As Pogo said “we have met the enemy and he is us.”
by Hugh Holub on Jan. 11, 2011, under politicsThere are 3 threads running from the Giffords shooting incident:
–the rhetoric of hate needs to be toned down
–Arizona’s gun laws are crazy
–and we didn’t have any effective way to sort the crazies and keep them from being inspired by the hate rhetoric to buy a semi-automatic weapon.
What’s interesting is there are lots of people defending the inflammatory rhetoric and pointing out there is probably not a direct cause and effect relationship between venomous commentators like Glenn Beck and Jared Loughner.
Maybe. Maybe not. We’re likely to get the answer to that issue one of these days.
There’s also a lot of people arguing that guns didn’t kill 6 people and seriously wound Congresswoman Giffords and 13 others…it was a crazy person.
And then there’s a lot of information coming out about how weirded out Loughner appeared and how there is virtually nothing anyone could have done to get him into a treatment program or deny him the right to buy a gun.
Whenever someone goes on a rampage and shoots a lot of people it is easy to write off the incident to a deranged person. Arguably anyone who commits murder, especially mass murder, is crazy.
But that is a convenient way to deflect the much broader responsibilities the entire society has.
Whether or not the bile being spread by left or right had anything directly to do with the Giffords shooting….bile is still bile and we need to tone down the political debate in this country. Just because we don’t agree with each other doesn’t make one side a bunch of traitors and the other side a bunch of fascists. We all love our country, and all sides have meritorious issues to consider.
I personally do not like the fact that the whole culture of violence and hate speech is making big money for the media outlets that purvey it. We can hold someone accountable for yelling fire in a theater, and we can stop people from broadcasting pornography to our kids At minimum the media outlets that provide the soapboxes for the hate-mongers can issue some civil guidelines and fire some flamethrower mouths. And we sure as heck can boycott the sponsors who buy ads in shows that incite hatred.
Creating a climate of violence and justification to demonize this or that group of people has repeatedly proven dangerous for a long long time.
As to the gun issue…Arizona has put gun rights ahead of human rights. I’ve got to wonder what the folks who wrote the Second Amendment would think if they saw the kind of weaponry gun rights advocates claim everyone can carry anywhere at any time.
I think some hard lines need to be drawn between the sort of recreational and home protection guns most everyone does agree we have a right to keep versus semi-automatic Glock 19s with 31 shot magazines.
Let me add another dimension to the gun rights debate….the Second Amendment refers to a “well regulated militia”.
I would suggest that a second tier of gun permitting be created whereby some folks would be allowed access to more military and police type weaponry….but only if they went through serious training and were part of a supervised militia structure that was like our auxiliary police forces. Not some wacko self-proclaimed Minutemen…but a force that could work effectively in tandem with law enforcement and increase safety and security without a political agenda. What bothers me is having a lot of people armed to the teeth that really don’t know what to do how and when.
The third thread is how do we figure out who is crazy and how to we keep them from buying guns.
I would hope the Second Amendment crowd could at least agree we do not want criminals or crazies having access to guns.
The first issue is basic permitting….and this is essential to at least weed out the criminals buying guns on the black market versus legitimate sales. The best thing a permit program can do is give law enforcement a basis to bust someone with a weapon who does not have a permit.
Now comes the really thorny problem of trying to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.
Who decides who is crazy? What is the definition of “mentally ill”?
There is a long and sordid history around the world of governments using mental illness as an excuse to jail political dissidents. In a right-wing dictatorship it is the lefties that are “crazy” and in a left-wing dictatorship it is the right-wing packed off to insane asylums.
We have tilted the scale in our country to protection of the rights of the mentally ill.
Just suggesting someone is “crazy” is grounds to be sued {1}
But we do not have an effective system of getting people who need help into the “system” for treatment, our “treatment” systems are heavy with drugs and warehousing and do little to help people function in society, and our ability to intervene in situations where someone is acting in such a way that they might be a potential threat is broken.
We need to figure out a fair and just way to intervene when people really need some help without the intervention system being abused by folks who want to lock up people they don’t like or disagree with. A tough problem, indeed.
But we’re a smart country and ought to be able to set up a system where a guy like Loughner can’t walk into a gun shop and buy a Glock 19 with extended ammo clips.
The problem is multi -faceted and there isn’t a clear simple solution. Real problems are like that.
If there is blame…it is widespread throughout our culture. There is no one simple point of fault.
What we can do is try and tone down the inflammatory rhetoric a bit and treat those we disagree with respect.
What we can do is take a hard look at who gets to carry around what kind of firepower on our streets, in our stores and in our public places.
What we can do is a lot better job of identifying people like Jared Loughner and getting them the help they need before they act out their delusions.
As Pogo said “we have met the enemy and he is us.”
[1} I once defended a publication in a libel case over a published statement that the person was “crazy”. Truth is a defense and we won.
January 11th, 2011 on 4:14 pm
I can’t say that I share your concern for firearms training (or it’s lack) as having a significant part to play as a solution to our problems.
If the Giffords shooter had known what he was doing when he selected his caliber and ammo, Giffords wouldn’t have survived.
When I think of events where the shooter DID have training, I come up with Oswald and the Beltway Sniper . In both instances we are all worse off as a result of their knowledge of firearms.
January 12th, 2011 on 7:54 am
…where the shooter DID have training…
I can’t help but think of R. Lee Ermy’s extolling the marksmanship and training of the Texas Tower shooter in “Full Metal Jacket”.
