Foreign Policy
National Security
-
COIN
7 Lessons for the Next Small War
-
Marine Corps
What Game Is Gen. Amos Playing?
-
Culture
Make Your Soldiers Feel Like Family
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Monday, January 10, 2011 - 7:30 AM
Share
I have nothing greatly illuminating to add about the shootings on Saturday, except that killing a little girl and a federal judge and shooting a member of Congress who is meeting with constituents feels to me like an attack on our system. They say the guy is crazy, as if that makes it inexplicable, but it still feels like a blow to the way of life we aspire to have. I wonder if the weekend felt like the 1935 shooting of Huey Long.
My question: At what point does the right to own a firearm begin to impinge on other people's rights?
OK, try it this way: At what point does the right of crazy people to buy weapons begin to seem crazy?
On a More Defense-Related Note
My delayed reaction was to remember a line Heath Ledger uttered in the role of the Joker:
"If a truck full of soldiers gets killed tomorrow, then nobody panics. Because it's all part of the plan. But if I kill one little mayor, then everyone loses their mind."
While the shooting is certainly tragic, I can't help but feel there's a remarkable disparity in the greater public's reactions. 499 troops dead in Afghanistan last year, and media coverage on it is fading due to low ratings while Iraq is one of the "most underreported stories of the year." Someone dies in LA (not California, but just LA) about once every three days. How many people know that?
But a Congresswoman and a few other people get shot, and the news and social networks light up like a Christmas tree.
I don't know about everyone else, but for all the talk about Palin's targets and our national dialogue, it bothers me a lot more that we demonstrate the prescience of Gotham City's resident psychopath.
Could be applied to plenty of things.
But - the craziness and anger of late has obviously been directed at the political system, so when some loon snaps, he goes to to what he's seen the most of, during his fevered internet web crawls.
I don't know who said it, but they were right: all the talk about "2nd Amendment solutions" and "don't retreat, reload" is 'fun' for the speakers, because you get applause and laughs and it's funny and everybody has a grand old time...but there are sick, demented people in the world, and it's not funny to them.
If you keep yelling 'fire' in a crowded room, eventually people will start running, even if there's no fire or smoke. Seems like that's what's been happening the last year or so.
I don't know....I know the Internet exaggerates everything in a way we never had to deal with before, and that there's really no such thing as common ground anymore...It's a lousy way to start off what will probably be another really bad year.
We don't ask the deeper question
We are a violent society... violence is part of our countrie's past and present.... awash in guns and a cultural affinity for glamorizing the use of guns....
I remember the the week UVA student Yardley Love was murdered by her boyfriend... and the national and international news media invaded UVA to cover the story around the clock... a 16 year old girl was shot in the temple with an AK-47 in SE DC... a beef over a cheap fake gold wrist bracelet ... wrong place at the wrong time and Brishell Jones became part of the cities crime statistics... But no media trucks swarmed her neighborhood... no national or international news reporters... because Brishell Jones died where this kind of violence is just another story in the back of the metro section of the Washington Post... Brishell Jones was murdered in a place nobody cares about...
That story still bothers me...
My heart and prayers go out to those affected by this weekends tragic event in AZ... Lets hope some good comes from all of this evil....
We don't ask the deeper question
We are a violent society... violence is part of our countrie's past and present.... awash in guns and a cultural affinity for glamorizing the use of guns....
I remember the the week UVA student Yeardley Love was murdered by her boyfriend... and the national and international news media invaded UVA to cover the story around the clock... a 16 year old girl was shot in the temple with an AK-47 in SE DC... a beef over a cheap fake gold wrist bracelet ... wrong place at the wrong time and Brishell Jones became part of the cities crime statistics... But no media trucks swarmed her neighborhood... no national or international news reporters... because Brishell Jones died where this kind of violence is just another story in the back of the metro section of the Washington Post... Brishell Jones was murdered in a place nobody cares about...
That story still bothers me...
My heart and prayers go out to those affected by this weekends tragic event in AZ... Lets hope some good comes from all of this evil....
