![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rhetoric & Rifles (and flame bating)
Jan. 12th, 2011 02:14 amThis last Saturday morning, in the parking-lot of a neighborhood Safeway shopping center in Tuscon a mad man stole the lives of 6 people, and wounded 13 more. Events both horrifying, and terrifying, have had nation wide repercussions.
In conversions, editorials and comments sections, two topics are being debated... and i guess, moved by the events, and by the discourse.... i'd like to weigh in.
First, inspired by the words of Pima County Sheriff Dupnik: ( the vitriolic rhetoric ...It may be free speech but it does not come without consequences )
A lot of folks are discussing weather the likes of Palin can or should be held accountable.
Well in the first most basic level, i think it's hyperbolic and an impossibly hard sell to directly tie the actions of Jared Loughner to the words of Mrs. Palin. Doubly so at this early stage, when we know so little about him, other than he is clearly stark raving mad. Frankly i think its irresponsible to try and suggest any of them are directly responsible for this incident.
I hope it goes without saying that I find the tone of Palin, the Tea party, and pundits like O'reily, disturbing, appalling, and quite possibly dangerous... but that doesn't mean they are what spurred Loughner into action.
Although I do think its possible this climate of hate and fear mongering... particularly in Arizona... could, and did possibly influence the the actions of this unhinged individual... That polarization and vilification across political parties was an influence he responded to when crossing the line from nut-job with a webcam, to nut-job with a glock.
It is entirely possible that this climate is a factor in this crime....
But the fact remains their is no clear evidence to support that at this time, nor to tie his actions to any specific pundit....
And here is the important thing: It is a disservice to our side* to jump to those spurious conclusions, make those hyperbolic arguments... because they ring false, and they're easy to tear down, and in doing so they discredit the very valid concern that this rhetoric IS dangerous.
Lets tie the tea party to members who have made threats to senators, tie palin to vandals who have trashed homes and property of their officials offices and homes...or hey tie rand paul to violence against moveon protesters. That should really be more than enough.
Now if i was in anyway unclear i want to repeat: I DO think the rhetoric on our national political stage has gotten completely our of hand. Much as Paul Krugman put it their is plenty of room for heated debate, it's healthy and arguably essential to our form of governing, but
Elimination Rhetoric has NO place in a free democratic America.
I think both parties need to clean their acts up... but that the extreme right, particularly the "tea party" are _far_ and _away_ the worst offenders. (That Limbaugh & O'reily have wasted no time vilifying Sheriff Dupnik for his honest reaction, only underscores this, its a shame so many at the other pole will actually fall for this transparent, hypocritical bait and switch)
Of course our freedom is speech is sacred, it is the first of all amendments in the bill of rights. No, i don't think this problem can be legislated away... but the pundits, politicos and personality need regulate themselves. To take a breath, take a step back, and remember it is entirely possible to disagree vehemently, but respectfully. Moreover those who cross the line should be held accountable by their peers. They should generally be ignored and ostracized, not rewarded with reality tv shows, book deals and front page headlines. For these reasons i am happy this is being talked about, but you just can't make direct connections from his horrific crime to any specific figurehead; at least not yet.
Second, naturally is Guns and Gun Control...
no mater what the discrete factor(s) external and/or internal that pushed Loughner from crazy ranting stoner, to mad murdering assassin...it is a cold, hard, indisputable fact that one, and only one tool enabled him to do so. A Gun. A legally purchased Glock-19 semi-automatic pistol.
It comes as no surprise this has spurred some on the left to cry for more gun control, and its not really that surprising that some on the right are crying for more armed citizens.
Well this, if you care, is what i think...
Now i want to state upfront I love guns, much like i love motorcycles.... I own a gun, I enjoy shooting for sport, pinking, action shooting, skeet, trap, you name it. I've shot everything from single action .22 pistols to fully auto assault rifles and light machine guns. I would be very sad if i was barred access to fire arms.
But i think the sad truth is the proliferation of them, particularly of pistols is dangerous, and it has a cost, a cost in human lives, and i think it simply needs to be more tightly controlled.
Going back to the story at hand, this happened in Arizona, the wild, wild west. Where gun stores are as common as the Gap is in SF, where you regularly see riffle racks in trucks and holsters on the street. Where assault rifles are legal, and any citizen can get a concealed carry permit. This is about as pro-firearm as you can get.
and i ask you, my dear readers, how many guns did it take to bring jarred down? how many arrmed malitia? how many NRA members were on the scene preventing tragedy? How many armed security guards jumped into the frey? How many strapped police officers, and sheriffs deputies drew down on the crazed assassin saving the day?
how many?
None.
Zero, no bullets, fired, no guns drawn.
A fucking folding chair was the only weapon used to halt his killing spree, a folding chair, and three unarmed wounded citizens to tackle and pin him, and take away his guns and ammo.
Their was only one gun involved in this whole ordeal.
One gun, purchased legally, by a mad man.
One gun, and four extended magazines.
One gun to take the lives of six people, to wound thirteen more ...and three unarmed citizens to stop him.
I think the facts of the incident are pretty clear, what unrestricted access to guns is doing for safety in Arizona... what do you think?
It is possible that he could have killed giffords with a knife, or bat or other weapon, but theirs no way he could have killed and wounded so many so quickly with anything but a gun, a hi-capacity semi-auto at that.
And it is possible that, if legally prevented from getting the gun, he might have found one illegally... but he didn't.
as far as using *this instance* as your talking point their is one side to benefit.