January 11th, 2011 on 4:16 pm
Did you know the man that tackled the shooter has a concealed weapons permit and was caring at the time of the incident. report that.
January 11th, 2011 on 5:31 pm
tonyspdx: Which man was that? The reports I’ve read all say that it was an injured woman (and a jammed gun) who stopped the shooter.
January 12th, 2011 on 7:30 am
You don’t need a concealed carry permit in Arizona. And there was an interview with the guy on NBC Dateline….he chose not to pull his weapon in his response and first impression is the guy actually seemd very well trained about what to do when.
January 11th, 2011 on 4:23 pm
Hugh….
Gun control is dead
“Let me add another dimension to the gun rights debate….the Second Amendment refers to a “well regulated militia”.”
Research the meaning of “regulated” in the vernacular of the time it was writtten, it likely does not mean what you think it means….
I say again, gun control is dead in this country, Cliintons so called “assault weapons” ban very likely put more of them in circulation then would otherwise be out there. It took over a year for gun sales and prices to settle down due to demand after Obama was elected…..folks feared he was a gun grabber..
Look at the news reports today of surging gun sales….
Gun control is dead
The democrat party as a whole knows that the issue is a loser for them, you will be hard pressed to find a politician in anywhere but the safest district that will even float the idea.
If you want SAFETY in relation to GUNS then get behind K-12 firearms safety training, that is if safety is really your goal….
Do it for the children…… si se puede
January 12th, 2011 on 7:49 am
Gun control is dead
For now, I believe this is true. But change is the natural state of all things and periods of seeming stability only reflect conflicting forces that are temporarily in balance. Not that I favor gun control in the US. I like that other countries are wise enough not to allow people to own weapons whose only purpose is to kill other people, but that is not the way of things (for now) in the US. In the meantime, there are too many on the right who are fanatical and armed.
January 12th, 2011 on 7:52 am
If you want SAFETY in relation to GUNS then get behind K-12 firearms safety training, that is if safety is really your goal….
No Ethnic Studies, but use the time to teach firearm science? Even if you don’t see it, you folks on the right are not motivated to promote your program by the “common sense” you seem to believe you are motivated by, but rather by an agenda promoting the kind of country you would like to see.
January 12th, 2011 on 7:53 am
I’m not sure gun “control” versus regulation is the same issue.
I am not advocating taking guns per se away from people (except criminals and the mentally defective to use the federal term). But I think meaningful distinctions can be made as to what sort of firepower is available to whom and with what level of training.
While I doubt if a K-12 education system is the answer…I do agree that we need a very wide spread basic education about guns whether or not someone is actually wanting to own and use one…with more degrees of training above that depending on the role one wants to play.
Coming back to the basic education level….having grown up with guns one gets a really good idea of the damage they can do and the responsibility that goes with firearms possession and use. That level of education was sort of basic as a part of rural life and family members took care of this.
Ideally the basic training including having the opportunity to do some shooting (like was offered in summer camps) changes the fear of guns to respect and responsibility. Fire is beneficial or can burn homes and forests down. We cannot be afraid of fire…we must learn how to use it positively. Same for guns.
Even though I had what I’d call “basic training” with a wide range of firearms as a kid…when put in a situation of working with cops in the field under cover it was immediately obvious I really didn’t know squat about how to use a weapon in the context of real-time crime situations. The cops involved were not about to have me out there without being a functional part of the team on the ground, so I got a cop’s vesion of Police Academy with a real life “pass fail” situation in which to assess wheter or not I had any business being out there. I passed…but gained a whole new comprehension about how really difficult it is to keep your cool when bullets are flying or someone is waving a weapon around.
There is a kind of training that law enforcement folks as well as emergency responders and crisis management people get that focuses on, what I’ll call “being in the zone” where one goes to a different level of consciousness, your training kicks in, you’re not over thinking a situation, and you act appropriately and responsibly. The aide that went to Gabby’s side and used his training to save her life for example…listening to him talk about what he did and why he did it…wow….
There are what I call the “oath people” who are tasked with law enforcement and emergency response who…when the gunfire starts or the planes hit buildings run towards the event…not away from it. The nore of us that are “oath people” the better for all.
What concerns me is there are a lot of people who think that by just merely owning a wespon, they are prepared to deal with a crisis situation…and I’m sure there are many who have the right instincts to act…but I also think that a whole lot of people would benefit from the kind of training that is offered in the emergency response and law enforcement venues.
The last decade, because of my duties and responsibilities in Nogales, I went through a lot of additional training and drills in the FEMA emergency response context and have served in various capacities in Emerency Operations Center management of stuff like train wrecks as well as training exercises such as having a bunch of terrorists blow up the port of entry and inflitrate into the city carrying automatic weapons.
I encourage everyone to consider taking some of the training that’s available for citizens to be part of an emergency response effort. Check the FEMA website or your local fire station for training opportunities.
When you look at how everyone acted in the wake of the shooting….there were obviously lots and lots of doing the right stuff because they were trained.
I think the gun debate has to focus on responsibility and not just rights.
January 13th, 2011 on 9:45 am
Hugh,
One issue that you are bucking against is the “restriction” of weapon purchase by people who have mental issues and criminals. It was over 30 years ago that the ACLU fought and won in courts for the “rights” of mentally disturbed people to own weapons. They are still fighting for former felons “rights” to be reinstated.
I agree that the issue is about individual responsibility. All actions have consequences, both good and bad. It is past time to stop making excuses for criminal actions and start enforcing the consequences.