Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You (26 page)

Mark Steyn made a brilliant point regarding home invasions in England, which are dramatically higher than in the United States. Just over 10 percent of US burglaries are home invasions, but in England and Wales, it’s over 50 percent. Why is that?

Well, if there is a possibility that one of those homes you’re about to invade is armed, you won’t invade. As we know, felons are as risk-averse as the rest of us. Steyn points out that for thieves in England, it’s probably just safer to knock on the door and demand entrance than to climb through a window and set off an alarm, or cut themselves on broken glass. The great British sitcom
Peep
Show
illustrated this perfectly: A group of young thugs show up at the house of the main characters, knocking on the door, demanding their appliances. They harbor no illusions that their marks are armed.

Contrast that sensibility with the Gerow story. Gerow not only shows how guns work to save lives, but he also decimates the stereotype the cool love to propagate: that gun owners are crazy, violent yokels who collect guns the way pop stars collect STDs and DUIs.

Gerow revealed the opposite. He handled the situation in a sensible and, dare I say, merciful manner (not just for Texas). He allowed the gun to defuse the situation, keeping the thug from becoming a danger to his family and to others. One thing that gun control freaks fail to consider is that law-abiding gun owners actually abide by the law, and that includes taking basic firearms courses that teach you how it’s done. I bet any actor who played an action hero would have blown off their own feet. And blamed the cops. Can you picture Matt Damon handling a real gun? Neither can he.

For me, the most recent gun bill debated in Congress came down to a simple question: Would it have prevented Sandy Hook? I don’t think so. But even that’s not the point, now that I think about it. The fact is we missed an opportunity for a real compromise because of hardcore ideologues like President Obama. For them, a “national conversation” is about two sides conversing: the left and the far left. An atmosphere was created where compromise became impossible. Reconciliation disappeared, and capital was squandered through mockery and spitting outrage. Say what you want about Obama—and for now, we still can—the man doesn’t deal well with defeat. Bobby Knight was a better loser. And he had a better record.

Think about what you could have come up with. Perhaps a law that would enforce existing gun laws, cracking down on illegal possession of handguns by repeat offenders. Those are the thugs who murdered Hadiya Pendleton, the fifteen-year-old high school girl in Chicago who had just attended Obama’s second inauguration. A gangbanger with priors shot her, with an illegal handgun. If he had been behind bars, Hadiya would be alive. Where were the gun control zealots on that one? Nursing their inauguration party hangovers.

And maybe we could have been able to create some kind of law that contained a mechanism that flags a mentally ill person when they go to purchase a gun. Who could be against that? But that’s gone, friends. Gone. Yeah, we never had that “national conversation.” Instead we got a pissy president, along with his adoring supporters, chiding a law-abiding population. And when the bill died, who did they blame? Americans. Why? Because the average citizen didn’t trust the president’s intentions. They thought he wanted to steal their guns. Can you blame them? After that unbelievably phony photo of him skeet shooting. And more important, after what he promised with Obamacare? If anything, Obamacare taught you that any promise from Obama is about as sturdy as a folding chair under Michael Moore. Damn, the Congress exempted itself from Obamacare. Never trust a chef whose employees won’t eat at his restaurant.

Hence the collective shrug by the American people over the gun bill, which befuddled the cool, the media, and assorted elitist gun-haters on both coasts. And it ain’t easy to get 314 million people to shrug all at once. It hasn’t happened since the final
Sopranos
episode. Fact is, the gun control zealots just don’t know any of these people who “cling” to their guns, despite there being something like 300 million firearms in this country legally. They
never really took the time to see what might work. Instead, they chose symbolism over substance. They wrote the law fast, to take advantage of catastrophe, rather than writing a law to save lives. And they ridiculed people who were listening. What kills me is that it would have been really awesome to have found a way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people: the weirdos who pulled off Sandy Hook, the Aurora killings, the Gabby Giffords shooting, the Navy Yard massacre. These horrible events are rare, and, as Nick Gillespie points out in
Reason
, not increasing over time either. But they do share a common piece: The perpetrators are nuts. I get it that it’s hard to find a crazy needle in a haystack of millions, but that’s way more realistic than banning all guns.
That
ain’t gonna happen, people. It’s like the United States winning the World Cup. Every now and then the topic gets raised by the true believers, only to have the pipe dream crash on the hard rocks of reality. And Brazilians who can kick a ball six hundred yards with their big toe.

