The grotesque slaughter of innocents in Tucson, Arizona over the week-end has led many progressives to focus on the violent rhetoric that pundits on the Right often employ when attacking liberals. No question, this hate-speech has created a toxic atmosphere. Perhaps Jared Lee Loughner was influenced by that language. This might help explain why he shot into a crowd where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was addressing supporters, killing six people, including a child.
But if you look at what Loughner has written and said in the past, it seems that, as Alternnet Washington Bureau Chief Adele Stan suggested yesterday, while he was brimming over with “violent impulses” his words lacked any “coherent ideology.”
That said, I agree with Stan that many of the metaphors that have laced far right commentary in recent years have been ugly. And when the media blindly broadcasts words into the night, that rhetoric has the power to support bloody urges. “It’s too soon to say what, exactly, motivated the man apprehended for the shooting . . .” Stan writes, “but the Tea Party culture of political intimidation affirmed his violent impulses.”
What Can We Do? We Can’t Censor Right-Wing Speech
I doubt that we can outlaw the brutal political rhetoric that has become commonplace on television, radio, and in political advertising. Even if Congress would pass such legislation, First Amendment considerations would trigger an endless stream of court rulings rejecting such censorship of “free speech.”
Our best hope is that eventually, those who speak the language of elimination will self-destruct. For hate is a poison: even as they contaminate our airwaves, they poison themselves. Just take a look at Rush Limbaugh's face.
In the meantime, neither conservatives—nor those members of the public who relish Rush Limbaugh’s rants—will be persuaded by arguments that right-wingers helped create an environment that fostered the murders in Arizona. Instead, conservative bloggers already are accusing liberals of trying to “score” political points “in the wake of a tragedy.”
This is why I would suggest that, rather than spending all of our time and energy talking about the vitriolic right-wing language that may have encouraged Loughner, progressives might better urge the nation to focus on how to avoid such tragedies in the future.
Such senseless blood-letting spotlights two issues that both progressives and health care reformers care about: the need for gun control and the urgent need for far more effective mental health care for all Americans, including those who live on the “fringes” of our society.
Gun Control
Here is what we know about the weapon that Loughner used. It was purchased legally. News reports say that it was a Glock semiautomatic pistol equipped with an extended magazine. Such magazines can hold up to 32 rounds of ammunition that can be fired without reloading.
These high-capacity ammunition magazines were banned before Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004. Despite protests by law enforcement and public officials, the gun lobby and its supporters on Capitol Hill dismissed the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as an infringement on their right to own any gun of their choice—no matter the risk to public safety.
Everyone who is outraged by these murders should call for a new ban on seim- automatic weapons—and legislation that makes it far more difficult to secure a hand-gun license. Gun-shop owners who sell to those who fail to produce a license should face serious consequences.
Surely, we should be able to make it all but impossible for any civilian to buy a semi-automatic weapon. And it should be extremely difficult for anyone who cannot survive an extensive background check (a check that would take more than a week) to buy a handgun.
I realize that some research suggests that gun control might not reduce murder rates. (I’m not in a position to evaluate those studies.)
But I am less interested in lowering murder rates, and far more interested in shaving the number of innocents who are slaughtered—whether in classrooms in our heartland, or in urban ghettos, where mothers, fathers, and the children themselves fear being shot on the street.
Gun Control and Caring for the the Mentally Ill–Dana Goldstein
Writing on her blog, Dana Goldstein urges that we think of the Arizona shooting in terms of “policy, not politics.” (Formerly an associate editor at the Daily Beast, and the American Prospect, Goldstein is now a Spencer Education Journalism Fellow at Columbia University, where she contributes to national publications on education policy, schools, teachers, kids, and poverty.)
Below, Goldsteins’ post—one of the most useful and insightful pieces that I have read about the tragedy in Arizona.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Wake of AZ Shooting, Let's Focus on Mental Health and Gun Control
At this point in time, it's not very fruitful to speculate on the political ideology of Jared Lee Loughner, the young man who shot Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others in Tucson yesterday. Though Loughner espoused certain right-wing (anti-choice) and extreme libertarian (pro-commodity currency) positions, his online persona could best be described as paranoid and irrational. His favorite books included Hitler's Mein Kampf, but also lefty favorites like Orwell and Marx.
As James Fallows wisely points out, the ideologies of assassins and attempted assassins rarely map neatly onto the most pressing political issues of the day.)
I do think it's fair, though, to make two policy points in the wake of this tragedy:
As a country, we don't do enough to provide care to the mentally ill. Loughner was identified as emotionally unstable by his community college, but then what happened? As an unemployed college drop-out, was he insured? Did he have access to the care he needed?
Ironically, the health reform law that Giffords supported, attracting so much animosity, contained several provisions expressly intended to help disconnected youth like Loughner. It allows young adults up to age 26 to be covered by their parents' insurance, and also expands support for mental health and addiction services.
As health reform is implemented, it's very important that mental health be defined by the Department of Health and Human Services as preventive care—meaning insurance companies will have to offer counseling and other psychological services within every insurance plan they sell.
Progressives and the Democratic Party cannot give up on gun control. It's sad that we need to be reminded of this after tragedies like Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, and Columbine, but we seemingly do. So I was glad to see Mayor Mike Bloomberg make the following statement at a Brooklyn church this morning:
“These shootings are just terrible examples, and a terrible reminder, of the gun violence that happens every single day in our country. We don't know all the facts of this case yet, but we do know that every single day, 34 Americans are murdered – every single day. Yesterday it was Judge John Roll and five other Americans – and many more, across the fifty states. Tomorrow there will be another 34. And so it will continue until we get serious about cracking down on illegal guns and protecting innocent people. I’ve built a coalition of more than 500 mayors from across the country – from both political parties – who are dedicated to fighting gun violence. It is an uphill struggle, but if all of us join it – if all of us speak out – I believe we really can make a difference and save lives.”
I would surmise that it is truly hard and greatly stressful to kill a lot of people with your hands or with a knife. Maybe one or two in a selected location with the element of surprise. However with these rapid fire, large clip weapons, almost any human being, sick or otherwise, weak or strong, child or adult, can EASILY kill 50 people in a matter of minutes with low energy consumption and little physical stress. Why would we ever allow such technology to be READILY available to all citizens?? FOR WHAT SOCIAL PURPOSE????