Setting the barrier as low as possible simply didn't help defend against him, setting the barrier to acquire firearms, esp pistols, and hi-cap magazines moreover is was more likely to help prevent or reduce this tragedy
I do have some thoughts about what sensible gun control should look like, California misses the mark btw, and what that means for the 2nd amendment ...but this is already TL;DR. I'll try summarize these in a different post
In conversions, editorials and comments sections, two topics are being debated... and i guess, moved by the events, and by the discourse.... i'd like to weigh in.
First, inspired by the words of Pima County Sheriff Dupnik: ( the vitriolic rhetoric ...It may be free speech but it does not come without consequences )
A lot of folks are discussing weather the likes of Palin can or should be held accountable.
Well in the first most basic level, i think it's hyperbolic and an impossibly hard sell to directly tie the actions of Jared Loughner to the words of Mrs. Palin. Doubly so at this early stage, when we know so little about him, other than he is clearly stark raving mad. Frankly i think its irresponsible to try and suggest any of them are directly responsible for this incident.
I hope it goes without saying that I find the tone of Palin, the Tea party, and pundits like O'reily, disturbing, appalling, and quite possibly dangerous... but that doesn't mean they are what spurred Loughner into action.
Although I do think its possible this climate of hate and fear mongering... particularly in Arizona... could, and did possibly influence the the actions of this unhinged individual... That polarization and vilification across political parties was an influence he responded to when crossing the line from nut-job with a webcam, to nut-job with a glock.
It is entirely possible that this climate is a factor in this crime....
But the fact remains their is no clear evidence to support that at this time, nor to tie his actions to any specific pundit....
And here is the important thing: It is a disservice to our side* to jump to those spurious conclusions, make those hyperbolic arguments... because they ring false, and they're easy to tear down, and in doing so they discredit the very valid concern that this rhetoric IS dangerous.
Lets tie the tea party to members who have made threats to senators, tie palin to vandals who have trashed homes and property of their officials offices and homes...or hey tie rand paul to violence against moveon protesters. That should really be more than enough.
Now if i was in anyway unclear i want to repeat: I DO think the rhetoric on our national political stage has gotten completely our of hand. Much as Paul Krugman put it their is plenty of room for heated debate, it's healthy and arguably essential to our form of governing, but
Elimination Rhetoric has NO place in a free democratic America.
I think both parties need to clean their acts up... but that the extreme right, particularly the "tea party" are _far_ and _away_ the worst offenders. (That Limbaugh & O'reily have wasted no time vilifying Sheriff Dupnik for his honest reaction, only underscores this, its a shame so many at the other pole will actually fall for this transparent, hypocritical bait and switch)
Of course our freedom is speech is sacred, it is the first of all amendments in the bill of rights. No, i don't think this problem can be legislated away... but the pundits, politicos and personality need regulate themselves. To take a breath, take a step back, and remember it is entirely possible to disagree vehemently, but respectfully. Moreover those who cross the line should be held accountable by their peers. They should generally be ignored and ostracized, not rewarded with reality tv shows, book deals and front page headlines. For these reasons i am happy this is being talked about, but you just can't make direct connections from his horrific crime to any specific figurehead; at least not yet.
Second, naturally is Guns and Gun Control...
no mater what the discrete factor(s) external and/or internal that pushed Loughner from crazy ranting stoner, to mad murdering assassin...it is a cold, hard, indisputable fact that one, and only one tool enabled him to do so. A Gun. A legally purchased Glock-19 semi-automatic pistol.
It comes as no surprise this has spurred some on the left to cry for more gun control, and its not really that surprising that some on the right are crying for more armed citizens.
Well this, if you care, is what i think...
Now i want to state upfront I love guns, much like i love motorcycles.... I own a gun, I enjoy shooting for sport, pinking, action shooting, skeet, trap, you name it. I've shot everything from single action .22 pistols to fully auto assault rifles and light machine guns. I would be very sad if i was barred access to fire arms.
But i think the sad truth is the proliferation of them, particularly of pistols is dangerous, and it has a cost, a cost in human lives, and i think it simply needs to be more tightly controlled.
Going back to the story at hand, this happened in Arizona, the wild, wild west. Where gun stores are as common as the Gap is in SF, where you regularly see riffle racks in trucks and holsters on the street. Where assault rifles are legal, and any citizen can get a concealed carry permit. This is about as pro-firearm as you can get.
and i ask you, my dear readers, how many guns did it take to bring jarred down? how many arrmed malitia? how many NRA members were on the scene preventing tragedy? How many armed security guards jumped into the frey? How many strapped police officers, and sheriffs deputies drew down on the crazed assassin saving the day?
how many?
None.
Zero, no bullets, fired, no guns drawn.
A fucking folding chair was the only weapon used to halt his killing spree, a folding chair, and three unarmed wounded citizens to tackle and pin him, and take away his guns and ammo.
Their was only one gun involved in this whole ordeal.
One gun, purchased legally, by a mad man.
One gun, and four extended magazines.
One gun to take the lives of six people, to wound thirteen more ...and three unarmed citizens to stop him.
I think the facts of the incident are pretty clear, what unrestricted access to guns is doing for safety in Arizona... what do you think?
It is possible that he could have killed giffords with a knife, or bat or other weapon, but theirs no way he could have killed and wounded so many so quickly with anything but a gun, a hi-capacity semi-auto at that.
And it is possible that, if legally prevented from getting the gun, he might have found one illegally... but he didn't.
as far as using *this instance* as your talking point their is one side to benefit.
Setting the barrier as low as possible simply didn't help defend against him, setting the barrier to acquire firearms, esp pistols, and hi-cap magazines moreover is was more likely to help prevent or reduce this tragedy
I do have some thoughts about what sensible gun control should look like, California misses the mark btw, and what that means for the 2nd amendment ...but this is already TL;DR. I'll try summarize these in a different post