Instead, by clinging to the idea of banning assault rifles, we missed a real opportunity to deal with issues in mental health. We should be safely locking up our guns, but we should also be locking up our crazy people. In New York, it’s not guns pushing people in front of subways. It’s psychopaths. But here, they don’t get incarcerated, they run for city council.

And what about sentencing laws? Fact is, you can use a gun illegally, and use it again. And again after that. Why is there so much gang crime? Because the prisons are just temporary hostels for the hostile. Gang members don’t mind getting arrested when they know prison is just a few months to get back in shape and learn a few new tricks. Prison is now a place to make criminals better at beating the crap out of you. If someone wrote a tome
called
The Prison Workout
, they’d make millions. (That will be my next book!)

But instead, we focused on rifles, because that’s the cool target. Not handguns, which, in the hands of criminals, play a role in most gun-related crime. Gun-related deaths involving rifles? Tiny. But let’s face it, it’s easier to go after the NRA than the Crips.

By the way, if I had my druthers (I actually had mine once, but they escaped), I’d invent one new gun law, and then offer a proposal to the media.

The law: Ban the phrase “gun-free zones.” It is shorthand for “killing in large numbers is welcome.” Whoever thought of this horrible idea really hates kids. There’s nothing I like better than walking into a store that has the sign saying
THE OWNER IS ARMED
. I don’t care if it’s uncool, I feel safe when I’m there, and you should too, unless you plan to rob them or sing some Cat Stevens. Because a thug is more likely to skip that place for somewhere else that has no risk to entry. Or a weapon that might separate him from his head. Think about this: Fort Hood was a gun-free zone. Yep, in a military barracks, the guys and gals did not have their weapons with them. You think that didn’t cross the mind of Major Nidal Hasan?

Incredibly, the federal government outlawed our military from carrying guns on stateside military bases. Yep, we demilitarized the military. As a result, it took civilian police officers to finally shoot Hasan and stop the killing—because none of his military targets could defend themselves. I’m only surprised our government hasn’t banned our combat troops overseas from carrying guns. It’s such a hostile gesture when you get right down to it.

Also, as part of my proposal, I politely ask the media to stop obsessing over massacres. It’s time to report it, then leave it. The
blanket coverage only encourages more crime. It’s been reported that the Sandy Hook fiend was invigorated by the Norway shooter. He kept clippings of previous massacres. I can’t help but think that this is how life’s losers work, suicide by media. Explosive, memorable crime amplified by the media is the surest way to reach immortality and fame. (It certainly isn’t talk show hosting, I’ll tell you that.) And it’s an act encouraged by the media’s hopeless desire for psychoanalysis and search for root causes. And Hollywood doesn’t help by making movies seeking to understand the killers (rather than their victims). Mark my words, there will be a movie about the Boston bombing, and the younger brother will be portrayed as sympathetically as Old Yeller.

Forget all the root causes: the video games, violent movies, and bullying. For creeps, massacres are a method of achieving immortality. They knew that after their colorful demise, some independent filmmaker might make a movie about them. Which is why I now bring up Gus Van Sant—the coolest of the cool in film—who made the 2003 film
Elephant
, which chronicles a fictional event based on the Columbine school massacre.

The film makes the killers the stars and creates plot points that might be considered “controversial.” He makes one of the two killers, Alex, a frustrated artist suffering from being misunderstood and maligned. The implication: It’s really our fault. If only we’d understand the sensitive lads among us better, there wouldn’t be dead bodies all over the place.

Van Sant’s perspective masquerades as controversial, when it’s really just horribly mundane. But in the arts community it’s cool, even winning the Cannes Film Festival’s Palme d’Or in 2003. (Which is French for “gold-plated horseshit.”)