Two factual discrepancies, one honest question, and one kinda snarky question:
* The weapon used by Loughner was a semi-automatic, not fully automatic. If you don’t understand the difference, I suggest you look it up.
* “These high-capacity ammunition magazines were banned before Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.” Not true. The so-called assault weapons ban prohibited the manufacture and sale of NEW magazines of this nature. I have not seen any reporting on whether Loughner bought his magazine(s) new or used (there may be no way to tell).
* I tend to agree with you about treatment for mental illness and the place for such treatment within the larger health care system. But even if we have the robust systems that you advocate, doesn’t it still require *somebody* to actually take some action of their own accord? Wouldn’t Loughner have had to seek out treatment himself, or have a family member urge him to do so? In other words, how do we help the mentally ill if they refuse to be treated? I don’t have any idea how to answer this, and an answer may not exist.
* Lastly: at any time in the past ten years, have you noticed any LEFT-wing rhetoric that you condemn for being too extreme? Or are the extremists only on the right?
Pipster–
I’m a little confused.
My post does make it entirely clear that the weapon was a “semi-automatic” (See the paragraph that begins “Here is what we know . . ”
A great many credible, reputable sources have said that if the shooter didn’t have a semi-automatic, he wouldn’t have been able to kill so many people.
On the ban, and the question of new magazines vs. old magazines–I’ll have to look into that. I definitely will correct and clarify as needed. (Will get back to you on what I find out when I do some research.)
On getting help for the mentally ill– If his insurer was required to cover mental illness giving it parity with physical illnesses (as the reform legislation requires) then the insurance that he had at the college would have covered it.
If a shrink was covered, it probably wouldn’t have been that hard for a room-mate, an teacher– or the college– to persuade him to see someone. Most people like to talk about themselves, and those who fit his profile tend to crave attention.
Here we’re not talking about committing him to a mental hospital, just getting him to see a professional. This could have made a huge difference.
If a psychatirst or a pscyhologist determined that he was a danger to himself or others (which, given his condition, shouldn’t have been that hard) the shrink could have gone to the authorities, and the shooter could have been committed to a hospital, at least long enough for observation .
The college bears some responsibility here. They knew that something was very wrong. Just kicking him out was not sufficient. He could have decided to shoot up the campus, endangering other students . . .
Elsewhere, I actually have written about “extreme language” on the left.
In recent years, the left really hasn’t been using the language of violence.
Listen to MSNBC (Maddow and Olberman et. alo.). Read the Nation.
Then listen to FOX and Limbaugh.
I also read some of the far-left blogs (Daily Kos, etc.) as well as the very excellent writing by the folks at the Roosevelt Institute (who are calling for a new, New Deal.)
They never call for violence–not even in veiled terms.
In the past,however, the Weatherman (who were very, very fringe) and the Black Panthers (more respected on the left– they did some very good work in communities) did call for violence.
But since then, this just hasn’t been acceptable language in the left-wing culture.
While Bush was in the White HOuse, I never heard a left-wing pundit or commenator even hint that someone should eliminate him..
And there have been no attempts to assassinate a conservative for a great many years. (The attempt to kill Reagan had nothing to do with politics.)
Meanwhile, we do have a history of people who were perceived as being too liberal being assassinated: JFK, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. (Malcolm X also was murdered, but that had nothing do with infighting within his movement–he wasn’t killed by a conservative.
I’m sure there are many people living on the bottom steps of our economic ladder who are very angry.
But they no longer dare to ptotest, march, riot as they did in teh 1960s.
They know that police will shoot at them, and may kill them.
Obivously, I don’t favor riots, or marches that threaten anyone. But it is telling that the very poor have become so passive. They really are afraid of those in charge.
Meanwhile, conservatives who tend to support those with wealth and power feel able to speak out–calling the president a “liar,” a
“racist” etc.–without fear.
I’m with pipster on the gun control issue.
Trying to tighten gun laws is a reactive policy, not a proactive policy. I realize this may sound counter intuitive, but it is true.
Unless you completely ban gun ownership in this country, any legislation to control guns is legislation to control NEW weapons, not the millions of weapons already out there on the streets.
Pipster is correct on the magazines: I have several that were over the “limit”, but were legal for me to own because they were grandfathered in.
Gun control laws did not affect the Unibomber or Tim McVeigh.
The real solution is two fold. 1) a profound cultural shift that will take generations to produce in which we as a society enforce norms and mores that abhor violence.
2) Better screening and treatment of the prfoundly mentally ill. 72 hour holds are a farce: these patients are back on the streets within hours because there is no where to hold them. We must improve and reopen our shuttered mental hospitals. Some patients need long term treatment. They’re not getting it in the community clinics we were promised (but never delivered).
Do you want them to fear Maggie? What do you want them to fear exactly? You don’t see the rhetoric on your side when you are as invested as you are. Keith Olberman wanted Democrats during the primaries to go into a room and “until only one comes out.” He likened Dick Cheney to a terrorist. But that’s just rhetorical flair right? The Daily Kos had Giffords on a “target list”. Bloggers on the Daily Kos stated Giffords was dead to them 2 days before the shooting. Paul Krugman advocated burning Joe Lieberman in effigy. “They never call for violence even in veiled terms.” Really. You couldn’t quite do it could you Maggie. I think you can make some decent points if you really want to get to the cause of the shooting and prevent another one, but it’s too easy to try use a tragedy and score cheap political points hence your mention of Right wing and Rush Limbaugh. There are issues here that discussion could make better that you seem partially interested in; mental health, gun laws. I’d add drug use, immersive violent video games and violent music for discussion as well if you truly want to have a conversation about preventing this from happening.
Maggie,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Point 1: I guess I was thrown off by your call for “a new ban on automatic weapons,” when automatic weapons were not used in this crime. Seems like a non sequitur in that case.
Point 2: Panacea reinforces my point. A “ban” sounds fine and good, but it only works if you have a magic wand that can make those weapons go away. There are plenty of weapons already out there, and you’re never going to be able to get them all of the street. Do you have a suggestion as to how you would effect your “ban?”
Point 3: I’ll have to think about the issue of the college’s liability. Interesting points.