In a two-part article that was not buried.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060200096.html?nav=emailpage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060300109.html?nav=emailpage
The national and international news covered the -any- murders in SE DC? News trucks from the major news outlets set up shop in SE? Because it they did, then I missed that and I apologize.
The story wasn't on the front page of the Post... it was in the metro crime section.... How many people in the US heard about the Yeardley Love murder? I heard an update about the boy friend that killed her and the charges against him yesterday... Still waiting to hear on the national news about the punk that shot Brishell Jones or how he came into possession of an AK-47... Going to be a long wait.
This violence has been common place in areas like SE DC for DECADES.... No one cares... That was my point and I think you know that Niles.... This tragic MASS shooting in SE DC didn't get 1/100 the coverage of a pretty white girl killed by her over-privileged boyfriend at an elite public university...
Point is... We are a violent culture/society.... and this violence is common place and tolerated based on your demographic and geography... Too sad.
I thought the same thing when this happened. There were these big moments of silence in the capital etc.. and I felt bad being kind of disgusted by it...but I was. Hundreds of young AMERICAN soldiers are dying in horrible ways in foreign lands and they are forgotten. We dont know their names, no one holds national moments of silence for them, and yet they are one of our most important resources. While I feel horrible about Rep. Giffordds, who seemed like a great politician, indeed the kind we need, I still felt that I what I have been witnessing, the moments of silence, the 24/7 coverage when no new news actually exists, and the pundits all continuing to spout their divisive drivel if only in a friendlier tone, was all part of some sick political stunt taking advantage of a tragedy...and it made my stomach turn.
I just want to make a quick comment, although I realize I am a bit late to the party on this post.
Tom, first the use of the graphic, whether you feel it is defensible or not. is wrong, erroneous, and disappointing...but as the moderator and author of this blog is your prerogative. However, a few prescient details should be introduced.
First off, the gunman (his name doesn't deserve to be printed) had demonstrated anti-government sentiment well prior to Palin's ad.
Second, to imply (yours or those of other commentors on your blog) that this was a conservative, neo-conservative, or Republican spawned use of military-themed discourse in the political realm is ridiculous. What about the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC 'Target' lists that come out every election cycle..?(the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC do the same thing) This isn't a R or a D thing...it's a two-way street...so perhaps other variables ought to be discussed.
Third, to imply that Sarah Palin had something to do with this is ridiculous....President Obama could be equally guilty as engendered by some of his quotes during the 2008 campaign...so does he too deserve equal ire? Moreover, it seems we are letting the perpetrator actually become a victim to his circumstances...I'm sorry but if a person commits a crime...especially one as heinous as this one they are the one to blame...not their circumstances, not their parents, etc...there are certainly variables which can help us understand the why's and provide context, but to say that his political beliefs (which are undefined at best at the moment) are what is to blame is akin to saying silverware is killing people because they eat too much....is it the spoon or the person?
There is much more I'd like to say, but I'm sure it wouldn't be read...just a few things to be reminded of....but then again...nobody asked me.
As a resident of Tucson, AZ, and having enjoyed a breakfast with Gabby Gifford’s I do have a few thoughts on this matter. Clarence Dupnik the Pima County Sherriff was right in bringing attention to the issue of provocative hate speech on talk radio and TV. Indeed, in the recent election campaign such spiteful speech was a common feature of local radio here in Tucson often paid for by groups outside of the campaign’s themselves.
Abusive and vituperative language does have consequences for those in our society who are susceptible to irrational behavior and suffer psychological instability. It is akin to stoking glowing embers into a full-fledged conflagration. Additionally, as Tom points out firearms are as easy to buy in Arizona as shoes. Even with a superficial background check it is virtually impossible to detect deep-seated psychological issues in a buyer. I speak as a collector of firearms who has a collection of over 104 pieces, but who also happens to be strong supporter of sensible and workable gun control laws though I have a skeptical view of their practicality. My view is that like drug or traffic laws only the law-abiding pay any attention to them, criminals and the insane could care less what statues are on the books.
