Yesterday was once again a reminder that sometimes the outside world shall and must intrude on the writings of this site, normally focused on covering news and events in and around Davis and Yolo County. Given our focus of scrutinizing our local government and government officials, it would be foolhardy and downright irresponsible not to comment on the senseless tragedy that occurred yesterday that left six people dead, 19 more wounded, and put us within inches of seeing a member of the US House of Representatives effectively assassinated.
It was the culmination of several years of concerted efforts demonizing the federal government not just for government policies, but for perpetrating what they saw as criminal acts.
Four months into the revolution of 1994-95, and the long-concerted thrust against the Clinton Administration had produced enough pent-up anger and hatred that it exploded.
It is in this context that I view what happened yesterday in Arizona. This is not a partisan scree. This is a wake-up call. For too long our political rhetoric has been overcooked. We couch our political differences into images of war and betrayal, as though one side had a monopoly on truth and the other side were traitors in our midst.
Today we must recognize that our rhetoric has unintended consequences. That political differences are just differences of opinion – no matter how important the issue may be and how wrong we think the opposition is.
We have lost our sense of decorum, of propriety, of levity. In the early 1980s, it is often told that President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill went toe-to-toe for the future of the country. But when the fight was done, they would often hang out and socialize.
These days it is rare for members of the opposite parties to frequent social events together.
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was a Democrat, elected in the 2006 class that swept the Democrats into control of the House for the first time in over a decade. She managed to survive narrowly this last November, as her colleagues were toppled.
The political leaders for the Republican Party said all of the right things on Saturday.
The new House Speaker, John A. Boehner, said: “I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff. An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve.
“Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured and their families. This is a sad day for our country.”
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, issued one of the strongest statements, saying: “I am horrified by the violent attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and many other innocent people by a wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion. I pray for Gabby and the other victims, and for the repose of the souls of the dead and comfort for their families.”
He added, “Whoever did this, whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race.”
In the coming days and weeks, we will know more about the perpetrator, Jared Lee Loughner. If you watched the movie Conspiracy Theory, you know the significance of the three name identification.
Already the media has uncovered an internet site that contains a variety of antigovernment ramblings.
But regardless of the exact motivations for the attack by the 22-year-old Loughner, the attack is nearly certain to focus attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and instigations to violence have become part of our political culture and discourse.
We spent much of last year recoiling from the stark rhetoric of the Tea Party and some of its adherents. We had the rhetoric of the health care debate devolve into rhetoric of death panels. Insults and slurs quickly followed. In Representative Giffords’ home district, her offices were vandalized.
For their part, Tea Party activists also condemned the shooting.
Judson Phillips, of one of their founders, called Ms. Giffords “a liberal,” but added, “that does not matter now. No one should be a victim of violence because of their political beliefs.”
But this is the problem with polemic political rhetoric. Once one utters it, one loses control of the message and its impact on the less than stable. There is nothing that I support more strongly that the notion of freedom of speech and expression, but with freedom comes responsibility.
Sarah Palin used the rhetoric of the Target List, and she had the image of the crosshairs of a gun over various districts.
Of course Sarah Palin issued condolences to the family, and of course she sincerely meant it. In a time like this, there are no Democrats and Republicans. Political divides mean nothing. But when the shock and horror of this wears off she needs to stop her rhetoric, change it.
I am not saying she should abandon her ideas or cause, such as they are, but change the rhetoric. This is not a war, this is a political debate.
This was an attack on the very foundation of this nation – the notion of a free and open political system. The notion of free and open debate. The notion of dissent. This was every bit as much of an attack on our system as 9-11. I would argue it is more dangerous because the enemy is within.
It is with no less irony to note that the youngest victim of yesterday’s attack was in fact born September 11, 2001. Her name was Christina Taylor Greene. She was said to be “excited about the political process, was on the student government, and went to the Giffords event today to learn more about the political process,” family members say.
She was born on one day that changed us all, and died on another day that we should all long remember.
Recall the report in April of 2009 from Homeland Security, “Rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.”
Writes Matt Bai in today’s New York Times, “The question is whether Saturday’s shooting marks the logical end point of such a moment — or rather the beginning of a terrifying new one.”
What he says is different now from 1995, is the emergence of a new political culture “on blogs and Twitter and cable television — that so loudly and readily reinforces the dark visions of political extremists, often for profit or political gain.”
But is that really true? Is that any different from 1995 when we were lamenting the rise of talk radio in just such terms? Or in the 1930s with the rise of people like Father Coughlin who seized on new technologies to gain a voice that they might not have previously had?
Or the use of leaflets in the 1800s in town squares?
If people want to say this is something new, I disagree. It seems to me that people tend to pull back from the precipice precisely at moments like this and moments in 1995 with Oklahoma City, precisely because most people are decent people who have suddenly gained insight into the fact that their words have meaning.
As MSNBC Commentator Keith Olbermann, himself no stranger to overblown rhetoric, said in a “Special Comment,” “We need to put the guns down. Just as importantly we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently.”
“Left, right, middle – politicians and citizens – sane and insane. This morning in Arizona, this age in which this country would accept “targeting” of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended,” he continued.
He continued, “And if those of us considered to be “on the left” do not re-dedicate ourselves to our vigilance to eliminate all our own suggestions of violence – however inadvertent they might have been, then we too deserve the repudiation of the more sober and peaceful of our politicians and our viewers and our networks.
“Here, once, in a clumsy metaphor, I made such an unintended statement about the candidacy of then-Senator Clinton. It sounded as if it was a call to physical violence. It was wrong, then. It is even more wrong tonight. I apologize for it again, and I urge politicians and commentators and citizens of every political conviction to use my comment as a means to recognize the insidiousness of violent imagery, that if it can go [and] so easily slip into the comments of one as opposed to violence as me, how easily, how pervasively, how disastrously can it slip into the already-violent or deranged mind?”
What do we know today that we did not know yesterday at this time? That words and images have consequences. And we must be mindful, even in our passion, to ensure that those people of less stable mind do not somehow take solace in our anger and take our message to heart.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“left six people dead, 19 more wounded”
Too much firepower out there. Our lack of gun control enable individuals to inflict too much damage. I am all for the right to bear arms, but we need to focus more on what are “responsible arms”.
John Hinkley attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, to show his love for an actress. We don’t know exactly what motivated the latest shooting. To jump to the conclusion that devisive political rhetoric is what caused the recent shooting is premature at best. Not that I am not foresquare for toning down nasty political rhetoric just on a matter of the principle of decency and fair play…
Agreed David, the political vitriol needs to be toned down. Our President should take note, for instance president Obama stating that Latinos must “punish our enemies” referring to the right and what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”. It starts at the top.
A profound tragedy. This young man’s incoherent internet ramblings strongly suggests that he was delusional and most probably suffering from a form of psychosis. The ease with which he can obtain firearms in our “gun culture” as well as the Tea Party rhetoric certainly contributed to the manner in which his mental illness was tragically expressed.
“Tea Party rhetoric certainly contributed to the manner in which his mental illness was tragically expressed.”
Your proof?
Tragic irony abounds here. Judge Roll, killed in the shooting, took the position that the Brady Law requirement concerning “screening” of the purchaser was unconstitutional. Congressperson Gifford took a strong political position opposing restrictions on gun sales.
Ok… so despite the concept that rhetoric may lead to violence, davisite2 is laying the blame on “tea-partiers”… should they be on the next “hit list” or should we remember the lyrics, “listen people, what’s that sound? everybody look ‘what’s going down'”… or something pretty close to that… think Buffalo Springfield did it, but I’m very sure the title was “for what it’s worth”.
…or… as Pogo said (thru Walt Kelly), “we have met the enemy, and it is us…”
….davisite2 is laying the blame on “tea-partiers”…
no, hpierce, I am not laying the blame on Tea-partiers but if you read the young man’s internet writings that are relatively understandable, one cannot help but recognize that they are in sync with the Tea Party violence-laced and paranoid(IMO) narrative that our Federal government is the ENEMY.
Maybe I wasn’t clear… the danger to society is categorizing all individuals in a “group” by the actions/beliefs of some individuals who claim affiliation with that group… are all “tea party” members [quote]violence-laced and paranoid(IMO) [/quote]? are they a majority within the group? Are those who believe in the teachings of Islam, jihadists? Are those who believe in the tenets of Judaism “Christ killers”? Are German Catholics Nazi’s? Are atheists/agnostics nihilists? Are you extremely prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with your ‘world view’ and will label them anyway you can to vilify them and their opinions? I pray, not.
One thing which seems to be common among schizophrenics–and there is ample reason to think Mr. Loughner suffers from paranoid schizophrenia*–is that, if they have delusional paranoia, they will often target a celebrity. It was no coincidence that the man who killed Lennon went after a music celebrity or the man who shot Reagan went after a political celebrity or the guy who killed Rebecca Schaeffer went after a TV star.