Point 4: You seem like a reasonable person, Maggie, but you are either blind or delusional when you say that “But since then, this just hasn’t been acceptable language in the left-wing culture. While Bush was in the White House, I never heard a left-wing pundit or commenator [sic] even hint that someone should eliminate him.” How many examples do you need to convince you that you are wrong? Let’s start with these:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/12/153908.shtml
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2008/05/kentucky-dem-governor-jokes-about-bush-assassination-at-state-party-dinner/
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10846
From Craig Kilborn’s TV show: http://patterico.com/files/2011/01/Bush-Snipers-Wanted.jpg
I don’t want to be one of those annoying comment trolls that fills up page after page with links, but that’s an easy enough task if you want me to.
A final point: RFK was killed by an anti-semitic lunatic, JFK was killed by a commie lunatic, and MLK was killed by a racist lunatic. Your point is…what? JFK’s assassination was the most overtly political, and Oswald’s beef was that JFK wasn’t far enough LEFT. None of the assassins were even remotely “conservative,” by any definition of the word.
There is no question that hate speech has created a toxic atmosphere over the last ten years. Perhaps this guy was influenced by that language. I think the one word that stands out about him was that he was discombobulated (believe it or not). This might explain why he shot into a crowd.
The Tea Party culture of political intimidation affirmed his violent impulses. Giffords has become a target of Tea Party activists for her support of health care reform and immigration reform. Sarah Palin’s targeted list, the way she has it depicted, were crosshairs of a gun sight over Gifford’s district. Then Palin tried to explain that it was simply crosshairs like you see on maps. Crosshairs on maps!? Really!?
Did you see the video of the new House Speaker on the floor last year in response to political compromise? The “HELL NO!” speach? At the press conference following the murders, Pima County Sheriff condemned the state of political discourse in America. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. They become a mecca for prejudice and bigotry.
Besides the hate radio and hate TV, FBI Director Robert Mueller said the ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that not only threats, but hate speech and other inciteful speech is much more readily available to individuals than it was 8 or 10 or 15 years ago.
The DLC had targets on a map before Palin. I don’t think Palin is presidential material, but there has to be something that absolutely petrifies the left about her. I agree pipster, the left even went as far to make a movie with CGI depicting the assasination of Bush. I agree we can go tit for tat, right vs left, D vs R all day long or we can have a discussion about the real causes demonstrated by facts not conjecture and have a discussion about preventing another episode. Gun violence, mental illness, youth drug use, violent immersive video games, violent music are the topics so far if anyone is interested.
NG, Pipster, Panacea
NG–
Thank you.
Yes, with these weapons ANYONE can kill many people– incluidng someone who is very young, not strong, and not well.
There is no purpose,that I can see, for any civilian to have these weapons.
Even those who claim that they want a gun to protect their property or their family. Do they reallly think that 30 people are going to descend on their home?
Or do they just like feeling like a character in a B movie?
Pipster–
I’ve now check mroe than 10 generally very relable print sources. They all suggest that the ban which Congress did ‘t renew would have banned the magazines that hte shooter used.
I don’t find anything about “old” vs.”new”–
Could you send me some documentarion on that point?
Also, it would be great if you could send in another comment retracting your comment that I overlooked teh difference between “automatic” and “semi-automatic.”
As you see, I made it clear, from the beginning, that he was using a “semi-automatic” weapon.
Thanks much
Jenga–
Don’t really know what to say.
There is a broad consensus–among centrists, not just liberals– that the conservative media has been using “vitriolic” and “violent” rhetoric.
See that left-wing rag, the Christian Science Monitor, which quotes Sarah Palin’s slogan “Don’t retreat, reload” and talks about how she painted cross-hairs on certain Congressional districts which she saw as too liberal.
The CSM doesn’t cite any examples of liberals using this type of lagnauge
Then there is this Christian Science Monitor story from last October about the effect of Glenn Beck’s hate speech:
“Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, who’s honed being provocative – even outrageous at times – to a fine and lucrative art, is the focus of criticism for inciting violence.
“his dozens of comments attacking the Tides Foundation are being linked to the attempt by a heavily-armed man to assassinate employees at the San Francisco-based foundation, which funds environmental, human rights, and other progressive projects. The attack in July was thwarted in a shoot-out with police in which two officers were wounded.
.”
“At various times, Beck has referred to Tides as ‘bullies’ and ‘thugs whose mission is to ‘warp your children’s brains and make sure they know how evil capitalism is’ More recently, Beck (who describes himself as a “progressive hunter”) has warned the foundation ‘I’m coming for you.’
Referring directly to Beck, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence issued a statement this week: “Too many people are turning to guns to remedy their grievances. And they are being fueled by rhetoric from leaders of the extreme gun rights movement.”
“Some law enforcement officials agree.
“‘The Becks of the world are people who are venting their opinions and it is inflammatory, it generates a lot of emotion and generates in some people overreaction that apparently happened in the California case,’ Rich Roberts of the International Union of Police Associations, which represents some 500 local police unions” SAID. ‘Inflammatory speech has a tendency to trigger those kinds of emotions.'”
Bloomberg, which Rupert Murdoch has clearly pushed to the far, FAR left, also talks about Palin putting “crosshairs” on certain congressional districts.
Bloomberg cited no examples of liberals using violent rhetoric.
If you don’t realize that
FOX and Rush Limbaugh have jacked up the rhetoric . . .I don’t know what to tell you.
AS for the problem of drug use– talk to Rush.
Panacea–
As a gun owner who possesses “sevaral” extended magazines, you probably have a different perspective on the issue.
But gun control laws can work.
In Boston, “Operation Cease-Fire” that was aimed at gang violence, was extremely successful. Los Angeles later employoed a similar program.
Moroever, since the shooters who commit so many of these horrific mass crimes– shooting up classrooms, drive-by shootings, gang shootings
are very young (under 25), in many cases, their magazines are new. This was true in this case.
As NG points out, there absolutely no reason for semi-automatic (or automatic) weapons to be in the hands of civilians.
And these are the weapons that make these mass shootings so easy.
The NRA likes to make the argument that it’s “impossible” to control guns.
