problems with these ratings (for example, they are determined based on clips provided by the manufacturers, not after someone has actually played the game), it’s still important for parents to understand how they work.
The highest rating a game can earn is AO, for “Adults Only.” These games “[m]ay include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.”
Games that obtain an AO rating solely due to violence are extraordinarily rare. Sexual or pornographic behavior will do it; gambling will make the cut—but no amount of violence appears to be sufficient for the ESRB to slap a game as AO. The only notable exception to this rule was the gruesome game Manhunt 2, which was first given an AO rating, later revised to M after the manufacturer blurred some of the worst scenes. (Ironically, the Wii version of the game, in which you physically use the controller to beat, hack, bludgeon, strangle, and stab people to death,
also has an M rating.)
Part of the reason why games generally don’t receive an AO rating is that it’s essentially equivalent to a movie that gets a NC-17 rating: no one can make any money from it. All of the major gaming platforms prohibit AO-rated games from being licensed on their consoles, and major retailers won’t sell them. As a result, publishers will almost always modify and resubmit their games to get their rating improved, or they’ll cancel the title altogether.
For parents, the key takeaway is that if your child is playing an AO-rated game, they’re probably playing it on a PC—and it’s probably full of content that would appall you. But, the reality is that AO games are not that common, which is why the next ratings level down is really where the bulk of the violence occurs. That level, called M for “Mature,” implies that a game contains “content [that] is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.” In both M- and AO-rated games the violence is labeled as “intense,” the only difference being that AO ratings mean “prolonged sequences” of violence.
Since this point is so often misunderstood, I’m going to repeat it again: M-rated games are the top rating a commercially available game can have. Do not be fooled into thinking that because a game is rated M instead AO that it’s fine—it may very well not be. Only you can judge what’s appropriate for your child. You wouldn’t let some group of unknown people decide what your kids eat every day—why let them decide what’s okay for them to watch?
Moving to the next category, T for Teen has “content [that] is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequent use of strong language.” Many people hear this rating and immediately equate it to PG-13, “parental guidance suggested,” but Colonel Grossman says that’s a mistake: T-rated games, he believes, are never for kids under thirteen, even with parental guidance.
Lastly, there is E, for “Everyone.” These games can contain “minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.” But be careful as there is also an E for an “Everyone 10+” rating—so make sure to check which one you are actually getting.
Understanding these ratings is important—but it would not be a terrible idea to play the games yourself so that you can really see what your kids will be spending their time with. Make it something fun with your kids—they can play a game (maybe rent a title they are interested in for a night before you commit to purchasing it) only if you can play it, too. You can even bet a household chore on who wins—just make sure you don’t mind taking out the trash and emptying the dishwasher, because you’re not going to come out on top very often.
But while educating parents about these games is a start, we can do more. Our children often spend far too much time immersed in electronic media. Personal interactions suffer as a result. A phone call is replaced by a text; a night out is replaced by Facebook or by remotely playing the same online game together. And this will only continue to get worse. As our technology advances and virtual reality becomes more and more realistic, our children may no longer feel a need to spend time with actual people. This is coming faster than you think. Technologists have shown me what’s to come and it is as awe-inspiring as it is frightening. If we have not done the hard work of reconnecting with our families and of properly conditioning our kids before this arrives, it will already be too late.
With that in mind, why not try to “detox” for a week? Turn off the television, the video games, and the iPads and spend real time together as a family. Yes, there will be complaining, and no, it won’t be easy—but things that have life-changing potential rarely are. I can promise you this from someone who has tried it: you will truly be amazed at the difference unplugging can make. When my family and I visit our ranch home, which has no electricity or cellular service, the world becomes our playground. My eight-year-old spent most of his time chasing after the cows to keep them away from the horses’ hay and my six-year-old learned how to shoot her BB gun and put puzzles together. They now look forward to our days at the ranch more than any other vacation.
