Paul BoudreauA Tragedy In Tuscon
January 9th 2011 22:56
:
On Politics Becoming Dangerous
Good Afternoon,
Before I begin, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the victims of the Tuscon, Arizona shootings that took place yesterday, as well as their families. If any of them ever have cause to read this post, I hope they do not think I am using their tragedy as a piece of evidence to make a point or two.
That being said.
It is, unfortunately, only after such horrific events that there seems to be a (brief) pause in the helter-skelter pace of American politics to examine the causes of such things. After Oklahoma City, the Pentagon Bombing, even 9/11, there have been brief moments where people were able to step back from their own self serving agendas and re-election campaigns and ask the fundamental question "are we doing this the right way?" The short, easy answer is : probably not. But, contrary to popular belief, the vitriolic tone of American politics is not unique to America. French, German, Italian, Canadian, English and Dutch politicians attack each others character all the time. South Koreans brawl on the floor of the legislature. In the city of Karachi, Pakistan, they counted their 300th political targeted killing of 2010 in August. So, with apologies to all of you exceptionalists out there, but America is certainly not a world leader in this regard. The tone of political discourse, though childish, foolish and, in some instances violent, is no better and not much worse than most other Democracies. That's the nature of Democracy- free speech means people are going to say stupid and hurtful things in order to make your point. The NRA Spokes-Grizzly, now notorious hit list (including cross-hairs) which targeted Representative Giffords was without question in bad taste, but impossible to blame. I agree with the sentiment, as apologist as it is, coming out of the Tea Party side which generally runs along the line that anything anyone public says can be misinterpreted by any nutcase to mean anything and set them off somehow. Not exactly taking responsibility for their rhetoric, which has been criticized as inflammatory since day 1, but at the same time understandable and probably correct.
However (and it's a big however).
If you look at this rhetoric, there are some specific instances that creep out at you which I think are more indicative of what the large gray pachyderm in the room might, or should, be. You have Ms. Palin with "Don't Retreat... Instead Reload!", Sharron "2nd Amendment" Angle's famous home remedies, and some of the lovely anti-health care reform paraphernalia on display last year. You won't hear any of the (generally) timid politicians in Washington say anything about this (at least until polling tells them it's ok and they're walking in safe territory) but the issue here should be one of simple gun control.
Let's try a simple, if unappetizing, thought experiment.
Say, for example, that it was illegal in Arizona to carry a firearm without a permit. Or even to carry one at all. And (logically) that extended magazine semi-automatic nine-millimeter handguns were illegal in civilian hands. Where does that leave us? I'd see two possible scenarios.
First, this cowardly, unremarkable lunatic who decided to assassinate a Congresswoman would have had much greater difficulty procuring his weapon of choice. A proper background check would likely have found him too mentally unstable to own a weapon of such destructive potential legally. This would have a) forced him to the black market. Here, he may have successfully purchased the gleaming phallus-extender of his dreams... or he may have been arrested for trying to do so, as gun-control means increased law enforcement to deal with gun trafficking... and less time wasted on gun related violence as there are-wait for it-less guns. It becomes a 50/50 chance (theoretically anyways) He also would probably had to pay more for it and, impulsive as the nature of his crime would seem to be, I don't see him being a big saver... so maybe he can't afford his big bang-bang, and instead has to go to plan B...
Plan B- Unable to procure a sufficiently deadly firearm (the cap-guns at his local Target department store just don't do it for him, and he never trusted that marbles and slingshots could ACTUALLY kill someone), our would-be Oswald instead decides to slay the great socialist dragon in a more symbolic way. He goes down to the mall and buys a sword and then heads down to the corner event, and swings at the Congresswoman... missing horribly. And then what. Even he is bewildered by the events that have just transpired when he is tackled by several bystanders who refer to him as Lance-not as they hold him down and wait for police to take him to a psych hearing presided over by the very Judge he hasn't just killed.