Years ago, people argued that it would be “impossible” to abolish slavery in the U.S. Too many people depended on slaves, the economy of the South depended on slaves; there were so many slaves–. . .
They were wrong.
Let’s try gun control–many types of gun control, persistently, for years– and see what happens.
Finally, I agree, of course, about needing better treatment and screening of the mentally ill.
But that in no way precludes gun control.
We need both.
And the people who have blocked committing those who are seroiusly mentally ill–and keeping them for more than a few days– are
conseratives and libertarians who arge for “personal liberty” and individual rights and rail against “govt’ control” of healthcare.
Finally, most of those who use guns in the streets of our poorest neighborhoods–often killing children and other innocents–are not
seriously mentally ill. (Though they may well be angry and depressed.)
Such shootings are rarely reported in mainstream papers that most people who don’t live in the ghetto read. But we need to know what is happening.
Gang members, drug sellers and others involved in these disputes are usualy pretty sane–just uncaring.
Finally, we need to crack down on gun shop owners, gun fairs, etc. Many of these gun shops and gun fairs are breaking existing laws, and should be closed down.
Here in Oregon we have established within our public mental health system early psychosis programs which are available to anyone regardless of insurance status. We begin with a public education campaign about recognizing early signs of psychosis and the importance of early intervention. We respond to families or schools which refer with extensive outreach and engagement efforts to connect with the individual of concern. Our goal is to intervene before there is a fixed delusional system and before a young person has become alienated from family, friends, schools and employers. The treatment is primarily psychosocial supports to the individual and their family, with a low-dose medication protocol. This approach is cost-effective and powerful in helping people stay on track developmentally rather than heading into a lifetime of disability. Every time I see one of these tragic events I wonder whether the ‘shooter’ could have been reached by this approach.
Maggie the left is in power but when they weren’t. War criminal discussion was a daily topic, bushitler became a new word and a film about assignation of a sitting president is as violent as it gets. Obama talked about I’d they being a knife you bring a gun, and “get in their faces”, called those tha oppose him as “enemies”. The Daily Kos founder which has no veiled rhetoric wrote a fricking book equating teaparties to the Taliban. They are terrorists you know. You know what we do to terrorists right? Tit for tat, D vs R all day long or we could learn something like when pipster was talking old vs knew he was talking about manufacturing dates of magazine clips prior to 1994 and clips prior to 1994 were grandfathered in otherwise they would have to forcibly confiscate weapons which they didn’t want to do. Semiautomatics are used for hunting pheasant, quail and in rifle form squirrels and coyotes. Fully automatic are not available unless I believe you register with the ATF and buy a 300 dollar gun stamp and complete a much more exhaustive background
check. I can’t think of a legal one ever being used for a crime but if they wanted to eliminate it, I wouldn’t care it’s a loophole from a depression era bill. You know the wacko was a “left wing pothead” right? Youth drug use. That was the discussion about drug use I was referring to but if it’s only about politics and not solving problems. Guess what Obama was a cokehead. Tit for tat right?
Kathys, that sounds like a worthwhile program. We have a similar program here in Missouri. I wonder what the differences are between our two systems and the one in Arizona. Hindsight really sucks in instances like this. One of my best friends is a psychiatrist and he tells me all the time about the problems associated with some of these immersive utraviolent video games which this guys supposedly was entrenched in. It gets worse every year with the advances in technology and the ability is just worsened for some of these youths to escape reality.
For more information on Oregon’s approach, see http://www.eastcommunity.org/
Jenga & Pipster (your second comment)
Jenga–
Please provide a link to the “movie that the left made depciting the assassination of Bush”
(and who exactly do you mean by ‘the left’ in this context??
Is this someone with the influence of a Glenn Beck?
If such a film were made, and watched by even a modest audience, I would think that we would all have heard about it . . .
AS for what terrifies the Left about Palin– her sheer stupidity combined with her great popularity.
That McCain chose her to run as his v.p. candidate was mind-boggling.
That so many Americans like her (and, unlike you, do view her as presidential or at least v.p. material) should remind us what happens if you don’t put money into public education.
While we spend far more than any other country on healthcare (mainly for the upper-middle class and upper-class ) we pay teachers less than many other developed countires (even after adjusting for differences in cost of living.) (I should add that we also spend a great deal on healthcare for seniors, but lower-income people don’t usually live that long past 65. On average, African American men live to just 67.The weaithy live 8 years longer than the poor.)
So, given our lack of investment in education, I guess we shouldn’t be suprised when a significant share of the population considers it apropriate to vote for a presiden who “they would like to have a beer with”–or a older candidate who might, at any moment, be replaced by Sarah Palin . .
Pipster–
1) I think you should just admit that you read the post quickly and didn’t notice that I made it clear that he used an semi-auotmatic weapon at the very beginning.
The “non-sequiter” explanation just isn’t very convincing–and I don’t want other readers to think that I don’t take care with facts. I really do. I spend hours on these posts, checking facts all of the time.
Also, I’m sure you didn’t mean to be rude, but suggesting that I don’t “know the difference” between the phrase “semi-automatic: and the word “automatic” and that I should “look it up” was fairly condescending . . .
(I’ve never used a gun, but I can read, and have read quite a bit about gun control and the law.)
I’ve also just checked out all of your links to the left using “violent, vitriolic” language.
The first referred to a very dumb 1995 joke made by Rndi Rhodes on Air America suggesting that GWB should be offed, like a character in the Godfather who was killed.
At one point, she also called Hillary Clinton a “whore.” Ultimately Air America fired her.
I don’t see FOX firing Glenn Beck, do you? Nor do I see Beck calling Palin a “whore.”
Most importantly here’s how this is different from FOX or Limbaugh: virtually no one listened to Air America, including liberals & Lefties. (I actually never heard Air America-and I’m a news junkie)
So, unlike FOX et. al. Air America wasn’t creating a “climate” of anything.
Moreover, liberals condemned Air America for the joke. (Have you ever heard Limbuagh condemn FOX?
Here’s what the Atlantic Monthly said about that incident:
“Much of what Air America carries is anger-laced polemic that plays to the furthest-left element of the electorate. The early Limbaugh was a populist at once funny and capable of maneuvering outside the party line; but few liberal hosts display any enthusiasm for attracting people beyond the segment that is already passionately attuned to their brand of smug, hostile liberalism. . . . Air America’s broadcasts seem merely to reinforce a certain condescension—hampering rather than helping a Democratic Party desperate to expand its appeal in red states.