In Tucson, Rep. Giffords was a celebrity. If this incident had happened in Davis, the target may well have been someone on our City Council. I once discussed this with a member of our City Council. The member told me that people on the council were well aware of their own vulnerability to people suffering from this sort of disease.
If you look at the writings of Mr. Loughner and you have any experience with a person with untreated paranoid schizophrenia, you will recognize that his words are not “political.” They are essentially random nonsense, a description of his misguided feelings that some larger force is out to get him and he needs to defend himself: [quote]In conclusion, reading the second United Sates Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. [/quote] My own relative who suffers from this disease talked endlessly about the CIA planting bugs inside of his ears and about listening devices in his ceiling and so on. (I have no contact with him, so I don’t know if he still has those same delusions.) His brother told me that he heard him talking about the Coca Cola Corporation “poisoning the water supply” and how he had to stop them from doing that.
My point in mentioning the CIA or Coca Cola is that when a person has this disease and it is not being treated, his focus on a politician or a corporation or an entertainer really has nothing to do with politics as we know it. It’s all inside the person’s head, a manifestation of disease.
Those who want to blame this incident on the heated rhetoric of the Tea Party, I believe, are misguided. There may be a very good case to be made to tone down our political rhetoric, to push politicians like Sarah Palin to stop using violent rhetoric and images. But none of that would have stopped Mr. Loughner.
His family appears to have known he was seriously mentally ill. His college in Tucson kicked him out over his mental illness. The military apparently rejected him for it. Yet, it seems, it went untreated. Our typical response has been, wait until a tragedy, then we will deal with Mr. Loughner.
*Source: ([url]http://mobile.latimes.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=294&nid=34512427&cid=16677&scid=1854&ith=2&title=Top+Stories[/url])[i]Dr. Mark Kalish, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at UC San Diego, said the writings had the hallmarks of mental illness and suggested that the shooting was probably premeditated and an act of delusion. “It’s got these paranoid elements,” said Kalish, who said it appeared that the writer of those words suffered from schizophrenia. “There’s a conspiratorial flavor to it,” he added. “It is nonsensical but it’s psychotic.” [/i]
I think Rifkin is correct… not sure that is a way to prevent having any “trigger” that will result in having someone who is suffering severe mental illness from acting out in unfortunate ways…
The left, Davisite, Olbermann, etc. will try and use this to attack the Tea Party even though so far there is no direct link, if it comes out later that Loughner was swayed by the right than so be it. But for now it’s just the same old dirty politics and the left trying to capitalize on a horrible happening….their actions are best described as sickening.
Point well-taken, hpierce…more correct would have been… some elements of the Tea Party… What happens, of course, is that the media acts as an “echo chamber” that magnifies these most violent-laced public narratives which bring in the most viewer interest/advertising revenue. The Tea Party movement does have a strong populist narrative. In that respect, it is not that dissimilar to the “Far Left” although quite different in its total rejection of the value of socialist economic principles while embracing socially conservative and strong nativist ideologies.
[quote]But for now it’s just the same old dirty politics and the left trying to capitalize on a horrible happening….their actions are best described as sickening. [/quote]
yea right Rusty… it’s the only the left who capitalize on “a horrible thing” did you forget the invasion of Iraq after 9/11. your being awfully Hypocritical.
Ok… maybe everyone can learn that we should act and speak as if people are sentient beings… what is “left” (Lincoln, the first Republican president, could be viewed as a ‘flaming’ liberal, or a ‘flaming’ conservative)? What is “right” (we should be concerned more about what is ‘correct’)? What is “middle/centrist”? There are lazy, arrogant leech-like public employees… there are vigorous, capable, dedicated public employees… I’d advocate going beyond labels (and libels) and sticking to merits of ideas/concepts… I’ll try to make sure I do so… anyone want to take that “pledge” as well?
Davistownie, I never said that the right doesn’t try and capitalize too. But here today were talking about the Arizona shooting and nowhere do I see the right trying to make hay out of this. Kapeesh?
Rich: His family appears to have known he was seriously mentally ill. His college in Tucson kicked him out over his mental illness. The military apparently rejected him for it.
And yet he was able to purchase a gun:
“According to law enforcement sources, Jared Loughner, the alleged Arizona gunman who shot Rep. Giffords and killed five others, including Federal judge John M. Roll, used a Glock 19, a semi-automatic pistol that was legally purchased on Nov. 30 at Sportman’s Warehouse in Tucson.”
Rifkin: “Those who want to blame this incident on the heated rhetoric of the Tea Party, I believe, are misguided. There may be a very good case to be made to tone down our political rhetoric, to push politicians like Sarah Palin to stop using violent rhetoric and images. But none of that would have stopped Mr. Loughner.
His family appears to have known he was seriously mentally ill. His college in Tucson kicked him out over his mental illness. The military apparently rejected him for it. Yet, it seems, it went untreated. Our typical response has been, wait until a tragedy, then we will deal with Mr. Loughner.”
I could not agree more…
Don Shor: “And yet he was able to purchase a gun:…”
Which is the more important issue that ought to be looked at, rather than sidetracking things onto demonizing political rhetoric as the culprit here…
I don’t ascribe anything more than mental illness as the motivation for provoking this tragedy.
But as Don Shor points out, I am very bothered that someone like Loughner (w/ identified mental illness) was able to access a gun. And I am bothered at how strenuously the NRA blocks efforts to remedy situations like this. It took six years to pass the Brady Bill, and it was only when the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency in 1993 that it finally was passed and sign into law. And the NRA was primarily responsible for the delay in passing that bill.
From ktvu.com: “Investigators said they carried out a search warrant at Jared Loughner’s home and seized an envelope from a safe with messages such as “I planned ahead,” ”My assassination” and the name “Giffords” next to what appears to be the man’s signature. He allegedly purchased the Glock pistol used in the attack in November at Sportsman’s Warehouse in Tucson.
Court documents also show that Loughner had contact with Giffords in the past. Other evidence included a letter addressed to him from Giffords’ congressional stationery in which she thanked him for attending a “Congress on your Corner” event at a mall in Tucson in 2007.”
More from ktvu.com: “In one of several YouTube videos, which featured text against a dark background, Loughner described inventing a new U.S. currency and complained about the illiteracy rate among people living in Giffords’ congressional district in Arizona.
“I know who’s listening: Government Officials, and the People,” Loughner wrote. “Nearly all the people, who don’t know this accurate information of a new currency, aren’t aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn’t have happen (sic).””
[quote] Goodbye friends: Dear friends … please don’t be mad at me. The literacy rate is below 5%. I haven’t talked to one person who is literate. [/quote] [i]Don Shor: “And yet he was able to purchase a gun:…” [/i]
That’s a terrible flaw in our so-called background check system. Think about the arsenal of guns ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?_r=1[/url]) that Seung-Hui Cho, the Va Tech madman, got ahold of. He was able to order guns on-line.
Common sense suggests that people with serious mental health problems (or a history of criminal violence) should not be able to own guns. However, I think it makes more sense to address the problem of severe mental illness with psychiatric treatment than with gun restrictions. In other words, if someone is so ill that we cannot trust him to own a gun, he probably needs to be in psychiatric treatment.
I don’t know if Mr. Loughner’s family tried to get him help. It [i]would[/i] surprise me if they did not. Our mental health system is geared in favor of civil libertarianism, against families and against public safety.
If Loughner had not acted alone, that (to me) would indicate that this was something other than a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Yesterday, the Sheriff–who reminds me of a member of the cast of the movie Cacoon–said there was a second suspect. That has now been ruled out ([url]http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/live-blog-latest-developments-on-arizona-shooting/?hp#sheriff-second-suspect-was-cab-driver-not-involved[/url]):
[i]The Pima County sheriff said on Sunday that the search for a second person had ended. He said that a man seen in a security video shortly before the suspect shooter went on his spree had been found and interviewed and cleared of any involvement in the shootings.
Investigators said that [u]the second man was a taxi driver who drove the suspected gunman to the scene[/u]. Upon arriving there, the passenger said he did not have change and he and the taxi driver went into the supermarket for change and the two then walked out together and separated.[/i]
So, based on the actions of this nut job we conclude that Tea Party is too violent and dangerous? I guess then the history of postal service union employees that go on workplace shooting rampages is an indication that the Democrat Party is also too violent and dangerous. Both conclusions make about as much rational sense. However, those on the left might want to take note of the boiling constituent anger over jobs, corporate profits and CEO pay. The left political-media apparatus has pushed this message ad nauseam as a political strategy… essentially stoking the fires of labor discontent to foster Democrat party loyalty. How many of these people would have less of a problem with a CEO being gunned down that they would a politician?
Partisanship aside, gun control aficionados will attempt to take advantage of every sensationalized event to make their case. Unfortunately for them the statistics are not on their side.