But of course, this is not what happened. If you look here, you'll find that it actually fairly easy to get weapons in Arizona. You do not need a permit. Or registration. Or even (if you are a licensed hunter, or on your way to a gun club) to be OVER THE AGE OF 14. So my theoretical assassin who was facetiously foiled in the sarcastic scenarios I set up (I claim no realism, just good old fashioned satire) became a very real killer. He claimed 6 lives (including the aforementioned US District Court Judge John Roll, as well as 9 year old Chirstina-Taylor Green) and wounded numerous others, including a sitting Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. And he did so needlessly.
I (among many others) was talking about the US Constitution the other day. As the discussion was going on all week, around the web, about amendments and repeals and re-writing history, I (with a view towards my easily visible anti-gun ownership sentiments) was drawn to reflect on a book by one of my favorite American authors, Leon Uris, called A God In Ruins. In it, a former Marine turned Governor of Colorado makes a run for president (I won't spoil it for you by telling you how he does) as a Democrat against a Republican Free-Market Business First type. One of the issues that propels him to national prominence and which he holds dear is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is vague and used by people of ill intent, such as shady militias, criminals and the arms industry as a patriotic veil to cover their own base agendas.
The Second Amendment came from a frontier time when America was surrounded by hostile forces and expanding its territory (some might argue illegally) through the use of citizen settlers and militias, as opposed to a persistent standing Army. As time passed this changed and, while the possession of firearms may serve as a safety blanket to those who feel their way of life as an American is threatened by the boogeymen of urban crime, communist invasion and international terrorism, a Glock is unlikely to stop any of them. The time for guns to be readily available to the public for anything other than hunting is long past, and handgun ownership should be the first casualty. Only gun dealers, manufacturers, paranoids and people such as the person who perpetrated yesterday's horror benefit from the lax attitude towards guns in America.
Everyone else is just a victim waiting to happen.
PSRB
Note: I refuse to use the name of the assailant in this attack. People who do this type of thing are often out for attention and to celebritise themselves and I refuse to vindicate this behavior by giving him an extra google hit. Below, however, are the names of the 6 people killed in the attack. I would ask my readers to keep their families in their thoughts and to think about how different the world might have been if their killer had been disarmed at the source, instead of while he was trying to reload.
Judge John Roll- Age 63
Gabe Zimmerman- Age 30- Community Organizer for Rep. Giffords
Dorothy Morris- Age 76 - Retiree
Dorwan Stoddard- Age 76 - Retiree- died protecting his wife from gunfire
Phyllis Schneck- Age 79 - Retiree
Christina-Taylor Green- Age 9 - Born on September 11th, 2001, life a symbol of hope and tragedy.
Before I begin, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the victims of the Tuscon, Arizona shootings that took place yesterday, as well as their families. If any of them ever have cause to read this post, I hope they do not think I am using their tragedy as a piece of evidence to make a point or two.
That being said.
It is, unfortunately, only after such horrific events that there seems to be a (brief) pause in the helter-skelter pace of American politics to examine the causes of such things. After Oklahoma City, the Pentagon Bombing, even 9/11, there have been brief moments where people were able to step back from their own self serving agendas and re-election campaigns and ask the fundamental question "are we doing this the right way?" The short, easy answer is : probably not. But, contrary to popular belief, the vitriolic tone of American politics is not unique to America. French, German, Italian, Canadian, English and Dutch politicians attack each others character all the time. South Koreans brawl on the floor of the legislature. In the city of Karachi, Pakistan, they counted their 300th political targeted killing of 2010 in August. So, with apologies to all of you exceptionalists out there, but America is certainly not a world leader in this regard. The tone of political discourse, though childish, foolish and, in some instances violent, is no better and not much worse than most other Democracies. That's the nature of Democracy- free speech means people are going to say stupid and hurtful things in order to make your point. The NRA Spokes-Grizzly, now notorious hit list (including cross-hairs) which targeted Representative Giffords was without question in bad taste, but impossible to blame. I agree with the sentiment, as apologist as it is, coming out of the Tea Party side which generally runs along the line that anything anyone public says can be misinterpreted by any nutcase to mean anything and set them off somehow. Not exactly taking responsibility for their rhetoric, which has been criticized as inflammatory since day 1, but at the same time understandable and probably correct.