“One of the first controversies it engendered, in fact, echoed Liddy’s talk about killing federal agents. The host Randi Rhodes, invoking the denouement of The Godfather, Part II, proposed to listeners that “the Fredo of the [Bush] family is the president of the United States, so why doesn’t his brother take him out for a little fishing and let him say some Hail Marys …
“Americans are ultimately skeptical of media commentators who seem to have a political agenda that supersedes their search for the truth,” Michael Harrison, of Talkers, says.”
Your second example was about something that a Kentucky governor said at a state dinner (not on the airwaves, not to the public.)
It was another dumb joke (not said with any great anger) suggesting that if Cheney took Bush on a hunting trip, he might shoot him (referring to Cheney’s accidental shooting of a friend while hunting.)
This was clearly not an attempt to incite a liberal to assassinate Bush for political reasons, and clearly not something that created a “climate of rage.”
I could go on. I am sorry, but all of your examples are trivial when compared to the power and vitriol of conseravtive remarks on widely watched, widely heard television and radio.
#2– I am not expecting that a gun control law would get ALL of the guns off the street–just that it would get some of the guns off the street.
And if we used the Boston strategy (aimed at gang violence) we could get a significant number of guns out of the hands of very young people who are inclined toward criminal activity.
Every innocent life that is saved–particularly chidlren and adult victims of mass violence (often involving semi-automatics)
would be a boon. These totally senseless crimes bring great suffering–epecially when kids are the victims.
The fact that most of the child victims are poor children is one reason why we haven’t focused on this.
(One out of 5 children in the U.S. lives in poverty,
I raised my children in NYC, and never worried about them being shot. We lived in Manhattan, on the Upper West Side. Had we lived in the Bronx, I would have been frantic.
And if Welfare forced me to work so that I couldn’t be home when they came home from school in the Bronx . . . I can only imagine how mothers in that situation feel. (I did work, but they walked him in a super safe neighborhood. We lived in a building with a doorman and a conceriege downstars.
If they had any problem, they knew they could buzz them. And they could always reach me on my private line at work. (Kept two phones on my desk so the kids could always get through if they were in any trouble, even if I was interviewng someone. Poor mothers working at Wal-Mart don’t have that luxury.)
For a society that supposedly loves children we (as a society) don’t take very good care of them. Here, I’m quoting a pediatric oncologist who pointed out how much more money we put into cancer reasearch to try to cure prostate cancer and other cancers that affect adult men—and so much less $$$ into pediatric cancer.)
Finally, Gun-shops and gun fairs are also a problem that we should focus on. Many totally unscrupulous sellers. Penalties for selling to someone without a license should include jail time.
Greg–
I agree. And while there is much that I like about the Internet, it also provides a platform for people to anonymously vent their rage.
When my posts are cross-posted on other blogs, I’ve seen some of that rage in the comments– truly vicious personal attacks. (If I were a public figure, I might find them somewhat frightening.)
Kathys-
The program in Oregon sounds excellent.
When was it started?
I’m hoping to organize a conference on how health care reform is already happening on the ground (whatever happens in Congress this yaer) and his might be an example.
Please e-mail me about it on maggiemahar@yahoo.com — just put Kathy and Oregon in the headline, so that I know it’s you.
Thannks
“These shootings are just terrible examples, and a terrible reminder, of the gun violence that happens every single day in our country. – Government should strictly implement about gun purchasing/buying. The person can buy gun if he/she show a paper that he/she not mentally ill.
I think most people would consider Arianna Huffington to be considered “left” she and Jesse Ventura even star in it and the makers of the Matrix seem to be pretty popular.
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/09/weve_got_details_on_the_wachow.html?mid=twitter_vulture
You are now going to use “Americans are stupid” when they vote for someone you don’t like? What did you think of alot of these same people when they voted for Obama in 2008? Did they suddenly turn from simpletons into highly educated elites? Funny how that happens.
This news really made me sad and i do agree that it is a terrible tragedy.. i just hope we can learn something from it..
Jenga: it’s hard to get a permit for fully auto weapons. However it is EASY (and legal) to use a kit to turn a semi-auto to full auto. A friend of mine did this with a Mac-90.
I haven’t ever heard of a criminal case where this was done to the weapon used in the crime (though I could be wrong).
Maggie: I continue to respectully disagree with you on gun control. When people talk about gun control they mean bans, and you yourself called for this when you said,
“Everyone who is outraged by these murders should call for a new ban on automatic weapons
And it should be extremely difficult for anyone who cannot survive an extensive background check (a check that would take more than a week) to buy a handgun.”
Operation Cease Fire was not a gun control law. It was a proactive program that sought to encourage people to turn in their own weapons, but did not make possession itself illegal. It also was successful because of the focus on good community policing that focused on gang related issues.
That’s not the same thing as gun control. I would rather see more proactive efforts like Operation Cease Fire, that address the root causes of crime in communities, than “close the barn door after the horse has escaped but feels good” policies like gun bans.
You mentioned conservatives and libertarians regarding mental illness holds. Again, I disagree. Civil rights activists, not conservatives OR liberals, fought for the right of the mentally ill to refuse treatment and continue to fight for the rights of a mentally ill person to be on the streets in spite of the consequences of their illness.
Conservatives like Reagan shut down the facilities that could house those patients out of financial concerns, not civil liberties.
I agree panacea. It is very hard to get such a permit. I like it that way. I think it would be doable to get rid of them completely although it would have done nothing to prevent the case and I can’t think of a single crime committed by one. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good idea or proactive to eliminate the ability to get fully automatic guns.
There are definitely civil liberty issues that will always play a role in something like this.
Yes, reasonable people are talking about stricter gun ownership laws– particularly regarding automatic weapons. On Sunday and Monday, in the Tucson Citizen, I posted an editorial and a follow-up post about gun control. You can see from the dozens of comments on these 2 articles that there are LOTS of 2nd Amendment supporters who are in denial about the proliferation of guns in our society and the link to violence.