Sherriff Dupnik is also correct in claiming that an astoundingly beautiful state like Arizona has sadly become a Mecca for political extremists (usually right-wing loons) the disaffected and disturbed. Unfortunately, I personally run into many of them at our local public shooting range where their sense of firearms safety is as dysfunctional as the political bumper stickers on their pick-ups.
Sadly, I suspect we will just have to live with an increasingly toxic political environment while certain unstable people have access to firearms. As the father of the nine-year-old girl who was killed in the attack on Saturday said, “we live in a society with freedoms and this is the potential cost we must pay to live in that society, I would rather have the freedom than not”.
"...but who also happens to be strong supporter of sensible and workable gun control laws though I have a skeptical view of their practicality. My view is that like drug or traffic laws only the law-abiding pay any attention to them, criminals and the insane could care less what statues are on the books."
Was wondering if you could expound on why you are in favor of restrictions that will be ignored by those they are meant to restrict. And you even acknowledge that. Doesn't seem rational to me.
Why did you have to add the concluding line "Doesn't seem rational to me."
I think he's making the point that he doesn't have a good solution, he just wishes there was some way to solve the problem of crazies with guns, though it would be difficult to be fair by doing so.
But that line of yours - and this is completely my interpretation and maybe/probably you didn't mean it this way - makes it seem like you're saying he's irrational and his argument is impossible and not even worth considering. Again, maybe I'm reading waaaay too much into it...and you did say "Doesn't seem."
But still...you made your point BEFORE that last snarky-sounding line, but if you imply someone's thoughts are irrational I'm not really sure how that opens the door to a friendly exchange of ideas.
NS WEBSTER, is right in that I believe that gun ownership is not only an important right but also a very serious responsibility like owning and driving a car. My personal view is that before people are allowed to possess firearms they should be certified to do so by successfully completing a class on gun safety, storage and how the law applies to the use of firearms whether it is hunting or personal defense. I have personally filled that requirement in order to carry a State of AZ Concealed Weapon Permit and it is an excellent class and should be required for all gun owners. That is the least we can do as a society to help bring some common sense to the issue of gun ownership and use.
Yes, I am also doubtful that more and more gun laws would have much of an effect on crime for the very reason that criminals and the mentally unstable are no more concerned with abiding by guns laws, as they are any other law. However, in a civil society we at least should make an attempt to rationalize gun ownership in the same manner that we do with acquiring a driver’s license. It won’t stop illegal gun use anymore than traffic laws stop drunken driving but we owe it to ourselves to try.
Yes, you read waaaaayyy too much into it.
@JPWREL I see what you are saying.
A native Tucsonan sounding off
I should preface my statements by saying that I am a native Tucsonan and I am still numb from the events of Saturday, January 8, 2011. This feeling is further amplified because Gabby Giffords gave me my first "job" out of college. I was an intern in her office for about 6 months in 2007. I did not work personally work with Gabe Zimmerman but many people I know did. As for the other victims, I did not know them and, therefore, cannot speak to their qualities. I can for Gabby.
Gabby is one of the most pleasant, intellegent, fair, and lovely people I have worked with or for. In addition to that she is one of the best Represntatives in America. No matter what your politics are, you should all be so lucky to have someone like Gabby speak on your behalf. Why? She isn't jaded like so many of us in politics. She is probably the most dedicated member of Congress I have been around. She flies home to Tucson almost every weekend. She flies home to be with her constituents when she could be flying to see her husband who lives and works elsewhere. She does multiple events, such as the one on Saturday, every weekend. She also serves on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. She helps to ensure Ft. Huachuca and Davis Monthan AFB best serve the needs of our democracy. Her first year she went to Iraq instead of on her honeymoon. These are things we should expect from our Representatives.