However (and it's a big however).
If you look at this rhetoric, there are some specific instances that creep out at you which I think are more indicative of what the large gray pachyderm in the room might, or should, be. You have Ms. Palin with "Don't Retreat... Instead Reload!", Sharron "2nd Amendment" Angle's famous home remedies, and some of the lovely anti-health care reform paraphernalia on display last year. You won't hear any of the (generally) timid politicians in Washington say anything about this (at least until polling tells them it's ok and they're walking in safe territory) but the issue here should be one of simple gun control.
Let's try a simple, if unappetizing, thought experiment.
Say, for example, that it was illegal in Arizona to carry a firearm without a permit. Or even to carry one at all. And (logically) that extended magazine semi-automatic nine-millimeter handguns were illegal in civilian hands. Where does that leave us? I'd see two possible scenarios.
First, this cowardly, unremarkable lunatic who decided to assassinate a Congresswoman would have had much greater difficulty procuring his weapon of choice. A proper background check would likely have found him too mentally unstable to own a weapon of such destructive potential legally. This would have a) forced him to the black market. Here, he may have successfully purchased the gleaming phallus-extender of his dreams... or he may have been arrested for trying to do so, as gun-control means increased law enforcement to deal with gun trafficking... and less time wasted on gun related violence as there are-wait for it-less guns. It becomes a 50/50 chance (theoretically anyways) He also would probably had to pay more for it and, impulsive as the nature of his crime would seem to be, I don't see him being a big saver... so maybe he can't afford his big bang-bang, and instead has to go to plan B...
Plan B- Unable to procure a sufficiently deadly firearm (the cap-guns at his local Target department store just don't do it for him, and he never trusted that marbles and slingshots could ACTUALLY kill someone), our would-be Oswald instead decides to slay the great socialist dragon in a more symbolic way. He goes down to the mall and buys a sword and then heads down to the corner event, and swings at the Congresswoman... missing horribly. And then what. Even he is bewildered by the events that have just transpired when he is tackled by several bystanders who refer to him as Lance-not as they hold him down and wait for police to take him to a psych hearing presided over by the very Judge he hasn't just killed.
But of course, this is not what happened. If you look here, you'll find that it actually fairly easy to get weapons in Arizona. You do not need a permit. Or registration. Or even (if you are a licensed hunter, or on your way to a gun club) to be OVER THE AGE OF 14. So my theoretical assassin who was facetiously foiled in the sarcastic scenarios I set up (I claim no realism, just good old fashioned satire) became a very real killer. He claimed 6 lives (including the aforementioned US District Court Judge John Roll, as well as 9 year old Chirstina-Taylor Green) and wounded numerous others, including a sitting Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. And he did so needlessly.
I (among many others) was talking about the US Constitution the other day. As the discussion was going on all week, around the web, about amendments and repeals and re-writing history, I (with a view towards my easily visible anti-gun ownership sentiments) was drawn to reflect on a book by one of my favorite American authors, Leon Uris, called A God In Ruins. In it, a former Marine turned Governor of Colorado makes a run for president (I won't spoil it for you by telling you how he does) as a Democrat against a Republican Free-Market Business First type. One of the issues that propels him to national prominence and which he holds dear is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is vague and used by people of ill intent, such as shady militias, criminals and the arms industry as a patriotic veil to cover their own base agendas.
The Second Amendment came from a frontier time when America was surrounded by hostile forces and expanding its territory (some might argue illegally) through the use of citizen settlers and militias, as opposed to a persistent standing Army. As time passed this changed and, while the possession of firearms may serve as a safety blanket to those who feel their way of life as an American is threatened by the boogeymen of urban crime, communist invasion and international terrorism, a Glock is unlikely to stop any of them. The time for guns to be readily available to the public for anything other than hunting is long past, and handgun ownership should be the first casualty. Only gun dealers, manufacturers, paranoids and people such as the person who perpetrated yesterday's horror benefit from the lax attitude towards guns in America.
Everyone else is just a victim waiting to happen.
