Mamet's Middling Madness

David Mamet is best known for a series of plays and movies over the years that comb the dark underbelly of American culture. While they are rightfully called out for their misogyny and troubling ethics at times, they fit nicely into the contemporary theatrical canon. Over the past several years, his work has suffered under age or maybe the move to Los Angeles, the place where bad writers thrive and good writers come to die. Beyond his work, Mamet has also taken a troubling turn to the right that includes fervent support for Sarah Palin, the Iraq War and the War on Terror in general. The once pronounced liberal, though I always had my doubts, has become another crazed spokesperson for the right -- like the 50s Jewish Trotskyists turned Neocons and, more recently, the late Christopher Hitchens. 

Now Mamet has turned his attention to the gun debate and written a screed against the gun rights crowd. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion, but as if often the case with right wing wingnuts, his theories and argument just don't seem to mesh with the facts. Salon has done a good job of critiquing the piece in minute detail here (Article), but I thought I would include the highlights: 

1) “On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms" --> this is an oft quoted prevarication by the NRA and their acolytes based on a 90s study, but when a Harvard professor dug into the numbers he found flaw after flaw.

2) He then uses an insane bit of logic to undermine the very real statistic that having a firearm in your house increases the likelihood of homicide by 3 and suicide by 5: “The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves?” This is the sort of tautological argument that is so absurd it makes sense to the average Family Guy watcher without a second thought. 

3) A third point he makes is based on completely inaccurate information: "“Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot. Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime.” Again, this is not supported by the statistics and shows someone too lazy to hit the books and make sure they are right. 
 
There are a few other ridiculous facts and arguments in the article and one wonders why Time would even publish this tripe. But then again, this is the nature of public discourse in America today and every celebrity has the right to both an opinion and for others to listen to it. I wonder what Kim Kardashian has to say on the matter -- I'm sure it's just as riveting as Mamet.
11