For example, the most recent FBI report shows significant reductions in crime at the same time gun ownership has increased.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009/december/crimestats_122109
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007
Many states like Massachusetts that have the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest crime rates:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20101116report_massachusetts_most_violent_state_in_northeast/srvc=home&position=recent
As an aside… what if this insane young man in Tucson had driven his truck into a crowd of people? Would we then start a movement to outlaw vehicles? Vehicles kill more people in this country than do guns.
Correction: “… reminds me of a member of the cast of the movie [s]Cacoon[/s] Cocoon.”
[img]http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/assets/images/about/dupnik.jpg[/img]
I don’t think that the Tea Party (however you choose to define it) is responsible for the deaths. I do hope that the politicians who have been using hunting/shooting references in their speeches will stop doing so out of respect for the injured and killed.
I cannot imagine any reasonable person opposing restrictions on the ability of mentally ill people to buy guns.
Crazy kid buys a gun that holds how many bullets? Thank the NRA, thank Scalia.
Crazy kid kills Federal Judge, five others and possibly a Congresswoman. Thanks Sara Palin for putting a target on her district. You can argue whether there is cause and effect all you want. I’ll lay the blame at their feet and let them decide for themselves their level of culpability.
When the rhetoric is heated and the outcome is predicted and then comes to pass blame must be assessed.
Thanks Sara Palin for putting a target on her district. You can argue whether there is cause and effect all you want. I’ll lay the blame at their feet and let them decide for themselves their level of culpability.
Don – I’m not sure I follow how you lay blame at Sarah Palin’s feet. I for one, will decide for myself that Sarah Palin has nothing more to do with this particular case, than does any Democratic politician or operative who has used words like enemy, punish, target etc.
I agree with David’s commentary that the tone and rhetoric needs to change, for both sides. But it has to be both sides. No different than some Republicans, there are many examples of President Obama raising the rhetoric beyond acceptable levels.
Mr. Toad, your post reads like heated rhetoric to me. Maybe you would not label it the same given your partisan beliefs. I think those that believe differently than you, and there are plenty, might feel similarly.
I spend time reading liberal “news” sites like Huffington Post, and the level of hatred, anger and incivility displayed on a regular basis by liberals by far exceeds any similar display from members of the Tea Party.
Note, there is not much in the way of facts or stats that you provide to back your opinion.
Adam: “Don – I’m not sure I follow how you lay blame at Sarah Palin’s feet.”
I don’t.
In California, Mr. Loughner would not have been able to buy the extended magazine for his gun.
[url]http://www.thegunsource.com/high-capacity-magazines.aspx[/url]
It was when he stopped to reload that people were able to disable and disarm him.
Do supporters of gun rights believe it should be legal to purchase the extended magazines such as Arizona allows?
This guy could have just as easily ran a car at 60 mph in the middle of crowd, more people are killed with cars than guns, he could made a pipe bomb, he could have used a knife.
To blame this on a gun is to blame cars for drunk drivers.
“To blame this on a gun is to blame cars for drunk drivers.”
Exactly.
And to blame the Tea Party is just asinine.
Adam: “Don – I’m not sure I follow how you lay blame at Sarah Palin’s feet.”
I don’t.
My mistake Don, “upon further review” I see that Mr. Toad made that comment.
It’s doubtful that he could have injured and killed a total of 19 people without an extended magazine. It’s very unlikely that he would have injured or killed 19 people with a car, for that matter. Were mental illness a barrier to buying a gun, it’s unlikely he could have injured or killed 19 people.
Here are a few sites posting interesting information on gun crime. There are a lot of misconceptions out there.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/guns_in_america/html/framesource.html
Of noted interest to me is the graph “Who’s At Risk” for death by firearm in the year 200. 13,214 white men committed suicide that year… a number significantly higher than any other category.
List of postal killings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_postal_killings
I love this photo as an explanation for why Israel has one the lowest crime rates.
http://freemarketmojo.com/?p=6949
I’m not sure about all the sources for this, but it seems to match the FBI reports on crime.
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Death by automobile is higher (almost double) for every age group. Note that the death by firearm stats include self-defense shootings and police shootings also.
I just googled “mass killings by automobile,” and couldn’t find any.
While I might wish to use ammonium nitrate to fertilize my orchard, I have no objections to reasonable restrictions and regulations on my ability to purchase it. Likewise, while I prefer to use certain allergy medications, I have no objections to reasonable restrictions on my ability to purchase them. I don’t mind showing identification to the pharmacist, nor do I have a problem with the pharmacist recording my name and address for the purchase.
So I don’t really understand the objections by the NRA and other gun owners to regulations and restrictions on the purchase and use of certain firearms and related paraphernalia that increase the likelihood of incidents such as what just occurred in Tucson. I am not a gun owner, but I also don’t believe guns should be banned willy-nilly. I just don’t get the fierce opposition to regulations that might have prevented the extent, if not the occurrence, of this massacre.
“Investigators said that the second man was a taxi driver who drove the suspected gunman to the scene. Upon arriving there, the passenger said he did not have change and he and the taxi driver went into the supermarket for change and the two then walked out together and separated.”
I heard this earlier and it was unbelievable to me. Loughner was getting ready to commit mass murder and most likely die or kill himself in the process and he’s worried about getting the right change?
According to the Washington Post:[quote]“After posting the map (with the bull’s eyes) on her Facebook page, Palin told her Twitter followers to go there with the message “Don’t Retreat — Instead RELOAD”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/palin-staffer-nothing-irrespon.html%5B/quote%5DCertainly ANY politician should avoid using this type of symbolism and rhetoric which could set off a paranoid schizophrenic.
[i]”I just googled ‘mass killings by automobile,’ and couldn’t find any.”[/i]
I have actually heard of a few–all in Los Angeles. One night, when I was working at UCLA (around 1985 or ’86), a maniac drove onto a sidewalk in Westwood and killed five or six people. It was intentional. One of the victims was his ex-girlfriend.
I was living in Davis but had good friends in Santa Monica in 2003 when an old man–probably unintentionally–killed 9 people and seriously hurt 50 others with his car. He was convicted, though I don’t know the circumstances of that.
“I just googled ‘mass killings by automobile,’ and couldn’t find any.”
Don: I’m trying to wrap my mind around the perspective of a person making this point. I think it indicates that he believes guns cause the violence. For example, it sounds to me like there is a belief that with stricter gun control, people with mental problems, rage and hatred would give up their urge to kill. Is the belief that these guns beckon people use them for mass murder? I really don’t understand this perspective.
Regardless, do we know if this guy had any record of mental instability that could even be used to prevent him from owning a gun? I cannot even ask the question when I am interviewing job candidates: “do you have any mental problems that would make you a danger to yourself and others?” How do we discriminate against one person for their mental or emotional qualifications to own a gun, and not the next?
I just googled “mass killing by aircraft” and the third item is the Wikipedia link on September 11.
“RE: Don’t Retreat — Instead RELOAD, Certainly ANY politician should avoid using this type of symbolism and rhetoric which could set off a paranoid schizophrenic.”
I doubt any of us can identify all the things said that would set off a paranoid schizophrenic. I would be more worried about the reasonably intelligent, but temporarily emotionally disturbed or unstable person: you know… the kind of people that are able to get the nuance of simplistic political slogans but are pissed off about bigger issues?
Related to this, what about corporation-hating and CEO-hating rhetoric coming from the left? Might this cause someone to feel justified in taking their anger out on some business executives? Or, are the constituents of the left all so stable and capable to metabolize the barrage of business-hating words that they will control themselves?
“Death by automobile is higher (almost double) for every age group. Note that the death by firearm stats include self-defense shootings and police shootings also. “
Automobiles were designed to move people around while guns were designed to kill – yet as a society we focus much more on restricting the use of automobiles. I we can limit speed to 70MPH we can limit magazines to 5 shells.
From one wing of the Tea Party. Note that in order to access anything on this Tea Party site, you have to register, give your name, and be approved by them. So I am taking it for granted that this blogger at Forbes has quoted Mr. Phillips accurately.
[url]http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/09/tea-party-shamed-by-founder-judson-phillips/?boxes=financechannelforbes[/url]
Jeff: “For example, it sounds to me like there is a belief that with stricter gun control, people with mental problems, rage and hatred would give up their urge to kill.”
No, but their access to the means of mass murder would be reduced.
Do you have a problem with any kind of restrictions on access to guns? Do you believe that mentally ill people should be able to buy guns? Do you believe that all kinds of guns, and all kinds of gun accessories, should be legal for purchase? I consider that an extreme position.
Exactly. If a politician or elected official named specific hedge fund or bank executives, marked their names with bulls’eyes, and wrote “Don’t retreat; RELOAD” — I would be very disturbed.
Can you imagine what would have happened to Julian Assange if he had done that? And he is not and never has been an elected official.