PSRB
Note: I refuse to use the name of the assailant in this attack. People who do this type of thing are often out for attention and to celebritise themselves and I refuse to vindicate this behavior by giving him an extra google hit. Below, however, are the names of the 6 people killed in the attack. I would ask my readers to keep their families in their thoughts and to think about how different the world might have been if their killer had been disarmed at the source, instead of while he was trying to reload.
Judge John Roll- Age 63
Gabe Zimmerman- Age 30- Community Organizer for Rep. Giffords
Dorothy Morris- Age 76 - Retiree
Dorwan Stoddard- Age 76 - Retiree- died protecting his wife from gunfire
Phyllis Schneck- Age 79 - Retiree
Christina-Taylor Green- Age 9 - Born on September 11th, 2001, life a symbol of hope and tragedy.
| 32 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by nightlydvdreview
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
1. If he was going to kill someone, and gun control was more stringent, it would have done little to stop him. Why? Because someone who is going to kill someone else would have no issue with stealing someone else's firearm to do it. If this would not have worked, he could have just as easily used a stolen vehicle. It is likely that different people would have died in that incident. It is also likely that those dead and injured would have increased.
2. Palin is not the only person to use vitriolic rhetoric in a campaign. It has also been widely used by the Democratic party (including Obama.) I can cite examples if needed, but those examples are widely available.
3. I totally disagree with the use of violent speech to get a point across. To me, it is the same as two school-yard bullies going at it over who gets to abuse the little guy first. That being said, the politicians USING the terms that they chose (on BOTH sides) are not as responsible as the news media that incite people for the ratings. What ever happened to simply reporting the news? I can answer that question. They found a way to profit.
4. Interesting side note that links to this above, (and verifiable as well.)
Fox News is owned, primarily by one man. (5% ownership is from a Saudi Prince as well)
CNN is owned by GE (primarily)
Fox is conservative. CNN is liberal. MSNBC is liberal.
All are owned by big business and media moguls.
The same man that owns Fox also has stock in GE AND they own the National Geographic Channel TOGETHER.
CNN, Fox, and MSNBC ALL donated to GW Bush's re-election campaign.
GE is the primary producer of jet engines for the US Military.
(That is just the tip of the iceberg.)
SUPPOSEDLY, there were no WMDs found in Iraq. (Although the CIA, FBI, HMSS, Homeland Security, Mossad, and EVERY major intelligence office said it existed.)
Article is too long, but look at it here:
Really Long Link
Comment by Paul Boudreau
Paulitical Thoughts
First and foremost, thanks for the input. I appreciate your having taken the time to read and respond to my post. Makes me feel all warm and cuddly in my cold blogger heart.
Secondly, with respect you your comment's content, I agree with both your second and third points in principle. I say in principle because, while I feel, as you so eloquently detail in your points, that violent speech is problematic in political discourse, I have to note that the abolition of said speech allows the terms of free speech to be set by the hate mongers themselves. I do believe that politicians and other public figures have a responsibility to measure their tone in their utterances and weigh it's potential harm against the good it may cause. I also believe that a large portion of the problem can be attributed to the sound-bite, media driven culture prevailing in the era of web based media, the 24 hour news cycle, where politicians are driven to create a 10 second clip that is more quotable, more outrageous than their competitors. In this I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion of the media's role in feeding the beast.
I also acknowledge that my choice of examples of violent political metaphors was skewed towards those coming from the Tea Party driven side of the right. The left also has its examples of extreme speech, even firearm's driven ones, which numerous bloggers and pundits have been quick to point out in the already heating up he said-she said-Obama said debate that took about 6 hours after the shooting ended to start. The point I was trying to make is that these statements, as misguided as they may be, are as likely to make someone kill as, say Jodie Foster, John Lennon, the Bible, or any number of other things. The debate over the tone in Washington has been raging for a while, and if this event helps to pull back the vitriol a little, then maybe some positives can come out of it. But I would also love, on a personal level, to see the debate also move to the question of whether Americans need to have access to the kind of weapons that can make the idea of doing this so very easy.
Thanks again for the comment,
PSRB