Ironically, some even suggested that more people should have been armed at the suburban Tucson Safeway on Saturday, so someone could have shot the would-be assassin. Sigh.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/tucson-progressive/2011/01/09/stop-gun-violence-hows-that-constitutional-carry-law-workin-for-ya-now-video/
Pancea–
I became very invovled in the poitics and civil rights issues surrounding treatment for the mentally ill when a close relative who was hospitalized for many years refused to take medication.
She took the hospital to court–and won.
Although a schizophrenic, she was also very intelligent, and cunning in a way that could create the apperance of sanity.
A conservative judge in upstate New York (like conservative judges in upstate New York, according ot the hospital)
ruled in her favor.
So she spent the rest of her life institutionalized and unmedicated. Since she constantly physicallly attacked hospital staff, she spent much of her time physically restrained.
She refused to see me or talk to me (convinced that I had been replaced by an imposter), so after she won in court, there wasn’t much I could do.
This was not about the state saving money; it was about a conservative culture that
Pamela said, “Yes, reasonable people are talking about stricter gun ownership laws-”
So, by your definition, anyone who wants to protect their 2nd amendment rights is unreasonable?
Sorry, don’t buy it.
I don’t have a problem with reasonable regulation of gun ownership such as background checks, waiting periods, and licensure. But outright bans infringe on my rights, and I’ve done nothing wrong. It’s unfair to punish ME, a law abiding citizen, for the crimes of others.
Maggie: I’m truly sorry to hear about your friend. Believe me, I understand what it is like to care about someone who is mentally ill.
My best friend is bipolar. Occasionally she goes off her meds because she likes the manic phase and thinks she “gets more done” (in reality she starts a lot of projects she never finishes).
I’ve had to take her to the hospital for admission twice for suicidal ideation (she had a plan each time). She hated it. HATED it. But when it was over, she knew she needed the hospitalization, and needed to be on her meds.
My aunt committed suicide by jumping off a cliff on the Pacific Coast because her husband promised her he wouldn’t involuntarily commit her. No one in the family stepped up to say, “Hey, she needs to be in a hospital!” (I, unfortunately, did not know what was going on until it was over as I lived 3000 miles away).
Her right to adequate treatment for her illness was trumped by her right to self determination.
Yes, conservative judges didn’t close down hospitals to save money. Conservative LEGISLATORS did that. They weren’t interested in self determination. That’s the key difference. The judge was thinking about individual rights. But he didn’t close hospitals.
Conservative policy makers did.
So really, we’re both right.
Panacea & Jenga
This case is not about automatic weapons. It is about semi-automatic weapons. (AS I made clear at the top of the story.)
I see abosolutely no reason why it should be at all easy for civlians to get a semi-automatic weapon. (Hunting pheasants seems to me of marginal importance compared to threats to human life.)
But if people want to use semi-automatics to hunt phreasants, fine–so long as they are willing to give the authorities time to do a thorough background check, and pay for a license that will fund such background checks.
Panacea–
I understand what you are saying about the difference between a “ban” on guns and collecting guns from gang members.
And insofar as you favor restrictions on ownership, waiting periods and good back-ground checks then we are not so far apart.
I’m not wedded to the idea of “bans” per se.
But I do think that there should be many fewer guns floating around. If there were fewer guns, then fewer would be stolen and wind up on the street.
Also I’m much more sympathetic to people buying a gun for target practice of hunting (some sort of sport) than for “protection.” There may well be cases where this makes sense–if you own a liquor store in a poor neighborhood, for instance. Though too often, the store owner or an innocent bystander winds up being hurt.
But the idea of relatively affluent people keeping a gun in the house to protect their property strikes me as reckless. Every year, a certain number of children find these guns and hurt themsleves or a playmate.. Even if we are talking about only a very small number of children, the suffering that follows is immeasurable –for the parents, for the child who hurt or killed another child . .
And I see no reason why it should be legal for civlians who are not police or security guards to carry “concealed weapons.”
Bloomberg is one of our more rational politicians, and I think right on this one.
Also,Panacea, I’m curious– why do you feel a need to own several such weapons?? It seems out of character.
Jenga–
There’s not much overlap between the people who voted for Bush and the people who voted for Obama.
Obama got the same white voters that Al Gore did– better-educated, women, etc.,-but not enough to win. (Obama and Gore got just about the same percentage of the white vote– and a very similar demographic.)
The important difference between the two elections is that Obama also turned out a large number of Latinos and African-Americans (many of whom had never voted before) as well as Asians. They put him over the top.
Exit polls suggest that these voters were concerned about issues–health care, education, poverty–not who they would like to have a beer with.
IN fact, many poor and middle-class Latinos and
African-Americans reported that they didn’t feel Obama had much in common with them (the way he talks, the weay he dresses, Harvard, etc.), but they did think that he was smart–much smarter than GWB.
We have quite a bit of reserach showing that when they do vote minorities are more likely to vote in their own self-interest than low-income and middle-income white voters who often vcte for the candidate who is least likely to help them (or vote for social safe nets)–and more likely to help the wealthy (cutting taxes.)
Kathys
Thanks for the link. The program in Oregon sounds excellent.
I’d add, as someone in the UK, that you should see guns as a public health issue, given the toll in homicides, injuries, suicides and accidents. That’s a policy angle for sure.
Maggie,
Wikipedia discusses the provisions of the ban here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Key paragraph:
During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law’s definition of an “assault weapon” or “large capacity ammunition feeding device”, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing “assault weapons” or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as “large capacity ammunition feeding devices”.
Sure, I’ll admit to reading your post too quickly the first time through. But, it’s still a non sequitur to call for a ban on a weapon that wasn’t even used in this crime. I don’t see the bearing that this crime has on a discussion about banning fully automatic weapons.
I was amused to see you use the old “it’s just a joke” defense. Somehow I don’t think you would be so quick to give Glenn Beck the benefit of the doubt if he made a similar joke. Which raises the question: can you document a single instance in which Beck (or Limbaugh, or Palin, or anyone on Fox News) has ever discussed assassinating somebody with whom he disagrees, even jokingly?