As far as political discourse goes, this is solely my opinion. We have no way of knowing whether this man was influenced by the things said on TV or Radio (either side). Having said that, I am sick of people from both sides using Nazi/Hitler comparisons, insinuating violence is the answer (2nd Amendment Solutions), or treating the "other" side as the enemy. We don't live in the end of days, we won't watch America collapse. That won't happen because most people in this country are good and decent. They are people like you and me and Gabby. They are people who want to build up each other instead of tearing people down. We may not agree politically, but we are all Americans and we need to start acting like that to one another. I work around politics all the time. My friends are from both sides of the aisle. This isn't rare but we don't celebrate it enough. It may have nothing to do with the events of this past weekend but it would be nice if we all "toned it down a bit". That is the end of my rant. I don't post much but I felt compelled to say something.
My bad!
Well said, especially for its more personal relevance.
(My "got it" was directed to the post above this one...)
To the Arizonans on this thread...
...is it your impression that a disproportionate number of political extremists in Arizona are actually fairly recent arrivals in the state?
I'm thinking more about the hard core anti-immigrant types I've heard in the electronic media and during occasional visits to Arizona, many of whom speak with accents common in other parts of the country. I may be completely wrong about this, but it seemed to me the violence of political passions in Arizona were largely imported.
No superhero movie quotes occur to me at the moment, so I'm at a bit of a disadvantage there. But the fact that a lot more Americans were killed in the year before April 1865 than have died in the Afghan war didn't mean that Lincoln's murder was not a big deal.
The level of violence in American society is something we take too easily for granted, and it's certainly true that we as a people were pretty credulous for years that a regular stream of casualty reports was the price of preventing another 9/11. But violence directed against public officials really is different, and always has been.
This is because it alters the relationship between the people and their government. One reason for this is the security that further insulates public officials from the people they serve after incidents like the one in Arizona -- just try visiting with anyone in the Capitol Hill complex if you don't believe that. Another is that able public officials are very difficult to replace; their removal through violence reduces government's capacity to serve.
Of course it is also true that the exceptional nature of certain violent crimes draws attention just because it is exceptional. Most violence in America is inflicted on victims by people they know (or by criminals on other criminals), so Americans tend to think themselves immune if they don't fear their family or acquaintances. Random murder, like shark attacks, inspires fear out of all proportion to its frequency or the likelihood of its happening to any individual. But incidents like the one in Arizona are actually common enough that they are, or ought to be, deeply disturbing. The easy access to deadly weapons by people who cannot be trusted with them makes Americans as a whole less safe. That an individual with no standing to influence the conduct of government beyond the right to cast a ballot should have the ability to do so by gunning down a public official is exactly what Tom Ricks says it is.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?
"The fact that a lot more Americans were killed in the year before April 1865 than have died in the Afghan war didn't mean that Lincoln's murder was not a big deal."
I don't get the comparison. Internal war vs. foreign one, one of the best five Presidents versus a freshman congresswoman. Apples and oranges. And I'm not sure what the relative casualty rates have to do with the relative importance of Lincoln's death. Can you clarify?
"Of course it is also true that the exceptional nature of certain violent crimes draws attention just because it is exceptional. Random murder, like shark attacks, inspires fear out of all proportion to its frequency or the likelihood of its happening to any individual."
Sounds like "all part of the plan/lose your mind" to me.
I wonder how it would have been different if the assassin had used a bomb. Would anyone make the connection between the deaths then and what it's like for their troops? The Oklahoma City experience suggests not. It seems to me, just from the responses here, that even the folks who really care about defense issues want to talk about this in every context EXCEPT the current wars.
I may be the only one on this, but if I am, I say everyone else is weird.
(And if those Palin targets don't have anything to do with it, I never want to hear someone on here say "we're not fighting little old ladies from Sweden" or "if it quacks like an Islamic extremist..." again. You disciples of Ralph Peters and Yaron Brook can't have it both ways.)
What happened in Arizona was a horrible tragedy. I’m a big fan of the 2nd Amendment and the right to privacy, but perhaps after VA Tech and this, shrinks and cops should be able to work together to keep guns away from lunatics.