Here are a few sites posting interesting information on gun crime. There are a lot of misconceptions out there.
But one trend that always sticks in my mind is that the U.S. has a significantly higher rate of homicides by firearms than other equivalent 1st world countries. Several second world countries appear safer in this category. But fortunately, the U.S. is at least safer, in this category, than Barbados (but barely):
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country[/url]
(By the way, this was the year 2000. Maybe stats have improved since?)
Automobiles?? Maybe. But automobiles lack the advantage of portability and concealment.
My last post referred to the post by Jeff Boone 10:13 PM. A few posts went up before I added mine.
How many of these people would have less of a problem with a CEO being gunned down that they would a politician?
and
Related to this, what about corporation-hating and CEO-hating rhetoric coming from the left? Might this cause someone to feel justified in taking their anger out on some business executives? Or, are the constituents of the left all so stable and capable to metabolize the barrage of business-hating words that they will control themselves?
Politicians have an obligation and expectation to be accessible to their constituents in some reasonable manner. There isn’t the same obligation and expectation for CEO’s to make similar kinds of public appearances.
Anyone interested in what some mental health professionals in the Bay Area are saying about this case, you might want to check out this excellent article from The SF Chronicle ([url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/09/MN7H1H6IV7.DTL[/url]). [quote] “I doubt people who say this is about politics have a good understanding of mental illness,” said Dr. Bob Dolgoff, medical director of Alta Bates Summit Medical Center’s mental health division. “It could be conspiracy theories or men from outer space. The important thing here is, why wasn’t he in treatment?”[/quote] A number of other mental health professionals have been quoted today saying that they believe the political climate can be a factor, even when the person is a paranoid schizophrenic. I’m sure they have experience to justify their beliefs on that. In my own very trying, even horrifying experience with this issue with a family member, I could see how someone on the outside might think my family member was driven by politics, because everything in his mind was some grand conspiracy designed to infect his brain and his thoughts and ultimately to kill him. So he lashed out against the CIA and others. And, if you did not know, you might think, well, he is some leftist nut who hates the CIA. But in reality, he had no politics. Just a very difficult disease which robbed him of his rational mind.
“There isn’t the same obligation and expectation for CEO’s to make similar kinds of public appearances.”
Many modern CEOs are figureheads for their company. Some are part of the actual brand. Bill Gates is the most obvious example (although he is chairman now and not CEO). However, I agree with your basic point about politicians being more accessible to the public.
“Do you have a problem with any kind of restrictions on access to guns?”
No I do not have a problem with some restrictions. Although, again, I don’t know how you test for mental health issues, and I worry that many progressives will not stop pushing gun control changes until even the average law-abiding, stable and sane American cannot purchase one. This is a freedom issue. We cannot and should not eliminate, or even make too difficult, gun onership for all the law-adiding and stable Americans because we have a percentage of nutbags amoung us. I would rather outlaw nutbags.
It is interesting that you do not need a test, a background check, nor any psycological evaluation to have children, and these end up being the root cause of all mass killings.
I’m just curious David. Tell me one thing. Does any of the rhetoric used against George W. Bush during his presidency all into that inflammatory category you mentioned?
I think someone else made the most intelligent comment of all: WE DONT EVEN KNOW WHY THIS PERSON DID THE KILLINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!
LETS BEGIN THERE FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!!!
Maybe we should hold off comments BEFORE we have our facts DAVID!!!!
I have a license to drive a car, and my car is registered. I took a test for the former and pay a fee for the latter. I think guns should be managed the same way, though I don’t think it needs to be as onerous as the driving test. I’d even be fine with the NRA managing the testing procedure; they do a fine job with their safety programs, from what I’ve heard. When I was a boy scout I got good gun training at a shooting range, in a program managed by the NRA IIRC, as well as from the hunters in my family. I didn’t like weapons then, and I don’t like them now, but I appreciate that they are part of our culture and that they can be handled responsibly.
To Kane607: not answering for David, but I remember plenty of inflammatory rhetoric against Bush (and Clinton, for that matter). And I’ve seen nutbags (to use Jeff’s term) protesting at WTF meetings, most of whom could loosely be considered leftists. Yes, I agree that their actions and rhetoric are/were also deplorable. Extremism is obviously not exclusive to the left or the right. But it seems self-evident that extremism can lead to undesirable consequences, no matter how virtuous the motives (in spite of what Barry Goldwater may have thought).
Why does this story need to be replicated here on a blog about Davis politics? It’s bad enough it is sensationalized all over the national media, why wallow in it here? As Sue Greenwald pointed out, politicians, and by extension local bloggers like Mr. Greenwald, “…should avoid using this type of symbolism and rhetoric…” Replicating it in a local politics blog is using it…to generate more “hits?” Sounds cynical, I guess. But why else bring it up here?
Ms. Greenwald wrote…
According to the Washington Post:
“After posting the map (with the bull’s eyes) on her Facebook page, Palin told her Twitter followers to go there with the message “Don’t Retreat — Instead RELOAD”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/palin-staffer-nothing-irrespon.html
Certainly ANY politician should avoid using this type of symbolism and rhetoric which could set off a paranoid schizophrenic.
It sounds good to say we should avoid allowing guns into the hands of mentally unstable individuals, but practically speaking, guns are too pervasive in our society for us to effectively prevent a mentally ill individual from getting one. Given the culture of this nation, I’m not a believer that gun laws will be any more effective at preventing gun violence as drug laws will at preventing drug use.
It still amazes me that people want to blame anything on this but the person who did it. It is not Palin’s fault, it is not the guns fault, it is not the taxi guy that brought him there, it is not the TEA party, not Obama and not Bush, it is the person that did this.
People that want to use this as an excuse restrict guns are being disingenuous. A truly free man does not have to ask permission to own a gun. Hitler was one of the first that started gun control. Ask a Jewish person if they had guns would things have been different. All corrupt Governments that abuse their people believe in gun control. When Government is the only one with guns citizens are no longer citizens they become slaves.
Responsible gun ownership is good for a society and statistics show that gun ownership prevents crime, levels the playing field for crooks and allows good citizens to come to the aid of officers, the Government and the country. A township in Texas passed a city ordinance that each house must have a gun and crime went down something like 30 or 40% in that town.
People steal all time, we don’t blame the items they steal. When a child is molested, we don’t blame the child. When someone kills with a knife, we don’t blame the knife. How can reasonable and intelligent people blame a gun for how it is used?
“I’m not a believer that gun laws will be any more effective at preventing gun violence as drug laws will at preventing drug use.”
David: very good point.
At risk of veering off point a bit, I don’t think many people know the following (from http://www.afsp.org ):
•Over 34,000 people in the United States die by suicide every year.
•In 2007 (latest available data), there were 34,598 reported suicide deaths.
•Suicide is the fourth leading cause of death for adults between the ages of 18 and 65 years in the United States (28,628 suicides).
•Currently, suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the United States.
•Ninety percent of all people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death.
•There are four male suicides for every female suicide, but three times as many females as males attempt suicide.
•Suicide is the third leading cause of death among those 15-24 years old.
•Between the mid-1950s and the late 1970s, the suicide rate among U.S. males aged 15-24 more than tripled (from 6.3 per 100,000 in 1955 to 21.3 in 1977). Among females aged 15-24, the rate more than doubled during this period (from 2.0 to 5.2). The youth suicide rate generally leveled off during the 1980s and early 1990s, and since the mid-1990s has been steadily decreasing.
•Risk factors for suicide among the young include suicidal thoughts, psychiatric disorders (such as depression, impulsive aggressive behavior, bipolar disorder, and certain anxiety disorders), drug and/or alcohol abuse and previous suicide attempts, with the risk increased if there is situational stress and access to firearms.
•Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for “protection” or “self defense,” 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
•Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
•Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
•Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
So, statistically, it seems that guns are more a danger to the gun owner, than they are a danger to others… especially when the gun owner suffers from depression, anxiety or psychiatric disorder.
Since my family and my wife’s family have lost several family members to suicide, I have a very strong interest in the topic. I think it is a socially and culturally taboo topic, and hence it receives less media, scientific and clinical attention than it should. However, the numbers are much more alarming than are these media-sensationalized shooting rampages. My guess is that suicide by gun and murderous shooting rampages are, in fact, born of the same or similar root causes of extreme emotional and psychological dysfunction. I think there may also be social factors a play here too: for example, the number of white males committing suicide, already significantly high, has increased at a higher rate than all other groups. Why is that?
Roger: Here is the first town that mandated gun ownership:
[url]http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738709/firearm_ownership_is_mandatory_for.html?cat=17[/url] I think you’re right about a Texas town taking a similar measure more recently.
What the story doesn’t explain is what the penalty would be for my refusal to own guns or ammunition. You may have a 2nd Amendment right to own guns, but certainly I have a similar right not to be forced to own them or keep them in my home. Or does the ‘refusal to buy’ issue only apply to health insurance?