Another question: I still maintain that the guy is a lunatic with no coherent political philosophy. But, over the last day or two, it has been revealed that Loughner is a 9/11 truther who was registered as a Democrat until 2008, and acquaintances describe him as a left-wing pothead. Do you condemn Michael Moore, Van Jones, Cynthia McKinney, and others for their extreme rhetoric that contributed to the shooting in Tucson?
And finally: I find it hilariously hypocritical for you to decry the rhetoric used by Sarah Palin, and then call her “stupid” in the next breath. A successful, hard-working public official whom (I presume) you have never met is dismissed as an imbecile so that you can make a tired point about funding of public education. Congratulations, you are now part of the problem.
Marc, Pipster
Marc–
I agree.
But I once made the mistake of writing a post about how easy access to guns is a public health issue in the U.S.
I had no idea that the NRA was so well organized.
HealthBeat was immediately flooded with comments from NRA supporters who took over the thread, making any sort of debate impossible.
But, as someone who lives in the UK, you should know that the people who are real NRA apologists–people who think that it would have been just great if more of the people in the crowd at the Giffords’ meeting were armed– represent a minority of Americans.
It’s just that the NRA supporters are much more vocal– and very well funded.
Also, I should say that I am very proud of the
three Americans–all of them older– who had the courage to stop the shooter, without feeling that they needed a gun to do that.
That is what this country needs– more people with guts, not more people with guns.
Pipster–
I’m afraid that we will have to agree to disagree about gun control, and whether Sarah Palin is
an intelligent person.
As for Glenn Beck’s rhetoric vs. political rhetoric on the left–
we are talking about the difference between the non-stop language of hate that we have heard on FOX, Limbaugh et. al, 365 days a year, for years– vs. occasional remarks on programs that draw a very large audience.
These
occasional, equallly stupid remarks made by a few marginal liberal pundits just isn’t comparable-.
Most imporatntly, they hasn’t had the same effect in terms of creating a climate that supports bloody urges.
.
Hi Maggie:
I mostly agree with you on the control of rifles, pistols, ammunition, weaponry not having a legitmate hunting or sporting use. I would hardly go hunting or target shooting with an AK47, a Glock, a Snub nose, a Saturday Night Special, etc. They are not made for such a use. Nor can one hunt with more than 5 rounds in many states, so a clip for 20 or more is “silly.” If you can’t get it in 2 rounds that animal is so far away you will never hit it.
Pistols with more than 6 rounds is a joke. One round shot in a closed room sounds like a 155 mm Howitzer going off. If the guy wasn’t acared when you shot once, then he gonna think twice about going after you anyway. Most of you would waste your ammo anyway with a semi automtic. By the 3rd round, you would be shooting 3 feet left or right of the target.
As an X-Marine Sergeant who served on active duty in one war and also served in an occupied country in the Carribean, I would suggest that many of you volunteer for active duty. Get that gun-toting nonsense out of your system, learn how people die when you shoot them or watch your friends get shot, and then I believe many of you would think twice about advocating unlimited access to many different types of weapons, the loading mechanisms, that have little if any legitimate use. Your freedom of choice to own one is still not infringed upon if it is limited in capacity. If you all had to clean that pistol or rifle or weapon everyday and skip that movie, TV show, or party, etc.; you would give it up. Most of us have out grown the necescity to be toting fire arms.
Maggie, let them have their guns. Instead, lets make Colt, S&W, International Standard, Remington, and the makers of thrash liable for the people intentionally injured or killed. A few lawsuits and these companies would no longer exist.
Maggie you are going to have as much of a problem with your second in command as me.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/oh-that-joe-n-9.html
I have a semiautomatic beretta shotgun that I use for hunting, just like Joe Biden. I just haven’t went as far with the “rhetoric” like he did though. Elections are won in the middle, Bush wouldn’t have been president twice, or Obama in 2008. As an former writer for Barrons, you know full well what will make 2012. If Sarah Palin is president, you can blame it on public education. I’ll take my chances that an unemployment rate over 9 has something more to do with it, just as the economic meltdown had more to do with Obama winning in 2008.There have been some in the media that have been spot on in tone and substance with these events. I often diagree with them on many issues but credit where it’s due goes to Ezra Klein, David Gergen, Peter Beinert, Rachel Maddow, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They have got it right, when so many of their colleagues have got it so completely wrong. Sure would have liked to seen it from you to. Something kind of funny though about a vitriolic debate about which side is more vitriolic.
Maggie:
I didn’t confuse the issue of fully auto and semi auto weapons. What I did say was how easy it is to convert semi auto into full auto.
Re concealed weapons: I have mixed feelings about concealed weapons. Some people who carry them really have no need to, and lack the good judgment to do so. It depends on the laws. Where I live, you have to get a permit from the Sheriff, who is not likely to grant one “just ‘cuz.” (Sensible in my view). Business people who carry large sums of money but can’t afford a security company to pick it up are justified to carry a concealed weapon but should be held accountable for their actions if they are reckless with it–they should have to pass mandatory training and re certify from time to time.
Re my ownership of guns. I often surprise people with this. I own two rifles and a shotgun, and used to own an M1911A .45 handgun (sold it a while back).
All are antiques. I do not hunt. I do target shoot. It is a LOT of fun. When I bought the weapons, I understand that’s what they were: weapons. I learned about gun safety. I learned how to keep my weapons clean and in good working order. I learned how to secure them to keep them out of the hands of my nieces and nephews.
I bought the handgun after a gang of youths tried to break into my house. I had a dog, who was barking her head off. They knew I was in the house. It didn’t stop them. They didn’t get into the house, but they did terrify me. They did break into my car and steal property from it. They also stole a neighbor’s car and wrecked it.
I also moved after that incident. Shortly after I moved into my new place, I was the target of ANOTHER attempted burglary. I stepped onto my porch, looked the would be thief in the eye (I could clearly see him crouching behind a bush), pulled the slide back, and said, “Try it.” (I never pointed the weapon at him.)
He took off running and never came back.
I agree that most store owners who buy weapons never learn to use them properly, and thus place themselves at greater risk. That’s why I support a licensing requirement.
I do NOT believe that had someone been “packing” in Arizona, that Loughner would have been stopped. In all likelihood, Gifford still would have been shot, people still would have died, and an untrained gun owner would have hurt an innocent bystander.