The Palin map is a cheap shot. Yes, overblown political rhetoric from her and the Tea Party folks is unseemly and doesn’t advance reasonable political discourse. Implying that this map had some connection to this wacko’s shooting spree isn’t advancing reasonable political discourse either. Anti-government wackos did much worse in Oklahoma City, long before Caribou Barbie and the spell check deficient crowd arrived on the scene. These are the moments when we should all take a breath and act like grownups.
Well, yeah...that's sort of the point....
We'll see how quick this descends into the usual Internet snarkiness...
But, Palin came up with the map...nobody asked her to use deliberate gun/target shooting imagery in a campaign ad; that was her choice, so either stand by completely, or admit that, yeah, maybe it was sort of unnecessary and juvenile.
It goes to what somebody said before - it's all fun and games to 90 percent of partisans. "Haha, Obama's a Kenyan socialist who will kill grandma with his death panel...haha..." And you don't really care, and you don't really believe it, but it's fun to be extreme and hyper-partisan because you (the impersonal "you") can blow off steam and be an internet tough guy on anonomous chat room forums.
But to 1 percent (or more), the US really did blow up the Twin Towers, there really is a UFO in Hanger 51, dinosaurs and men really did walk the earth together, and Cong. Giffords really is eliminating literacy in her un-Constitiutional quest for power. I don't know where this guy would ever have gotten his bizarre "gold-silver currency" theories if not for the ads on talk radio.
So that 1 percent, that Palin map actually means something...and it's just unneccesary...there's no other way to make a point? People are so shallow and ridiculous that they don't grasp what you put a bullseye over it?
I'm not even a Democrat, but generally speaking I fall more left than right - but the extreme Republicans make it impossible for me to find a-n-y common cause with them at all...so I apply the worst excesses of Palin-Coburn-Santorum to ALL of them, including Lugar, Snowe and others who I'd normally be happy to vote for, given the chance. Now? They consider me a "libtard" because I have no problem with welfare and health care? I wouldn't shake Lugar's hand, and that's his fault, not mine.
Anyway, you choose your advertisements and your imagery and you really can't be offended when somebody says "hey, you're ad where Bin Laden morphed into Vietnam Vet Max Cleland sort of implied he's a traitor." So, no, it doesn't have any 'connection' with the shooting, other than adding one more element to a climate that's already poisonous and disgusting. One more element the country didn't need - and that she didn't need to make her point, unless she's simply lazy and like to pander to the worst in people.
But, I don't see too many people in power standing by their words today, and most voters are perfectly happy to live lives as rationalizing hypocrites.
Agree -- it's a despicable cheap shot
That map probably has NOTHING to do with this entire tragedy.
But Rick (or whoever is in charge of posting the pictures) decides to politicize this when some nutcase shoots her.
Disgusting. Pathetic. Well beneath the level of discourse I thought Tom Ricks was for.
If this place is going to devolve into another left/right partisan cheap-shot fest, adios...
TR didn't come up with the map - Palin's people did.
So now they don't stand by what they did? They're the ones who chose to use bullseyes and militaristic imagery to make a political point - nobody asked them to - and now to use that as an example is politicizing it on the other end?
Like I said before, if you walk into a crowded room and start yelling "fire, oh my god!" and somebody gets trampled, you don't get to say, "well, wait, obviously I meant the fire that happened last week in that abandoned building."
It's so funny how nobody stands by their own choices and decisions. Such courage.
Is there one singly tiny iota of evidence that this leftist paranoiac loon ever saw this map? Unless there's something, it's small-minded and petty to try to link a map talking about targeting politicians (oh my, no one has ever used the word TARGET before) with what this guy did.
Maybe this loon thought he was going to knife fight and wanted to follow the President's advice.
Or maybe he reads the DailyKos and saw their map targeting Arizona and Giffords -- or their rant talking about KILLING Giffords just the day before he tried to kill her.
See how easy it is to throw out unsubstantiated accusations?
He didn't bring a knife, he brought a gun.
So you've made an extreme link to bring in the President that's totally unsupported and out of context.