“Ask a Jewish person if they had guns would things have been different.”
Some did. They were outgunned. However, many Jews fought courageously against the Nazis. Maybe you ought to read some of the books about the resistance. And you do get the Godwin’s Law award for this thread.
Responsible gun ownership is good for a society
Responsible gun ownership does not include, IMO, guns being owned by mentally ill people, nor does it include ownership of extended magazines.
People should be able to defend themselves by owning a gun, but what is needed for “defense”? A perfectly satisfactory defensive weapon is a 5 shot 12 gauge shotgun – people interested in defending themselves do not need clips for 30 – 100 rounds. I do not need a machine gun or a grenade launcher – just a responsible defensive weapon (and I really do not need that). The guy in Arizona shot had a 30 round clip and managed to shoot 16 people. If the clip only held 5 rounds then logically the casualties would have been cut down to 2-3 people.
“So, statistically, it seems that guns are more a danger to the gun owner, than they are a danger to others… especially when the gun owner suffers from depression, anxiety or psychiatric disorder.”
All of those statistics indicate we (families and society) should try to prevent certain types of people from having access to guns.
LOL, Godwin Award.. This topic started about a mentally unstable guy committing a horrible act and from there went to blaming guns and calling for more gun control laws and more government control. Hitler is the poster child for Strong Government and how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Gun control is expansion of Government control on it’s citizens. I think it is on point from where the topic went.
But like so many issues now, people and politicians will always find a way to deflect the discussion from the issue and holding the individual accountable to some other topic they fear.
Bottom line: A foolish unstable man acted badly and He and he alone is responsible for his actions.
[i]”But like so many issues now, people and politicians will always find a way to deflect the discussion from the issue and holding the individual accountable to some other topic they fear.”[/i]
The notion that we need to “hold the individual accountable” presumes something which may not be in play in this case–it presumes he was of sound mind, that he fully understood in a rational sense right from wrong. [quote] The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. … Dear friends … please don’t be mad at me. The literacy rate is below 5%. I haven’t talked to one person who is literate. [/quote] You perhaps don’t have any experience dealing with someone who is suffering from a severe case of paranoid schizophrenia. But if you did, you would realize that such individuals are not “of sound mind.”
When someone has this sort of disease, I believe it is the responsibility of society to serve as his guardian. And by that I mean he should not have the ordinary rights of a free, functioning adult. He should be forced into psychiatric treatment for his own good and for the good of society. I know this idea of social benevolence upsets libertarians. But I think their upset is entirely misplaced and almost always based on a misunderstanding of psychiatry, psychiatric illness and some exagerated fear of a “slippery slope.”
We act as guardians for people who are mentally retarded or who are incapacitated due to illnesses like dementia. Yet we (in law) treat those with serious paranoid schizophrenia as if they are just unique thinkers.
It is usually not the case that such people cause great harm as Mr. Loughner did or as Mr. Cho did at Va. Tech, though if you search the news every day there are always a few killings in the U.S. from individuals with untreated mental illness–very often the victims are other family members. But the much more common outcome when someone’s brain is that dysfuntional is that he will become homeless and become the victim of a violent crime, or he will end up in prison for some senseless act or he will kill himself. That is the true slippery slope–the libertarians seem to prefer “… continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of the schizophrenic, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
It sounds good to say we should avoid allowing guns into the hands of mentally unstable individuals, but practically speaking, guns are too pervasive in our society for us to effectively prevent a mentally ill individual from getting one. Given the culture of this nation, I’m not a believer that gun laws will be any more effective at preventing gun violence as drug laws will at preventing drug use.
Even automatic assault weapons?
[i]” I believe it is the responsibility of society to serve as his guardian.”[/i]
Unless a person has no family which is willing and able, I think the family should by assigned serve as guardian. However, I think a judge must hear the case first and base his decision on a medical diagnosis.
Only when someone has no family or his family is incapable or unwilling should the actual guardian role be that of a social worker.
Correction: “… the family should be assigned to serve as guardian.”
A few Obama incindiaries:
Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
rusty49: Thanks for putting this out there. I knew they existed, but didn’t have time to look them up. Also, we have Nancy Pelosi calling Tea Party members Nazis, ignorant and racist… and her and many other Democrats enflaming constituents toward perpetuate race and economic class warfare. If Sarah Palin – who by the way is not a politician, not running for office and who until recently was not even a media personality, and frankly does not have much of voice without the obsession of the liberal media – incites violence with a slogan, then Obama and the congressional Dems are as, if not more, culpable for the same.
“All of those statistics indicate we (families and society) should try to prevent certain types of people from having access to guns.”
Good luck with that. The “certain types” label is difficult to pin. Also, how do you deal with temporary insanity?
If we have freedom to own guns and a large population that will always include a percentage of nutbags – whether long-term or temporary – then it seems we will always have the risk. However, what is the real risk? Someone once made the point that any risk less than being struck by lightning probably does not justify the expense to mitigate the risk.
I agree with Rifkin that for the long-term mentally or emotionally disturbed, we have to rely on families, or in the case where there are not enough family resources – institutions, to care for these people and prevent them from being a danger to themselves and others. Gun control in the country will not solve these problems, and it will likely cause other problems.
Jeff Boone: “I agree with Rifkin that for the long-term mentally or emotionally disturbed, we have to rely on families, or in the case where there are not enough family resources – institutions, to care for these people and prevent them from being a danger to themselves and others. Gun control in the country will not solve these problems, and it will likely cause other problems.”
Agreed, but I still would prefer there be restrictions on people who do have an official diagnosis of mental illness from obtaining a gun. It may not solve the problem altogether, but it could at least have the potential to help. Also, is there any requirement that a consumer purchasing a gun have mandatory lessons on the proper use and storage of a gun? If there is no such requirement, there should be…
“Also, is there any requirement that a consumer purchasing a gun have mandatory lessons on the proper use and storage of a gun? If there is no such requirement, there should be… “
Elaine: Lessons on the proper use and storage will probably help reduce the number of accidental deaths by firearm, but I prefer that we do not train the disturbed crazy people or else they would be more effective killers. I would prefer they have little practice, and, for example, stall trying to reload a magazine.
California gun laws require a person be at least 21 year old and have passed a safety course and issue proof of California residency (besides a drivers license) before a hand gun can be legally purchased. You can only purchase one handgun a month.
However, you just need to wait 10 days to acquire any non-assault rifle that you purchase, except…
[quote]Any person who has a conviction for any misdemeanor listed in Penal Code section 12021(c)(1) or for any felony, or is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, or has been held involuntarily as a danger to self or others pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8103 is prohibited from buying, owning, or possessing firearms. Various other prohibitions exist for mental conditions, domestic restraining/protective orders, conditions of probation, and offenses committed as a juvenile.
PC Sections 12021 and 12021.1, Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 8100 – 8103)[/quote]
California’s hand gun, assault rifle and ammunition clip laws are restrictive and seem to match what you and a few others advocate. It would be good to know if CA has experienced any reduction in the number of these types of incidences as a result of the regulations. However, I think we will probably never know statistically how many fewer gun rampages happen because of these restrictions.
It would also be good to know if this wacko in Tucson would have been prevented from purchasing a gun as a CA resident. Unless he had specific trouble with the law, or had been previously identified and recorded under Code Section 8103, he would have been able to purchase the same gun he used.
JB: “California’s hand gun, assault rifle and ammunition clip laws are restrictive and seem to match what you and a few others advocate. It would be good to know if CA has experienced any reduction in the number of these types of incidences as a result of the regulations. However, I think we will probably never know statistically how many fewer gun rampages happen because of these restrictions.
It would also be good to know if this wacko in Tucson would have been prevented from purchasing a gun as a CA resident. Unless he had specific trouble with the law, or had been previously identified and recorded under Code Section 8103, he would have been able to purchase the same gun he used.”
I agree that quantifying the effectiveness of a gun control law can be difficult. And I am certain gun control will not be a panacea for situations in which the person does not have an official diagnosis of mental illness so can purchase a gun, but nevertheless is psychologically unstable. There are no perfect solutions.
I guess where I come down on the issue of gun control is to make reasonable restrictions so that people w a formal diagnosis of mental illness are not allowed to have guns; and I do not favor the sale of assault weapons/extended gun clips.
Otherwise, gun ownership is okay, even tho I have no interest in owning a gun myself. But I do know is some parts of the country people supplement their incomes by hunting for food w guns; and in wilder parts of the country need a gun for protection, e.g. Alaska wilderness.
“Loughner, 22, had been angry at Giffords for years and considered her a fake, according to the friend, Bryce Tierney, also 22. Loughner became even angrier when he attended a campaign event and she didn’t fully answer his question, Tierney said.”
“Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her.”
