Quick, Ethel, call the cops; he could be dangerous. Oh, never mind ... it was just an assault rifle ... not something suspicious like, oh, cold medicine.
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The Difference Between Assault Weapons and Cold Medicine
Quick, Ethel, call the cops; he could be dangerous. Oh, never mind ... it was just an assault rifle ... not something suspicious like, oh, cold medicine.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
SOTU: Guns vs Jobs
Some, including Mayor Bloomberg and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, were disappointed that there was no overt mention of gun control in the 2011 State of the Union.
They missed the point. Apply some perspective.
Yes, gun control is a big issue. Yes, it's ridiculous to fail to restore restriction on the size of gun ammo magazines back down to a sane level as per the collective failure that's been going on since the assault weapon ban expired.
But the President of the United States can't ignore the big picture. We're living in a time of high unemployment. Too many people call for massive cuts that would likely throw us into an avalanche of crushing unemployment. Too many people call for insane moves like blocking the debt ceiling that would likely jam the entire world economy into a tailspin. These economic issues have the potential to bring widespread violence through collapse if the President doesn't talk them down from that fiscal ledge. If we went there, it would not be the first time that unemployment heated anger to boil over. The first priority of the President of the United States must be to keep our economy from grinding to a halt. Everything else depends on this. All the refinements of civil society to protect this or restrict that depend on our economy running at least well enough to keep our civil institutions going.
Gun control -- even the most sane and obvious restrictions like a cap on magazine size -- can be a very contentious and partisan issue. Maybe he could have pulled it off. But were the President to go there in the State of the Union, it would risk focusing his entire message on that issue. Yes, it's important. But even bigger concerns loom over our Union. We have 535 members of Congress who can worry about championing all of the secondary and tertiary issues. When the basic stability of the nation is at stake, the President needs to be focused on the jobs that make it possible to keep our society together.
They missed the point. Apply some perspective.
Yes, gun control is a big issue. Yes, it's ridiculous to fail to restore restriction on the size of gun ammo magazines back down to a sane level as per the collective failure that's been going on since the assault weapon ban expired.
But the President of the United States can't ignore the big picture. We're living in a time of high unemployment. Too many people call for massive cuts that would likely throw us into an avalanche of crushing unemployment. Too many people call for insane moves like blocking the debt ceiling that would likely jam the entire world economy into a tailspin. These economic issues have the potential to bring widespread violence through collapse if the President doesn't talk them down from that fiscal ledge. If we went there, it would not be the first time that unemployment heated anger to boil over. The first priority of the President of the United States must be to keep our economy from grinding to a halt. Everything else depends on this. All the refinements of civil society to protect this or restrict that depend on our economy running at least well enough to keep our civil institutions going.
Gun control -- even the most sane and obvious restrictions like a cap on magazine size -- can be a very contentious and partisan issue. Maybe he could have pulled it off. But were the President to go there in the State of the Union, it would risk focusing his entire message on that issue. Yes, it's important. But even bigger concerns loom over our Union. We have 535 members of Congress who can worry about championing all of the secondary and tertiary issues. When the basic stability of the nation is at stake, the President needs to be focused on the jobs that make it possible to keep our society together.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Gun Stances
In the wake of the assassination attempt on Rep Giffords that turned into a mass shooting, it is only natural that we're all reminded of the repeatedly forgotten issue of gun control.
There have been repeated mentions that Giffords herself is a gun owner and "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". At least one news reporter has made remarks claiming that Rep Giffords ironically supported the right of the shooter to buy the very gun with which she was shot. Take from it what you will, but that doesn't seem to be the exact case. The gun used was a Glock 19 semi-automatic with an extended clip.
Here's a line item from the list of principles Rep Giffords indicated regarding gun control:
Does anyone really think that pistol is hunting gear? If not, you can't honestly claim Giffords supported the availability of that specific weapon just because she is a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". While she has supported the right to own guns and owns one herself, she is on record for opposing specific guns, including semi-automatics.
Of course, we shouldn't necessarily base our policy on Rep Giffords' stance just because she was shot. And even if the shooter had not been able to get a semi-automatic, he might still have shot Rep Giffords. But we should be aware that if semi-automatic guns had been banned according to her stated stance -- or even if extended magazines such as the one that allowed him to load so many bullets at once were still illegal -- it would have made it significantly harder for the shooter to kill and injure as many people as he did without having to reload. After all, it was when his first magazine ran out of bullets and he tried to reload with a second magazine that he was tackled and disarmed.
"Is there a good reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun?" - Sam Stein
There have been repeated mentions that Giffords herself is a gun owner and "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". At least one news reporter has made remarks claiming that Rep Giffords ironically supported the right of the shooter to buy the very gun with which she was shot. Take from it what you will, but that doesn't seem to be the exact case. The gun used was a Glock 19 semi-automatic with an extended clip.
Here's a line item from the list of principles Rep Giffords indicated regarding gun control:
"Ban the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns, except those used for hunting."
Does anyone really think that pistol is hunting gear? If not, you can't honestly claim Giffords supported the availability of that specific weapon just because she is a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". While she has supported the right to own guns and owns one herself, she is on record for opposing specific guns, including semi-automatics.