You have plenty of good evidence to support your overall point - you're right, nobody has made even a tiny link between Crazy Jared and this map, or any violent campaign imagery at all. Yeah, I believe that was part of it, but obviously I don't know for sure.
But, you go with an example that doesn't actually support your point, but rather amps up the extremeness with irrelevancies. That's the problem with the current "debate." All it is (to unfortunately steal from Crazy Jared) is unrelated ad hominem statements that don't tie together and make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion.
Do you have a link for that DailyKos bit?
It was far more than a horrible tragedy
It was not a hurricane or an earthquake. It was the result of the way we live and choices we have made. Just as Muslim massacres of Hindus and vice versa are a result of the way people on the South Asian subcontinent live.
They don't have to do that, and neither do we. We don't have to live this way.
As for the Palin chart, I chose it, and am glad I did. It illustrates how the language of violence is creeping into our political discourse. And yeah, there are some nuts out there who are mentally incapable of understanding metaphor, and take everything literally.
We don't need to see the occasional gun massacres as a cost of doing business, just something that happens, nothing to do about it, move on here.
Thanks,
Tom
...but some self control with regard to the language people use in public life would be a good thing even if there were no direct connection between violent political speech and imagery and the murders in Tucson.
There is no evidence linking Sarah Palin to any of this. Those who suggest otherwise need to search their souls and perhaps the business pages for a good psychiatrist.
Yes, she used militaristic rhetoric, but such words get bandied about in political discourse all the time. It is obvious the shooter is a really messed up individual. In any case, it's only been a couple of days since the shooting and I don't know why we're all so eager to point fingers and blame people.
It appears through the accounts of those who knew the shooter best that he was fixated on Rep. Gifford as a target in 2007, well before Sarah Palin was even a household name.
Tom Ricks, you really blew it.
So who knows what he needed in the next three years to push him over the edge.
I'm not saying he ever saw Palin's map (although, good God, did you see her opponent's ads this last election cycle? They weren't a whole lot better...And I say that as a fellow veteran) but something tipped the scales in favor of this loon blasting away with his just-purchased Glock (not purchased in 2007, but like last month)....so who knows what that was, but something did, and here we are.
I served in the same Regimental Combat Team (RCT-7) as Giffords's recent opponent, Kelly. Using actual weapons in a rally is just wrong.
I agree that something pushed Loughner over the edge. You just never know with unbalanced people. It amuses me when so-called experts are already coming out and bringing up Sarah Palin without facts. They say that Sarah Palin's rhetoric was inflammator at worst and reckless at best. They're also ironically condemning themselves.
And I would just like to tell everyone that I am no Sarah Palin supporter. As a Republican I would dread her capturing the nomination, much less the White House. She does need to be careful with her words.
You have to live with it...so Palin chose the map, and gave everyone a legitimate place to point blame. If you don't want to be blamed for guns and shooting - then don't use guns and shooting in your ads and campaigns.
Having said that, again I agree that there's NO link at all yet - I guess he hasn't said a word.
But it's a political attack, and so you have to assume that he knew something about politics, and that's where his interest was, and so he saw what he saw...was it a Ren and Stimpy cartoon when he was stoned last Tuesday night, or was it the barrage of Kelly ads? Who knows?
The tragedy is that we are soooo polarized as a country that it's just assumed that something like this will be used for political gain if it can be, and that both sides first reaction is defending their position, not coming together in any way.
I can't stand the Republican rhetoric or behavior of the last couple years, so I'm as guilty as the next guy...
lots of good comments on this one, its a touchy subject, I would only offer that at what point do you sacrifice your freedom (in this case freedom of speech) out of the fear of how one or two crazy people will react. Political speech in the US is the most protected speech there is, the "Freedom for the Thought We Hate" is more valuable in this country than the fear of how a lunitic fringe would react...that being said, there is always a place for personal responsibility in what you say.
Tom, I respectfully disagree with your use of the Palin map to illustrate this post. Sure, the Palin idiots made it, but only in the unfortunate manner that almost everyone tends to use sports and military terms and analogies to explain politics. It is unfortunate, but not literal.
