Guns: The Need for Compromise

“Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.” Albert Einstein

As a father of two small children, I’ve been grappling with the Connecticut tragedy in my own quiet way since last Friday. I’ve had to drop off my seven-year-old to a school that looks just like Sandy Hook Elementary and drive away, watching him in the rearview mirror shuffle in through the double doors with his oversized backpack, oblivious to what had happened just a few days before in a place not unlike my own Canadian town of St. John’s, Newfoundland.

Part of what frustrates us about this senseless massacre is the fact that nothing can be done to reverse it. There is no vengeance; the killer (as he invariably does in this situation) turned the gun on himself after reigning down his shocking violence upon beautiful, innocent children and honest, caring adults. But even if he had been arrested alive, what would it have done? All we could have done was watch him go from police car to police station, from armored vehicle to courthouse, shuffling along listlessly in shackles and an orange jump suit. There is no satisfaction or revenge in this. It merely becomes an exercise in voyeuristic inner violence for an exasperated population.

Part of the healing process involves understanding what went wrong and endeavouring to make necessary changes that will reduce the chances of such unspeakable horror ever happening again. So far the two main topics we’ve been hearing about since Friday have been guns and mental illness, both large problems in the United States due to complex societal problems too involved to dissect here.

Unfortunately, these two issues are interlocked in a serious way. Some are trying to separate the gun from the attacker, saying that the killer’s state of mind, not the guns he used, was responsible for the massacre. Others argue that if he had not been able to access these weapons, his untreated mental illness would not have been able to manifest itself in such a devastating way.

Of course at the root of both of these problems is the argument that most mentally ill people are not violent, and nor are most gun owners. So herein lies our dilemma: While facing up to the fact that this was indeed a relatively isolated and rare event, we know that guns and mental illness collided here in a way that has irreversibly transformed both the families of the victims and the world as a whole. In the midst of the heated debates, nobody is contesting this fact. So based on this one bit of common ground, the question is whether or not an obviously divisive society can come together in a spirit of compromise and understanding in the wake of this tragedy.

No one seems to be questioning the seriousness of mental illness in American society. The healthcare system is not doing what it needs to do to address the mentally ill. We know that. Everyone agrees we must do better. What people are fighting very intensely about, however, is the firearm. Reading the long scrolls of comments underneath the myriad of internet articles about the Newtown shooting, one cannot help but notice the large crevice between those wanting stricter gun laws and those wanting more guns in society. The former sees guns as the main problem and wants to see the availability and number kept in check, with stricter regulations on who is able to access firearms. The latter wants to see a less regulated firearm industry with more accessibility, which will help people to defend themselves against a perceived future attacker such as the deranged young man in Connecticut.

Even an opponent of guns in society can sort of relate to a person’s knee-jerk desire to obtain a personal weapon in the wake of such an event, especially if you’re a parent. If given the chance, would you have hesitated to shoot and kill a gunman mowing a classroom full of kids with a high-powered firearm? Many I’m certain would have gladly pulled the trigger. But often the chances of being in such an advantageous position are slim to very unlikely. I believe this is at the heart of gun supporters’ vehement arguments: the more people who are armed, the better chance that the right person will be around when the wrong person is about to unleash a round of bullets on an unsuspecting group of people. But the gun opponents will then argue that it’s too dangerous to have guns everywhere, especially in schools where kids can obtain them and accidentally shoot themselves.

When scrolling down through the endless debates online, one can see the spewing of hatred and intolerance. The anger and frustration often escalate in these threads, culminating in insults and threats. And this is coming from both ends. Evidently the gun opponents – generally perceived as more pacifist in nature – can spew the venom as readily as the gun proponents. However, in the midst of these virtual shouting matches you can see some balanced arguments coming from both sides. Supporters of gun law restrictions and supporters of the right to bear arms both have intellectual and rational spokesmen laying down plausible and sensible arguments. This is refreshing to see because it holds the promise of compromise in the midst of this hurtful aftermath. The question within this compromise, however, is how much each side is willing to give up. In the true spirit of compromise, both sides must be willing to bring their viewpoints and beliefs closer to the center in order for a solution to be possible.