Did this movie do anything to help understand why these massacres occur? I doubt it. If anything, by making a movie
seeking to understand the mind-set of a fiend, it only energizes those contemplating similar actions in real life. You know, real life. That place where the Gus Van Sants of the world don’t seem to live.

This did not happen on-screen. On March 21, 2005, Jeff Weise, sixteen, killed his grandfather and the grandfather’s companion, then went to a high school and killed five students, a teacher, and a guard, before he turned the gun on himself. According to CBS News, “It was the worst US school shooting since the attacks by a pair of students at Columbine High in Colorado in 1999.”

And according to WCCO-TV, friends had met with Weise at a pal’s house seventeen days prior to the massacre, to watch “the award-winning” movie
Elephant
. I guess that’s called preparation. I mean, if it were
Sixteen Candles
or
Red Dawn
, I’d let it slide.

Weise was simply looking at the fruits of his future endeavors. Watching Van Sant’s flick, he might have thought that one day a movie would be made about him, and that movie would seek to understand
him
. And that’s what this is really about: massacre as performance art by monsters, reinterpreted by artists as tragic circumstances born from a brutal, bullying society. Screw the French—
that
should win an Oscar! Finally, I am cool—even if I’m dead.

One question worth asking: Why didn’t Van Sant simply follow the script in front of him? Meaning, why didn’t he just do the facts? Was a story about two fiends meticulously planning a horrible crime just too simplistic? Was there not enough gray area to make it an intellectual exercise? Was the concept of evil inflicting horror on the innocent not edgy enough to win an award? How would Gus have handled a story on the Mansons? Just a misunderstood family trying to make it work in the desert? Someone tell Ashton Kutcher to start growing the beard.

Train has pulled out of the station.

The station being the 2013 National Scout Jamboree, which is the yearly Boy Scout meet that draws over fifty thousand participants and their adorable decorative badges. (I have a dozen—badges, not Boy Scouts.) This year the band Train (of which I am a fan) decided that, based on the Scouts’ position on gays, it would be best to cancel their appearance at the event. Originally booked for the concert in West Virginia, Train, along with something called Carly Rae Jepsen (if I knew who she was, I would be a thirteen-year-old girl, which has been my dream since I was twelve), decided to withdraw to avoid being viewed as agreeable to the Scouts’ intolerant views. They couldn’t afford to be on the wrong side of this issue. And I don’t blame them. Remaining on the bill could revoke their cool card forever. They’d be stuck playing local fairs, like my uncle Steve. He’s written an entire opera for the spoons. It’s six hours long.

So, cool. That’s their choice. And I like Train, and consider
Pat Monahan a pal. He’s been a friend to my show, and put up with my nonsense on more than one occasion. He even wrote a pretty good song about
Red Eye
. (“It’s what you watch when there’s nothing else on.” I’ll take it.)

The only problem with his decision is that his band still played at the Dubai International Jazz Festival in Dubai Media City, in the United Arab Emirates, the next week. The cheapest price I could find was £105, but “platinum standing” will cost you £255, which by my calculations is about seven million dollars. I’d love to go, but I have a problem with Dubai (for one, too many vowels). I believe alcohol is banned there (although I hear that that ban is no longer observed). To me, that’s hell. I’d rather spend a weekend in a metal box listening to Carly Rae Jepsen.

The point is Dubai is way more intolerant than the Boy Scouts. Their policy on homosexuality is a bit more strict than what’s prohibited around Eagle Scouts. The UAE says that sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are against the law, a crime punishable by deportation, jail, listening to Carly Rae Jepsen, and even death. Unlike the Boy Scouts, if you’re gay and caught in the UAE, you may be forced to undergo hormone treatments, which could include chemical castration, which, in my view, seems a tad extreme (and I like chemicals). The laws don’t stop there. You can also be charged with adultery if you’re married and are caught having same-sex relations. All in all, it’s not really the Middle East, it’s the Middle Ages. It’s been reported that while such behavior is outlawed, it’s pretty much ignored (perhaps for financial reasons), but still, there it is. In black and white. If you’re gay, they hate you. How is this different from South Africa during the apartheid era?