That event was on Aug. 25, 2007, before anybody ever really heard of the Tea Party or Palin.
It appears that Jared Lee Loughner is registered as an independent and last voted in the 2008 election.
[i]”That event was on Aug. 25, 2007, before anybody ever really heard of the Tea Party or Palin.”[/i]
Sarah Palin was elected Governor of Alaska on November 7, 2006. The Boston Tea Party was held on December 16, 1773.
[i]”I guess where I come down on the issue of gun control is to make reasonable restrictions so that people w a formal diagnosis of mental illness are not allowed to have guns; and I do not favor the sale of assault weapons/extended gun clips.”[/i]
In the case of Jared Loughner, it appears he never was treated by a psychiatrist. Under Arizona law, even though he was removed from his college for his odd behavior, no one–not even his parents–could force him to see a psychiatrist. (There are some reports that his father is an odd and reclusive man, but that’s obviously not the same thing as being mentally ill.)
As to gun control and the mentally ill, I think it’s first worth doing a threat assessment along with the diagnosis. Most people with mental illness are not violent or any kind of threat to others. However, if a psychiatrist has reason to think his patient’s disorder would make him more prone to violence–as is very often the case with those who have paranoid schizophrenia or bipolar disorder–or the doctor diagnoses a chemical depression and thinks his patient may be more likely to kill himself if he owned a gun, then I would agree that such individuals should not be able to purchase guns or ammunition. (Apparently a Wal-Mart store in Tucson would not sell ammo to Loughner, because the employees judged him as ‘obviously not right.’)
As a general rule, though, I think the gun control approach with people like Loughner is backwards: first get him into a treatment program, where the chances are pretty good that his dangerous symptoms will stabilize and he won’t be a threat. If he does not respond well to treatment or he refuses to take his medications, then restrict his privileges as necessary.
People on the left and the right will blame each other. They’ll use this as a means to make political gains.
But the sad fact is, looking for a motive is senseless. The killings were senseless. We must look at the culture and the atmosphere that breeds this kind of explosive misbehavior. Sarah Palin and her target graphic certainly aren’t directly responsible, but use of the graphic and the language surrounding it was highly irresponsible. She should apologize and lead the way for buttoning down the violent language and metaphors. That would be the smart thing for her to do.
People may say “the left is just as guilty” but they would be missing the point. The point is that everybody who sees the graphic knows that it is a violent image. You can’t get around that. It doesn’t mean the Tea Party are a bunch of wackos, nor does it mean this kid was a Leftist or a Tea Partier. It just means this particular example (the Sarah Palin graphic) should be held up as an example of political rhetoric that is simply not accepted anymore. Sarah Palin reputation is far less important than the lesson this country needs to learn from her example.
“The point is that everybody who sees the graphic knows that it is a violent image.”
I completely disagree with that point. Everyone I know understands that her people were playing to her political base and her base understands it to mean “Don’t Retreat… Fight”.
Similar to how those on the left would read Obama’s words: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun” to mean the same.
Think deeply here… the inference is that lefties are all smart enough to understand the nuanced symbolism in Obama’s words to bring guns to a fight, but righties are dumb robots that will start shooting people because Sarah Palin says “Reload”.
That inference is as incendiary as it is partisan. Especially considering that Obama is President of the US, and Sarah Palin is… frankly I don’t know what she is.
Civil discourse, there are many Democrat political maps showing up that had targets on the Republican held districts. Where was your outrage then?
“The point is that everybody who sees the graphic knows that it is a violent image.”
‘I completely disagree with that point. Everyone I know understands that her people were playing to her political base and her base understands it to mean “Don’t Retreat… Fight”. “
But it only takes one nut to get it wrong.
The longer Palin goes without apologizing the worse it is for her. Her refusal to apologize while all her defenders make fools of themselves trying to spin away the consequences of her rhetoric takes you all down with her. The problem is that it doesn’t matter if she is responsible or not, she put up the target and the congresswoman was hit. She owes the victims an apology for anything that might have contributed to the incident. Until she gives one up you’re all just digging yourselves in deeper.
Why is it so hard for Republicans to admit mistakes? Baby Bush could never do it. Whitman couldn’t do it and now Palin.
“The longer Palin goes without apologizing the worse it is for her. Her refusal to apologize while all her defenders make fools of themselves trying to spin away the consequences of her rhetoric takes you all down with her. The problem is that it doesn’t matter if she is responsible or not, she put up the target and the congresswoman was hit. She owes the victims an apology for anything that might have contributed to the incident. Until she gives one up you’re all just digging yourselves in deeper.
Why is it so hard for Republicans to admit mistakes? Baby Bush could never do it. Whitman couldn’t do it and now Palin.”
The only losers in this are the lefties who are trying to make something out of nothing. Pathetic.
Maybe the death of six people including, among others, a nine year old, a federal judge, a congressional staffer and the critical wounding of a member of congress is nothing to you Rusty but I find it rather disturbing.
RICH: [i]”Under Arizona law, even though he was removed from his college for his odd behavior, no one–not even his parents–could force him to see a psychiatrist.”[/i]
I was probably wrong in stating that. Here is what the Washington Post says about Arizona law ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011007049.html?hpid=topnews[/url]): [quote]Under Arizona law, any one of Jared Lee Loughner’s classmates or teachers at Pima Community College so concerned about his increasingly bizarre behavior could have contacted local officials and asked that he be evaluated for mental illness and potentially committed for psychiatric treatment.
That, according to local mental health and law enforcement officials, never happened. [/quote] I don’t know what the authorities at PCC knew about the law, or whether they knew they could contact law enforcement officials to “ask that he be evaluated for mental illness and potentially committed for psychiatric treatment.” However, if they knew the law and just chose not to act (beyond what they did at their school), that was obviously (in hindsight) a mistake, and probably should push them to change their policy.
Even though this kind of a massive tragedy is rare, colleges and universities have to deal with students who suffer from schizophrenic symptoms all the time. That’s just the age when these symptoms usually first appear.
rusty49: Civil discourse, there are many Democrat political maps showing up that had targets on the Republican held districts. Where was your outrage then?
Where could I go to see one?
JEFF: [i] Everyone I know understands that her people were playing to her political base and her base understands it to mean “Don’t Retreat… Fight”. [/i]
Palin and her people know right now that, even though her symbolism probably had nothing to do with Mr. Loughner, it looks really bad for Palin right now. This incident is a huge blow to her (for the short term, though it will be forgotten by most).
By immediately changing her website and Facebook page, Palin admitted as much. Obviously, the hard core guns rights people don’t feel negatively about Palin over this. However, her real problem is that she has very high negatives among just about everyone but the right.
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/b51n4g7k80asp3yjfx-vnw.gif[/img]
Boone: …Sarah Palin is… frankly I don’t know what she is.
Intelligent?
A couple of news stories relevant to the ongoing disucssion here.
November 8, 2008: Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/3405336/Sarah-Palin-blamed-by-the-US-Secret-Service-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html[/url]
January 10, 2011: Fox News Head Tells Hosts ‘Shut Up, Tone It Down’ After Giffords Shooting
[url]http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/10/fox-news-head-tells-hosts-shut-up-tone-it-down-after-giffords/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|sec3_lnk2|194667[/url]
rusty49: Civil discourse, there are many Democrat political maps showing up that had targets on the Republican held districts. Where was your outrage then?
wdf1: Where could I go to see one?
+++++++++++++++++
How about going to
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028104.php
where you’ll see Republican representatives as targets, courtesy of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
One of the reasons Sarah Palin drives left wingers crazy is that she constantly exposes their hypocrisy.
“wdf1: Boone: …Sarah Palin is… frankly I don’t know what she is.
Intelligent? “
LOL. Although, I don’t think she is as unintelligent as the left and some of the media make her out to be.
“Rich: This incident is a huge blow to her [Sarah Palin] (for the short term, though it will be forgotten by most)”.
I think the only thing continuing to give Sarah Palin even a glimmer of consideration that she could be president is the attention given to her by the left and mainstream media. I make a joke that walking down a street in San Francisco I yell “Sarah Palin” and receive one thousand hits. Liberals are obsessed with her. Check out the Huffington Post and every piece on Sarah Palin receives the highest number of blog posts. There is a “Psychology Today” article waiting to be written about the left’s interest in Sarah Palin. I have my theories.
As we have seen before, these media events can eventually blowback to benefit the subject of the media attack. Righties and right-leaning moderates hate the main media almost as much as the left hates Sarah Palin. As we learn more about Loughner, the immediate hair trigger of the media and Democrats to blame the Tea Party is becoming the new side story. The Democrats are looking like another type of bad guy for attempting to exploit another tragedy for political gain.
Personally, I would like to see Sarah Palin to host a new TV show to compete with the View, and never run for office in anything. She is too polarizing for politics. She is certainly not sharp enough to be President. However, I like having her around because she makes some sense in a country, folksy and shrill sort of way, and it agitates and illuminates the thinking of the other side.