So let’s take a look at supporters of stricter gun laws first and what they seem to be voicing on their end. In the most extreme cases they seem to believe that guns should not exist at all, and that no one – not even authorities – should have access to firearms. The extremity of this argument is admittedly ridiculous, and is thankfully tempered by the more realistic claims that while guns are an unavoidable and permanent reality in American society, there should be a ban on over-the-top items such as assault rifles, extended ammo clips, and specially designed bullets that increase the severity of wounds. There is also the argument that stricter rules should apply for those registering for a weapon. Right now some argue it is too easy for any random person on the street in America to legally purchase a gun. And applying this argument to the Newtown tragedy, one can claim that the killer’s mother should not have been able to purchase such deadly weapons so easily, which enabled her son to readily implement them.

On the side of the gun proponents we also have extremists. Some bring religion into it and say it is their God-given right to bear arms in any way they see fit, and in any capacity – whether it be an assault rifle or a handgun with hollow-point bullets. This staunchly conservative claim, interpreting an Eighteenth Century document word for word, feels the 2nd Amendment has given them carte blanche on any type of firearm they wish to possess. This train of thought has thankfully been tempered by more critical thinkers into an argument that focuses more on freedom of the individual than a fascination with powerful weapons. Most gun owners are responsible people who value firearm safety above all; they see the possession of these weapons as a way to protect themselves from what they view as an increasingly dangerous society.

In order to get closer to the much-needed compromise, we must first dismiss the more ludicrous claims of both the left and the right. Take them right off the negotiating table. It is not possible to disarm society nor is it realistic or sane to have clips that hold dozens of rounds or assault rifles capable of reigning down a hail of bullets in seconds.

So we are left with two opposing sides that have plausible and feasible claims. The opponents want to eliminate certain types of weapons and make it harder for an individual to obtain a weapon. The proponents do not want a whole lot to change with regard to laws that allow them the freedom to protect themselves, and feel that it is not the fault of guns that people kill one another. Once we take the extreme viewpoints out, there has to be the possibility of successful negotiation within this comparatively narrower spectrum.

Where we truly come together as a unified society is in our collective grieving for a group of people who should never have had to face what they did that day and suffer such a tragic and untimely fate. The majority of us are just normal people trying to live peaceful lives with our families and friends in a way that makes us feel safe. Hopefully we are able to do that in a spirit of understanding and compromise so we can all function together effectively. We can never go back and fix what happened, but together we must be able to face the future in a constructive way that reflects the lessons learned from the tragedy in Newtown. We owe it to those who paid an awful price on that day, and we owe to the millions of children who place their trust in us every day. As the President said in his address to the people of Newtown and the world Sunday night, we are ALL responsible.

Big Hat: Filling Big Shoes

I’m always telling my friends about how freaky it is to be a pedal steel player – not because I’ve managed to figure out a way to play this confounded electric cheese slicer, but because I’ve ended up meeting and forging friendships with a wide range of musicians I would never have otherwise met. One of those musicians is Joshua Grange from Los Angeles, California, whose talents encompass the pedal steel among other various stringed instruments and keyboards. A few years ago he came to my hometown with Dwight Yoakam. A mutual friend, veteran LA musician Skip Edwards, introduced us on email. I went to the soundcheck to have a chat, and we ended up becoming friends and staying in touch.

Josh has since gone on to play with an impressive roster of renowned acts, the most recent being some gigs on steel and keys with Sheryl Crow’s band. Josh’s Twitter photos from these shows are really cool and insightful: hanging out backstage, doing soundcheck, setting up gear, hanging at a restaurant with the band, etc. In many of these pics you can see guitarists Peter Stroud and Audley Freed. Both of these guys have impressive resumes of their own, Stroud having played with Don Henley and Freed with the Black Crowes. Freed is fairly new on my radar and to Crow’s band as well, but I’ve long admired Stroud as Crow’s right-hand man on stage. Both are incredible pickers, with just the right mix of country and classic rock in their playing. So when I noticed Stroud’s Twitter posting of a new EP from a band involving him and Freed, I immediately clicked the iTunes link and downloaded the four tunes. And I’m glad I did.

The band is called Big Hat, and along with Stroud and Freed features country singer/songwriter Keith Gattis on lead vocals (whose songs have been covered by a wide range of artists from George Jones to Kid Rock), bassist Robert Kearns (from Cry of Love and Lynyrd Skynyrd), drummer Fred Eltringham (whose credits include Wallflowers, Dixie Chicks, and K.D. Lang), and Hammond organ legend Ike Stubblefield (whose live credits include Eric Clapton and Rod Stewart, among many others). It was recorded in Atlanta and consists of three songs penned by Gattis, Stroud, and Freed, and one written by Eddie Vedder and Stone Gossard from Pearl Jam.