When this country was started, all men aged 16-60 were required to be members of their local militia. They were required to drill regularly. It was the LAW for them to own a weapon and know how to use it. That’s not true any more. As we’ve moved away from our roots, we have kept the tradition of gun ownership without the legal responsibility that used to go with it.
I believe that tradition is an important part of who we are as a nation. For me, gun ownership is about protecting my personal safety and my property. Given my past experiences, I will not give up that right.
run-75441 & Panacea
run- 75441–Your point about going after the gun manufacturers rather than the gun owners is a good one.
And thanks for providing the perspective of an ex-marine who has been in war zones. Today, thanks to the volunteer army, only a small segment of our society experiences the reality of what guns do.
Too many young men experience the “rush” of using guns through video games . . very different from reality.
It also strikes me that people who have military training are most likely to be able to react effetively in a violent situation. It occurred to me that the two older men who tackled the shooter may well have been in the military. They didn’t need guns (which would have been dangerous to use in a crowd); they needed–and had– excellent reflexes, and courage.
Panacea–
Thanks for a very interesting comment. Many ideas that add to this thread..
I agree with much of it, though don’t agree with all of it. .
I totally agree with this “Re concealed weapons: I have mixed feelings about concealed weapons. Some people who carry them really have no need to, and lack the good judgment to do so. It depends on the laws. Where I live, you have to get a permit from the Sheriff, who is not likely to grant one “just ‘cuz.” (Sensible in my view.)
Yes, that is sensible.
But my impression is that, in many parts of the country, people don’t have to explain why they need a repeat automatic.
This evening, I read about the law in Arizona (This is excerpted from a post on Alternet by Josh Holland)
“Arizona provides ample evidence that the presence of a large number of untrained but heavily armed citizens running around doesn’t make anyone safer. The state ranks dead last in gun controls , according to the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV), a group that advocates for tighter gun laws. Arizona doesn’t require background checks for private gun sales; it doesn’t prohibit assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, high capacity magazines; it doesn’t impose a waiting period or limit the number of guns that can be acquired in a single purchase, and it doesn’t regulate “junk guns” – cheap and often unsafe “Saturday Night Specials.” Last year, the state passed a law allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms in public without a license or permit.”
Holland goes on to point out that “the state ranked second in the country in per capita gun deaths, according to statistics compiled by The Daily Beast, and eighth in terms of the overall rate of violent crime, according to Census data.And its lax gun laws spill over its borders; according to LCAV, “Arizona ranked 11th among the states in terms of number of crime guns supplied to other states per capita. Perhaps more shockingly, in 2009, Arizona provided more crime guns per capita to Mexico than any other state.”
“Nonetheless, sales of Glock handguns – the weapon Jared Lee Loughner used when he shot Rep. Giffords and 19 others –have skyrocketed in Arizona in the wake of the shootings. And the state’s legislature is considering two bills that would further expand Arizonans’ ‘right’ to carry concealed weapons wherever they please.
Panacea- reading about the law in Arizona, it strikes me that we probably uniform, rational l federal laws regarding rules to get permits.– rules that gunowners like you would agree to.
Regarding self-protection, I’ve been in situations where I was terrified three times. One involved a break-in of my apartment when I was in New Haven, the others, attempted attacks on the street.
In each case I escaped unscathed–once I was rescued by a group of young men who knew me; in another case I ran screaming for about a block and into a store
I never wished I had a gun.
One two occasions, 4 or 5 people were involved in the attack and they were much bigger than I am. The chances that could have taken a gun away from me are high– even if I managed to shoot one, I couldn’t stop 5 people.
One a third occasion,the attacker was a very young boy, who, like the young boy you encountered, ran off when I began screaming.
My impression is that when police are training women in self-defense (or civilians in general) they do not recommend getting a gun.
Most of us just aren’t skilled enough or cool-headed enough to
be able to use the gun effectively and responsibly–especially when panicked.. (In some cases homeowners wind up
shooting and maiming or killing an unarmed young thief. )
Maggie:
Thanks for your thoughts.
Years ago, when I started studying the martial arts, I learned that in many instances a gun is simply something that can be taken away from you. That’s why I don’t want to carry a concealed weapon. Running and screaming is a better defense.
At home is a different story. I keep all doors locked, and check through the window for who’s at the door before I open it. Having a weapon in my case was useful to scare off a would be burglar from actually getting into the house.
I continue to believe that guns have a use for self protection if the owner is trained, uses common sense, keeps calm, and knows when to and when not to use one.
Even if you continue to disagree, I don’t feel I should have to give up my right to possess the weapon of my choice because other people either don’t like guns or would rather use other solutions to protect themselves.
Regarding fully automatic weapons. Few people have a “need” to own one. Few people “need” to own a television, either. No one ever was hurt by not watching TV. You don’t have to need something to desire it, and there’s nothing wrong with the desire for people who are interested in weapons for their own sake (as opposed to their use). Fire arms, their history, how they work, what they do is very, very interesting. My two rifles date to World War II (one is a Canadian Enfield Mark IV .303, the other a Soviet Mosin-Nagent carbine). They are very cool for their own sake, or so I see them. Others are free to disagree . . . there’s no law that says anyone has to own a gun.
Why should a law abiding gun owner give up their 2nd Amendment rights because some person they don’t know and will never meet is uncomfortable?
Panacea
Learnig martial arts strikes me as one of the best ways to protect oneself. I don’t possess the skills (coordination etc.) to master it, but admire that you have studied it.
Again, I don’t think we are so far apart.
I wouldn’t call for a “ban” on any type of gun–just laws that make it very difficult to get one unless the buyer has gone through an in-depth background check, and , as you suggest, can show that he/she knows how to use the weapon safely.
We require tests before giving someone a license to drive a car (another potentially lethal weapon); why not a test to get a gun license? (License fees and test fees could cover the cost of administering the test. To make them affforable for people who don’t have a lot of money, the fee might be a percentage of the cost of the weapon being licensed.)
Or we could find another way to pay for the tests. But such tests would also serve as a screen to help sort out people who are in some way unbalanced ..
I realize that many people would find ways to buy guns without a permit– on the street, from unscrupulous gun shop owners etc.
But laws which stipulated jail time for anyone who facililiated illegial purchase of a gun could help.
.
.