And why stop at home? What if we could pass this detox on to everyone in your children’s school? In 2004, the Stanford University Medical School and the Stanford Prevention Research Center developed the “Student Media Awareness to Reduce Television” (SMART) curriculum for third- and fourth-grade students. This program was systematically designed to educate students and ultimately convince kids to turn off the TV, movies, and video games. The curriculum culminates in a ten-day TV turnoff “challenge.” After this “detox” the impact is so positive, and children feel so good (both about themselves and in the sense of physical well-being), that most are then willing to put themselves on a longer-term TV “budget” or “diet.”
Immediately after the release of the Stanford SMART curriculum, Kristine Paulsen at Delta-Schoolcraft (Michigan) Intermediate School District began developing the “Take the Challenge—Take Charge” program (www.TakeTheChallengeNow.net). This program expanded the SMART concept into a preschool through twelfth grade curriculum so that almost all families can use it. The website has lesson plans, ideas for family activities, and links to more great research on the topic.
* * *
I truly believe that getting serious about our current laws, taking personal responsibility for our families, and thinking out of the box about ways we can further protect our kids will do more to change our course than a thousand new rules and regulations. We know from experience that our government very often creates many of the problems we face, and they almost always make these problems worse while they are “trying to solve” them. That’s why I know that the way forward cannot be found in the halls of Congress, it can only be found in the rooms of our homes and the streets of our neighborhoods.
I’d like to think that President Obama agrees. He recently explained why so many of the school massacres we’ve come to know by heart could not have been prevented by any law.
“When a child opens fire on another child,” he said, “there’s a hole in that child’s heart that government can’t fill. Only community and parents and teachers and clergy can fill that hole.”
Mr. President—this is one thing that you are absolutely right about. So let’s come together and fill those hearts with hope, brains with knowledge, and souls with faith. Once we do, a gun will stop symbolizing violence and fear and go back to symbolizing what it always has: security and freedom.
GLENN BECK, the nationally syndicated radio host and founder of TheBlaze television network, is a ten-time #1 bestselling author and is one of the few authors in history to have had #1 national bestsellers in the fiction, nonfiction, self-help, and children’s picture book genres. His recent fiction works include the thrillers Agenda 21 and The Overton Window; his many nonfiction titles include Control, Being George Washington, Cowards, The Original Argument, Arguing with Idiots, and Glenn Beck’s Common Sense. For more information about Glenn Beck, his books, and TheBlaze TV network, visit www.glennbeck.com and www.theblaze.com.
MEET THE AUTHORS, WATCH VIDEOS AND MORE AT
SimonandSchuster.com
Facebook.com/ThresholdEditions
@Threshold_Books
ALSO BY GLENN BECK
Agenda 21
Cowards
Being George Washington
The Snow Angel
The Original Argument
The 7
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure
The Overton Window
Idiots Unplugged: Truth for Those Who Care to Listen (audiobook)
The Christmas Sweater: A Picture Book
Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government
Glenn Beck’s Common Sense:
The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government,
Inspired by Thomas Paine
America’s March to Socialism:
Why We’re
One Step Closer to Giant Missile Parades (audiobook)
The Christmas Sweater
An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems
The Real America: Early Writings from the Heart and Heartland
We hope you enjoyed reading this Threshold Editions eBook.
* * *
Join our mailing list and get updates on new releases, deals, bonus content and other great books from Threshold Editions and Simon & Schuster.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP
or visit us online to sign up at
eBookNews.SimonandSchuster.com
NOTES
AUTHOR’S NOTE
“ ‘We can do better. We must do something.’ ” Richard Blumenthal, “Mourning a Lost Son; Guns in America; Arming the Teachers,” Piers Morgan Tonight, CNN, December 20, 2012, http://bit.ly/11hfP4L. • “ ‘We must act, we must act, we must act.’ ” Eliza Collins, “Thousands Rally in Washington for Gun Control,” USA Today, January 26, 2013, http://usat.ly/11hfQ8O. • “fewer people had been struck by trains that year,” Ted Mann, “Track Deaths Rare,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2013, http://on.wsj.com/11hfVJN. • “ ‘shouldn’t we also quit marketing murder as a game?’ ” David Axelrod, “In NFL post-game: an ad for shoot ’em up video game. All for curbing weapons of war. But shouldn’t we also quit marketing murder as a game?” December 17, 2012, 12:57AM, Twitter post, https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/280552289360560128.