Boone: …Sarah Palin is… frankly I don’t know what she is.
a reality show star.
where you’ll see Republican representatives as targets, courtesy of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
I don’t know what others think, but it doesn’t make me think of pulling a gun trigger. It makes me think of shooting arrows or throwing darts, which doesn’t conjure up the same kind of mayhem that guns do. I think the Democrats were trying to be bad mutha’s, like the Republicans, but trying to be a little more sensitive in their target imagery. Problem with using crosshair targets is there isn’t any other context for thinking of them except with guns.
One of the reasons Sarah Palin drives left wingers crazy is that she constantly exposes their hypocrisy.
Crazy? I don’t know. She does offer a lot of interesting material to talk about. At this point, it would be breathtaking to see her win the Republican presidential nomination, and I would be interested to watch for Peggy Noonan’s reaction to it.
“I think the Democrats were trying to be bad mutha’s, like the Republicans, but trying to be a little more sensitive in their target imagery.”
I can’t believe you really responded with this, it’s so laughable. The Democrats targets were more “sensitive”.
This whole debate misses the key point I was trying to make on Sunday – no one intended that their rhetoric, imagery and metaphors led to bloodshed. But it may ahve. So we need to all tone it down. We need to criticize government and elected officials, in so doing however, we also need to be mindful of how accusations and rhetoric can lead to unintended consequences. Both sides need to improve discourse and civility and in government.
I can’t believe you really responded with this, it’s so laughable. The Democrats targets were more “sensitive”.
I’m sorry that a facetious tone can’t be conveyed to you in print. But perhaps you’re looking for stuff to back up your preconceived notions. Have fun with that.
Both sides need to improve discourse and civility and in government.
John Stewart has a similar comment on his show last night. It was pretty good, but maybe about three minutes too long.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280697/pagenum/all/#p2
Above is website for very good Slate article, Of Course, It Was Political.
D2: I don’t agree at all with David Greenberg’s “of course it was political” argument. If Mr. Loughner has paranoid schizophrenia–and while we may think he does, we still don’t know that from a clinical diagnosis–politics really would have nothing to do with his thought process. Everyone–and I mean every single person–who has had the misfortune of dealing with a person who has paranoid schizophrenia–understands that all of the thought processes of the patient are nonsensical and baseless, in stark opposition to an ideology or a set of political beliefs.
There is so much focus on politics with this tragedy because Mr. Loughner became obsessed–apparently for three years–with a celebrity in his home town who is a member of Congress and earlier had been in the Arizona legislature. But Mr. Loughner’s obsession–his feeling that he was being oppressed by Ms. Giffords and he needed to kill her in order to save himself–could just as well have been with any other celebrity or a teacher or his parents or a neighbor or the CIA. It’s not about politics. That’s a complete misunderstanding of this disease. It’s about irrational paranoia.
Take the case of Robert Bardo, who also was from Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Bardo’s paranoid schizophrenia was very similar to what we know of Mr. Loughner. Bardo became convinced that he needed to kill movie stars. He stalked a few before he eventually succeeded in killing Rebecca Schaeffer, a TV star at the time. Bardo was 19 years old, right in the ripe period for this kind of mental illness to turn dangerous.
Would David Greenberg of Slate say of the murder of Ms. Schaeffer that “of course it was political?” Absolutely not. Greenberg is just plain wrong and misinformed. He has no understanding of this disease. He does not know anything about people like Loughner or Cho or Chapman or Bardo or others who suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
Good comments, Rich, (10:03). In college I watched a fellow dorm resident slip into (paranoid?) schizophrenia. It was really sad. Someone who had a somewhat strange, but basically harmless sense of humor, who was socially functional by all superficial appearances, just lose it all over a period of ~10 days. And especially sad for the parents. They had to remove him because he wasn’t functioning as a student, but hadn’t specifically threatened other students (that I knew of). I hope in the near future that reseaschers will discover an effective medical intervention to remedy/prevent such a result.
To Rifkin, wdf1 on last two comments: I concur; excellent observations. This shooting had nothing to do w political discourse, and shame on the politicians for trying to make political hay out of this tragedy…
Mental illness and how to treat it before such damage is done should be the real discussion. Mental health services have been cut to the bone…
[i]”In college I watched a fellow dorm resident slip into (paranoid?) schizophrenia. It was really sad. Someone who had a somewhat strange, but basically harmless sense of humor, who was socially functional by all superficial appearances, just lose it all over a period of ~10 days.”[/i]
In looking back on my college experience, I’m surprised I didn’t know anyone like this at that time. (Sadly, a girl on my freshman dorm hall at UCSB had a different mental illness, anorexia, and died from it before I graduated.)
There was a brutal murder at Sac State a couple of years ago ([url]http://www.statehornet.com/news/quran-jones-psychiatric-test-results-to-be-reviewed-friday-1.1834135[/url]), where a student beat his roommate to death with a baseball bat. From what I recall of the case, everyone who knew the killer, Quran Jones, said he was nice, but a bit odd when he moved into the dorms, but by the time he killed his roommate, he had “gone off the deep end.” His writings (and the things others who knew him said that Jones had said) suggest he probably was seriously mentally ill. It’s just a shame that someone like that was not removed from school and put into a treatment program.
The Sac State attack is unfortunately not all that uncommon on college campuses. I don’t know the numbers but I would guess there are several such “meltdowns” with violence every semester on some campuses. Thankfully, the results are rarely as bad as in Tucson or as in Va. Tech. A cousin of mine, who is a doctor at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (among other affiliations), was working at UCLA the day a schizophrenic student took out a big knife and slit the throat of another student ([url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5373629-504083.html[/url]) in a chemistry lab. She told me that she saw the victim and was amazed that the girl lived despite losing a large amount of blood.
Sue Greenwald writes:
According to the Washington Post:
“After posting the map (with the bull’s eyes) on her Facebook page, Palin told her Twitter followers to go there with the message “Don’t Retreat — Instead RELOAD”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/palin-staffer-nothing-irrespon.html
Certainly ANY politician should avoid using this type of symbolism and rhetoric which could set off a paranoid schizophrenic. “
I guess Sue Greenwald and the WaPo haven’t seen — or wish to overlook –the map produced by the Democratic National Committee’s with Republican districts pasted with bulls-eyes. Both, however, ignore two relevant matters: 1) no one knows whether the Arizona shooter ever saw either “map”; and, 2) whether such a “viewing” would set off a paranoid-schizophrenic — or anyone else.
“Both, however, ignore two relevant matters: 1) no one knows whether the Arizona shooter ever saw either “map”; and, 2) whether such a “viewing” would set off a paranoid-schizophrenic — or anyone else.”
They don’t care, this was all about smearing the right and Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, O”reilly and conservative radio hosts. They saw an opportunity, which didn’t pan out as they jumped the gun, to smear the right and went for it. Fortunately America is getting smart to the left’s lies and deceit and see it for what it is.
I’ve stated this before: I don’t think politics (or talk radio) played a role in Mr. Loughner’s delusional thinking. If he had not been kicked out of Pima Community College, he might have instead shot up one of his classrooms.
Yet it is well established that the media–and by that I mean the mainstream newspapers and magazines, news & talk radio, and local and national TV news shows–can inspire copycat killers ([url]http://www.rense.com/general73/dly.htm[/url]). It’s also true that there is something called the Werther Effect ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide[/url]), which shows a spike in suicides after the media reports on a successful suicide.
So if anyone (in the media) is to blame for sensationalizing violence which leads to more violence, that would be the mainstream media. That’s beyond doubt.
What is still doubtable is whether the right-wing voices like Hannity and Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy have ever inspired a criminal act. It’s true that their rhetoric tends to be terribly harsh. They are all too willing to use half-truths or lies to smear liberals. But as far as I know, there never has been a case in the U.S. where a right-wing radio host’s rhetoric has inspired a violent crime.
There has been an explosion of right-wing talk radio over the last 20 years. If it presents a clear and present danger, there should have been many cases of unstable people committing acts of violence after listening to the right-wing jibber-jabber. But I don’t know if there has ever been one case, let alone many.
That’s not to say that there have not been some right-wing criminals whose ideology drove them to violence. Tim McVeigh is the obvious example. But he didn’t listen to Limbaugh or his clones. He read some kooky book called The Turner Diaries. And there have been a number of right-wing religious people, inspired by the dogma of their idiotic religion ([url]http://www.adl.org/extremism/rudolph_backgrounder.asp[/url]), who have committed violent crimes as part of their bogus “pro-life” position ([url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/[/url]). But again–no evidence that they were inspired in any way by right-wing radio.