The cover art is decidedly funky, with the band’s name super-imposed in a bold ‘70s-style font over a psychedelic top hat with the members’ names printed in the hatband. The band is no doubt aware of the top hat’s legacy in rock history, with its most notable bearers being Leon Russell and Tom Petty. Russell wore a top hat during Joe Cocker’s famous Mad Dogs and Englishmen tour, and Petty incorporated one in the video for “Don’t Come Around Here No More” and in his live shows in the ’80s when he would open a treasure chest in a theatrical display and unveil the hat for the audience. Therefore, both the name and visual use of the “big hat” is appropriate to the nature and approach of the band. I’m surprised it hasn’t already been used.

The EP kicks off with “Delilah,” a song that successfully manages to create a hybrid of Street Survivors-era Lynyrd Skynyrd and The Band’s Brown Album. Gattis’ vocal is a mixture of George Jones and Levon Helm, which suits the subject matter of the lyric. The guy in the song gets involved with a hard-drinking bar chick. He wakes up hungover in a double-wide trailer “half-stoned,” when Delilah walks in “out of nowhere, wearing nothing but her shades and slip.” Delilah herself is like an updated, new millennium Anny from “The Weight.” But instead of abandoning Anny to crony around with Luke, Moses, and Chester, the guy in the song takes Delilah with her when he leaves town.

Having said all this, I don’t think this song was written to be lyrically dissected. It’s supposed to be a bit of a tongue-in-cheek redneck anthem and guitar showcase. The intro guitar riff is so fuzzy it’s almost into ‘80s metal territory without the big reverb. It’s confidently executed but is also a smokescreen because its heavy rock approach is quickly followed by a cleaner electric with an old Fender Brownface-era tremolo when the country-style verse kicks in. The drums, also heavy in the intro, lay back slightly and add the occasional double beat to match the old-timey feel of the tune. The Hammond and bass round out the punchy sound of the track with tasteful punctuation. The intro riff is repeated throughout the song, with a harmony guitar solo in the middle that is more Thin Lizzy than Allman Brothers. All of these contrasting elements are precisely what make this tune enjoyable.

Up next is “Feather in the Breeze,” a groove-laden piece full of overdriven Stratocaster goodness. I noticed in recent pics of Stroud and Freed that they’re both Strat-crazy these days, which is a relief from all the hipster Tele/Les Paul overload we’ve seen in recent years. Although ubiquitous in Blues, the Strat doesn’t see enough use in Rock these days. Stroud and Freed are changing that, thankfully. Lyrically the song celebrates the freedom of not having a “spotlight shining down on me,” which is fitting seeing that the members of Big Hat are often on big stages but in the shadows of the stars they back up. This song is a celebration of the autonomy this relative anonymity gives them. The guitar interlude in this song is unabashedly ‘80s in its majestic echo-drenched sound. Kearns’ prominent bass lines are channeling Entwistle with some Stax/Volt Duck Dunn touches as well.

The third song, “Light,” is southern Balladry at its best, with some “Kashmir” vibes thrown in for good measure. Stubblefield’s Hammond is magic on this track, sitting in just the right spot in mix while saying hello at just the right moments. You can hear his fingers slapping the keys during the solo, which adds a nice percussive effect.

The EP ends with a version of Pearl Jam’s “Supersonic,” originally recorded on that band’s 2009 album Backspacer. It’s a fast, heavy number given the southern rock treatment, complete with raunchy bottleneck guitar and wah pedal goodness. The band sounds like Tom Petty’s Heartbreakers in high gear, with a touch of Brit Rock in the vocals. The instrumental is a trade-off of analog-delay guitar riffs and overdriven Hammond, with the arrangement of this passage taking on a grunge-like sound reminiscent of the more creative elements of the grunge genre, a la Soundgarden.

The key to the distinctive sound on this EP as a whole is the cross-breeding of the players’ influences. Growing up in the ‘70s and ‘80s, Stroud and Freed are tapping into a wide array of sounds. In their tones and riffs you’re liable to hear Eddie Van Halen as much as you are Jimmy Page. This makes for an interesting palette of tones capable of producing a multitude of sonic colours and hues. Gattis’ vocal style benefits from the same musical background as Stroud and Freed. He can go from George Jones to Paul Rodgers at the drop of a dime. The same dynamic is no doubt at play with the rest of the musicians on this EP. What you have here is a comprehensive stew of ingredients that come together to make a unique taste. They wear the “big hat” of musical influences very well. I hope that the inevitable positive response to this initial offering will encourage this side project to become more of a consistent entity and release a full-length recording.