Was John Hinkley political? Lee Harvey or Sirhan? No. They were all delusional individuals acting out the terrifying thoughts in their heads. It does look like this kid was sadly and deeply disturbed. He was obsessed with the congresswoman... and the numerology of currency and the proper use of grammar. Crazy. Not political.
That said, the vitriol on both sides of the political spectrum has gotten so far out of hand as to be sickening. If everyone remains calm and stops looking for political advantage in this tragedy something positive might still be salvaged from this horrible event.
Sadly, I fear that will not be the case...
Lee Harvey and Sirhan were at least sort of political
They seemed to have specific political ideas in mind, anyway...whether they made a lot of sense is another question.
If I say "the sky is blue" I actually expect you to take me literally...and if I was talking to somebody deranged and I said "you understand this paper dollar is an example of un-Constitutional tyranny," why is it any different? Yeah, maybe that time I didn't mean for him to take me literally - but I'm not in his mind, he can take it however he wants - it's a free country.
Yeah, 99.9 percent of people think that it's all harmless fun to call the President a socialist Kenyan, or say that Bush personally flew a plane into Tower I or whatever...but there's .01 percent that can legally buy Glocks and shoot anybody they want and take literally anybody's extreme crazy statements....and that's totally ignored in this constant stream of hate speech that masquerades as our democracy.
Perhaps it's too much to ask...
...but it seems to me that people might want to wait a bit for some actual evidence before pronouncing or absolving responsibility for this crime. If any of you have some real knowledge of this man's motivations, as opposed to hot air blown from one's fourth point of contact, then I suggest you go to FBI.gov and give your information to the relevant authorities.
The Washington Post and the New York Times, the sources I used to learn about this person, as the nation's fourth point of contact them I might just agree with you.
We have been here before and sadly it was not that long ago. Timothy McVeigh and the Murrah Building. The toxic environment in going after and trying to de-legitimize President Clinton. Black helicopters, the suicide of Vince Foster and so forth. Jared Loughner is a deranged individual just like John Hinkley. But still, 2nd Amendment remedies and "Don't retreat, reload" have created a caustic, toxic environment in politics. Questioning the legitimacy of President Obama to be the duly elected Commander In Chief is just part of the insanity we have created in America. Jared Loughner just took it to its most extreme edge. Yes, he is totally responsible for his actions. But right now, can't we just all get along. I keep thinking of Pogo and what he said." We have met the enemy and he is us".
"My question: At what point does the right to own a firearm begin to impinge on other people's rights?"
---The mere owning of a firearm is never an infringement of other peoples rights.
OK, try it this way: At what point does the right of crazy people to buy weapons begin to seem crazy?"
---From the get go. And it's my understanding that "crazy people" do not have a "right" to buy a gun. That they do succeed in buying guns is an entirely different issue.
But I like how you have linked the 2nd Amendment to insanity. Well done. And much more subtle than Paul Krugman blaming this on the Right, even though, as has been reported, this guy was a far left liberal loony. Literally.
I don't mind people advocating for their political positions and opinions, but it is disturbing that some people can never turn it off.
Nothing to do with right or left
And everything to do with the fact that the nut could get a gun so easily.
Best,
Tom
The politics are i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-a-n-t
It doesn't really matter if his "beliefs," such that they were, fall into a 'liberal' or 'conservative' spectrum...you can't even apply a normal belief system to somebody who's completely deluded. And in any event, his gold standard nonsense is a staple of conspiracy theories of talk radio more than anything.
But - something - kickstarted his delusions into a reasonable way of acting. I find it difficult to believe that - out of the clear blue sky - he picked some his congresswoman as the target of his insanity. By all accounts, he's on the internet constantly, feverishly looking up whatever feed his addled brain - well, it so happens that what he'll get a lot of is militarisitic, violent talk that's supposedly political debate.