Of course, we shouldn't necessarily base our policy on Rep Giffords' stance just because she was shot. And even if the shooter had not been able to get a semi-automatic, he might still have shot Rep Giffords. But we should be aware that if semi-automatic guns had been banned according to her stated stance -- or even if extended magazines such as the one that allowed him to load so many bullets at once were still illegal -- it would have made it significantly harder for the shooter to kill and injure as many people as he did without having to reload. After all, it was when his first magazine ran out of bullets and he tried to reload with a second magazine that he was tackled and disarmed.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Stop Whipping Up Crazy People
What we need to look at goes beyond just a single shooting, horrific as that shooting may have been. That particular shooting might have been coincidental to the violent, inciting language that's been gathering steam for years. Maybe. Maybe not. But either way, it was made less surprising by all the violent, inciting language, whether that particular one was actually incited by it like others had been in the past.
Gabrielle Giffords about Sarah Palin's gun imagery and about attacks on Democratic offices including hers. A radical blog poster claimed responsibility for inspiring the breaking of the windows with one of his posts inciting people to smash windows in Democratic offices.
We don't know enough about Loughner's motives to be certain of why he did it. The details of the extremist Web sites he is alleged to have visited have not been released. We don't have anything beyond conjecture to go on as to whether he watched TV or listened to the radio, let alone whether he followed any specific media personalities. The challenge of considering "why" has been made even harder by fake pages on the internet claiming to be Loughner's but posted after the shooting. From his actual pages, we know a few things. Loughner posted about wanting a currency on the gold standard. Loughner talked about mind control. Loughner's favorite book listing includes Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. Loughner rambled about "read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws" and "Every police officer in the United States as of now is unconstitutionally working". Loughner posted, "Don’t trust the current government, listener!"
Again, we don't really know where he got these things. Here are some interesting points that may be strictly coincidence.
It isn't conclusive. It's not like Loughner explicitly called himself a Beck follower. But it's not a big leap. And, it has happened before. Does that mean Beck is responsible for Loughner? Maybe not. It certainly doesn't mean as much as the verified influences Glenn Beck has had on other violent people. So why bring this up now? Because it's time -- well past time -- to pay attention to the consequences of Glenn Beck's message. Even if Loughner weren't related, there needs to be more widespread repudiation of Glenn Beck before the next unstable would-be martyr for Beck's causes loads up his guns and drives off to try to start a revolution in a mad attempt to bring down our duly elected representatives. That truth doesn't depend on the specifics of just one unstable man. It has been proven by several including Byron Williams, Richard Poplawski, and Charles Alan Wilson. How many more of Beck's followers must we see attempt or achieve violence to make the pattern clear?
"...Republicans need to stop whipping up crazy people with violent political rhetoric. This is really not a hard concept to follow. There are crazy people out there. Stop egging them on."
from "Day 2- The Excuse Making Begins"
Gabrielle Giffords about Sarah Palin's gun imagery and about attacks on Democratic offices including hers. A radical blog poster claimed responsibility for inspiring the breaking of the windows with one of his posts inciting people to smash windows in Democratic offices.
We don't know enough about Loughner's motives to be certain of why he did it. The details of the extremist Web sites he is alleged to have visited have not been released. We don't have anything beyond conjecture to go on as to whether he watched TV or listened to the radio, let alone whether he followed any specific media personalities. The challenge of considering "why" has been made even harder by fake pages on the internet claiming to be Loughner's but posted after the shooting. From his actual pages, we know a few things. Loughner posted about wanting a currency on the gold standard. Loughner talked about mind control. Loughner's favorite book listing includes Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. Loughner rambled about "read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws" and "Every police officer in the United States as of now is unconstitutionally working". Loughner posted, "Don’t trust the current government, listener!"
- Glenn Beck pitches gold regularly, both the gold standard for currency and buying plain old gold directly.
- Glenn Beck talks about government "mind control".
- Glenn Beck frequently talks about Mein Kampf and recommends reading it.
- Glenn Beck talks about Communism quite frequently. While I'm not sure he's actually recommended reading the "Manifesto," he certainly seems obsessed with it.
- Glenn Beck talks about his political targets allegedly "...doing all these little usurpations of the Constitution..."
- Glenn Beck talks about broken faith in government and not trusting government.
It isn't conclusive. It's not like Loughner explicitly called himself a Beck follower. But it's not a big leap. And, it has happened before. Does that mean Beck is responsible for Loughner? Maybe not. It certainly doesn't mean as much as the verified influences Glenn Beck has had on other violent people. So why bring this up now? Because it's time -- well past time -- to pay attention to the consequences of Glenn Beck's message. Even if Loughner weren't related, there needs to be more widespread repudiation of Glenn Beck before the next unstable would-be martyr for Beck's causes loads up his guns and drives off to try to start a revolution in a mad attempt to bring down our duly elected representatives. That truth doesn't depend on the specifics of just one unstable man. It has been proven by several including Byron Williams, Richard Poplawski, and Charles Alan Wilson. How many more of Beck's followers must we see attempt or achieve violence to make the pattern clear?Regardless of what we eventually find out about the motives of Loughner, it is certainly prompting some perhaps overdue thought about civil discourse in our society.
"Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line."
from "Climate of Hate" by Paul Krugman
It's great that people are thinking about the prevalence of incitement and discussing it. But will this cause the hate mongers to truly stop? Or will they just take cover for a bit, pause, pretend to be all peaceful and anti-hate ... until it all blows over and then start back up again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)