Maybe this demonstrates that there is no such thing as bad publicity:
Sales In Glock Pistols Up After Arizona Shootings
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/arizonans-flock-up-the-bl_n_807517.html[/url]
The Good:
[img]http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2010/03/06/20/7M7REXROAD.highlight.prod_affiliate.4.JPG[/img]
The Bad:
[img]http://www.globalpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/torso/Jared_Lee_Loughner_mugshot.jpg[/img]
And The Ugly:
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/187044366_506a1933f4.jpg[/img]
“wdf1: Maybe this demonstrates that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Glock pistol sales up.”/em>
I read that too. Interesting. Unless they are allowed to carry, it doesn’t help provide any additional safety other than some abstract peace of mind.
“Rich: The good, bad and ugly”
Thanks for the chuckle at a time when we all need a reason to laugh a bit. However, the last two images are in the wrong order.
Rich, what synchronicity that we have another case of untreated mental illness resulting in tragedy, this time attracting national attention, at the same time our legislators and governor consider monumental cuts to health services. Prioritize and pray for forgiveness, I guess.
biddlin: “Rich, what synchronicity that we have another case of untreated mental illness resulting in tragedy, this time attracting national attention, at the same time our legislators and governor consider monumental cuts to health services.”
Deep, deep irony, isn’t it? Excellent observation…
biddlin: “Rich, what synchronicity that we have another case of untreated mental illness resulting in tragedy, this time attracting national attention, at the same time our legislators and governor consider monumental cuts to health services.”
ERM: Deep, deep irony, isn’t it? Excellent observation…
And at the moment, it appears that a critical mass of voters don’t want to raise taxes in a way to continue those services.
Nearly 50 Percent Of Mental Health Services Recipients In Giffords’ County Were Dropped In 2010:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/pima-county-mental-health-services_n_807522.html[/url]
Obama’s memorial message was quite good, particularly the last portion. Here’s a link to the audio:
[url]http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=132877316&m=132878542[/url]
Obama’s memorial came off more like a campaign pep rally than a memorial.
Obama’s memorial came off more like a campaign pep rally than a memorial.
Lovely. Let the healing begin…
Have you ever been or seen a memorial like that before with all the screaming and whooping it up? It should’ve never been held on a campus where the majority of attendees were students there just to see Obama. A few times even Obama looked embarrassed by the proceedings. I mean you can try and spin it all you want but that’s how much of it came off.
@ rusty: The only people saying this — and what you are saying is consistent across all the conservative blogs that I read — are people who would not approve of anything this president did or said, anytime, any place. From all reports the people of Tucson found it very helpful. I thought it was one of the most powerful and effective speeches I have seen a president give in my lifetime.
Mr. Shor, what’s the last memorial you’ve attended where 14,000 tshirts were handed out with the phrase (campaign slogan?) “Together we thrive”? The whole affair came off as cheesy. It was a good speech, in fact many conservative pundits said so, but one that will go down for all time?
I think not. I guess you have to be one of his koolaid drinkers to get that “thrill going up your leg”.
I guess you have to be one of his koolaid drinkers
Wow.
Mr. Shor, what’s the last memorial you’ve attended where 14,000 tshirts were handed out with the phrase (campaign slogan?) “Together we thrive”? The whole affair came off as cheesy. It was a good speech, in fact many conservative pundits said so, but one that will go down for all time?
I think not. I guess you have to be one of his koolaid drinkers to get that “thrill going up your leg”.
I have never attended a memorial for six victims of an out of control gunman attacking a Congressional representative who was out in public meeting her constituents and was severely injured in the process. Nor that produced political divisiveness after the shooting incident, and which required the President to give a eulogizing address and statement of unity as well.
Is there an understood protocol for such an event?
I am a native born American citizen. I have also been also been a refugee. In the 1950s, because of an accusation of communist party membership against my father, we were forced to seek immigrant status in Canada. I can’t remember a single nasty remark or cruel joke made to any of us, much less the force of the national media weighing on my shoulders. What I do remember is assistance and encouragement from all sides. It allowed my father to support his family and get us on our feet and eventually return to the our home. Since 9/11/01 I have watched my country and my countrymen succumb to the terrorists, handing them the victory they could never win by force by changing our lives to accommodate the jihadis.On the day following the attack, reliable intelligence reported that Bin Laden and other leaders were in the Tora Bora cave complex in eastern Afghanistan. My liberal friends called me a fascist for pointing out that this was a perfect occasion for the use of a nuclear weapon, not many innocent civilians to kill, and a strong message to the world not to mistake pluralism for weakness! Instead, the President gave the Bin Laden family and employees clear airspace to go home and let Osama and his henchmen travel leisurely across the border into Pakistan. Early on I calmly pointed out that we would only encourage them by instituting oppressive restrictions on our own travel. To be American meant we traveled freely. After all our ancestors had taken the attitude,”Let the highwaymen be afraid of us.” My voice became louder when we invaded Iraq for no apparent reason other than revenge and intimidation, and went to war in Afghanistan, when the criminals responsible for crashing the airliners were now living in Pakistan. I pleaded for civil debate as internal divisiveness, over the entry into this war without end, blinded most people to the financial disaster looming on Wall Street and in the mortgage banks. I have heard the noise of the “conservative media” ramp up over the past three years, without a single constructive solution to offer on any problem, only scapegoats. Much as the fabled “Cadillac driving welfare mom” was a popular target of right wing hit pieces in the 70s and 80s,the “illegal alien”, here to steal our (most backbreaking, low paying )jobs , hook our kids on drugs, murder hardworking American ranchers, rape their families and steal government services, is now a favorite target of the acid tongued media. It is disingenuously simple-minded to claim that those voices had no influence in this matter. We should hold them all as well as ourselves accountable for this tragedy and stop the blame game. Whether on not we will recover depends on our desire to survive being greater than our envy or fear of our neighbors. Anyone who would promote divisiveness at such a time is, to my mind, a traitor. Unless we stand together against barbarism and inhumanity, from any side, we do not deserve to survive as a nation.
“Is there an understood protocol for such an event?”
Hello, it was supposed to be a memorial, not a pep rally. The understood protocol of a memorial is an event where people are supposed to be gathered in solemn remembrance of the dead, not cheering like yahoos at a football game? I mean, come on, cheering and souvenir t-shirt sales at a memorial service?
As Jon Stewart said last night, I guess you’ve never been to a wake. The point is that there is no “understood protocol” for this sort of thing. Bluntly, conservatives are just criticizing this for the sake of criticizing it. And “koolaid drinkers” is unbelievably disparaging. Were you alive when Jonestown occurred?
The last two memorial services I attended (actually called a “celebration of life”) involved tears, laughing, and applause at different points. No t-shirts, but I wouldn’t have minded.
People at memorial services for shootings often have shirts.
“And “koolaid drinkers” is unbelievably disparaging. Were you alive when Jonestown occurred?”
Mr. Shor, get off your high horse. You’re starting to sound like those who were so aghast at Sarah Palin’s blood libel comment when everyone knew what she meant.
Kool Aid drinkers definition from jargondatabase.com
People so committed to a political cause or candidate that they senselessly ignore facts in conflict with their political viewpoint.
“You’re starting to sound like those who were so aghast at Sarah Palin’s blood libel comment when everyone knew what she meant.”
You think that was a wise idea by Palin to use that rhetoric? Really? Sincerely?
The more thoughtful commentators, including Republicans basically made the point that she should have offered her condolences and shut up. She didn’t. Can you see a President responding to a national tragedy by making comments about blood libels? This is someone who in two years wants to be President and she has no focus or sense as to when to open her mouth and when not. You judge people in politics by how they respond when pressed and unscripted, and she is a failure in that respect whatever she meant by the statement, and I don’t think she meant anything anti-semitic, but it was a poor choice of words and an even poorer sense of timing to say anything at all.
You talk about “People so committed to a political cause or candidate that they senselessly ignore facts in conflict with their political viewpoint” – I think the shoe fits.
You see David, that’s where you’re wrong. I don’t want Palin to run for president, I’ve already stated that a few times on your blog, I know she’ll lose then we’re stuck with Obama for 4 more years. You Democrats should leave her alone and quit trying to tear her down because she’s the best thing you’ve got going for you in 2012.
What I don’t like is how the left jumped on the Arizona incident and blamed the conservatives and Palin right out of the gate with no facts.
And that’s where you have me wrong, when you start talking you Democrats, as though my primary motivation is the Democrats rather than other considerations. I most often vote for Democrats, generally because the alternative is worse, but to me having Palin running for President is not in the best interest of this country. I’m not sure that Mr. Obama deserves to be reelected. I may vote for him because the alternative is worse. But he certainly has failed to deliver on what I would have liked to see. Jerry Brown seems a lot closer to where I am at least fiscally right now.
And that was my point in writing this, the rhetoric has gone too far, regardless of whether it was to blame for this tragedy and this is a learning moment when we can change the rhetoric.