It doesn't matter his politics, but that to a crazy person this seemed like a logical way to approach the situation. The psycho in Virginia used the supposed phoniness of his fellow student, and this nut - for reasons known only to him - chose a local political event. It IS an attack on the system, driven by rhetoric that - to the crazy - makes violent behavior seem like a good idea.
It's a sick world, and crazy people don't need much to set them off...but for crying out loud, do we need to make it easier for them, and then act like we're surprised when it actually happens?
And now I see so many typos in my reply....
That I seem deluded. Awesome.
Being topical without editing privileges can be difficult. Based on what I think you are saying, I don't disagree with you. My problem is with people like Krugman who use events like this to promote their politics.
Maybe we have lost a foundation of ethics...
...sure the second amendment provides for a right to bear arms but does an ethical man or women sell such a Glock19 without any conscience for its use or hold any responsibility for the consequences. Can a legislature absolve itself for passing laws which enable the murder of the elderly, children and political service citizens? Did not the preamble set the ethical terms upon which the Constitution was established..."promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Was not the 9 year old child, our Posterity? How does enabling psychotic use of semi automatics on children, students and soldiers promote the general welfare in Arizona, Texas and Virginia?
Last night saw the last hour of "The Third Man"...There, in stern black and white, was Harry Lime selling expired antibiotics on the black market in post war II Vienna unaffected by the horrid consequence in the pediatric wards. That cynical moneyed Rogue who can succeed only because he is of use to a friendly authoritarian. Then flipping another channel, TLC, there was the Palin blasting away with anti-riot pump action shotgun in her final appearance on Stewart's folly. Harry and the old Soviets would be pleased.
As though in the last few years - 10-15 - that we've felt like our "rights" are more important than ethical responsibility.
I could certainly point to the Internet....if you want to find a way to justify your actions, I'm sure you can find a chat forum somewhere populated by people who think exactly the same way you do, so it's easy to rationalize pretty much everything, and cloaked in anonymity, nobody's even personally accountable. You use a real, full name, which puts you in a minority of about 10 percent.
I own guns, but there has just got to be a better way when it comes to procuring them....like you say, can people take an ethical stand for their own enabling behavior? Or is that antique like the 1980s? Or were the 1980s terrible too?
Paul Krugman is an op-ed columnist, so sure, he's going to frame current events within his politics. And I believe he's exactly right- our public discourse is as vitriolic and hateful as it is, right now, because of the political right. You can't honestly argue otherwise. Liberal pundits push back and argue, yes, but there is a huge difference in tone and content.
Because he uses hateful rhetoric himself. He even advocates hanging and burning people in effigy.
And I seem to recall the stuff directed at Pres. Bush being pretty bad too, including violence being advocated. The idea that the left is innocent in all this is laughable and anyone who argues otherwise is either being disingenuous (like Krugman) or is a completely clueless tool. Which are you?
I personally take a dim view of the 'limited liability' mentality of free speech, not when other countries have their own awful experiences with incitement to violence.
But looking at spree killers over just the last two decades in the US alone, the terrible list stretches from Tucson, to Appomattox, to Binghampton, to Geneva, to Red Lake, to Virginia Tech, to DC, to Columbine, to Langley. (Apologies if I forgot other horrors)
The objective conclusions you can draw from these crimes have been that besides being universally male, angry, mostly Caucasian, mostly American citizens, and only a minority with military training ... all benefited enormously from (mostly legally) accessing quality weapons (and upgrading components) they didn't have to have competence in making themselves. Consider these firearmed criminals against similar mass killers (and would-be mass murderers) using explosives.
The other trend from these terrible events is that the advent of the Internet have meant more 'warning sign' communications of intent, with apparently limited effectivness by institutions to interdict either their murderous intent or the tools to carry it out.
If we're serious about learning from these horrors, we'd pursue a mix of strategies from: stepping back from rhetorical aggression, improving background checks (close loopholes), improving social & health interdiction programs, consider mandatory manufacturer takeback of weapons and end the peer-to-peer secondary market for weapons.
I welcome suggestions on what musical instruments we could make out of retired 9mm handguns.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(57)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE