More

Only One Fact in Arizona: Loughner Got a Gun

First Posted: 01/10/11 01:21 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET

Loughner

Amid the conjecture, pop psychologizing, hand-wringing and condemnation provoked by this weekend's terrible carnage in Arizona, only one inescapable fact emerges: A young man who had decided to kill people was able to go out and easily procure the weaponry needed to get the job done.

Yes, as the pundits have explored and will continue to, his violent assault on an Arizona congresswoman and the unfortunate people around her speaks to a multitude of disturbing cultural factors. We can focus on the shrill, even hateful tone that sometimes dominates the political conversation, and suggest with some justification that it may be encouraging actual physical violence. We can dissect the way in which the Tea Party tends to frame every issue as a good-versus-evil struggle, with the core civil rights of a free people supposedly under threat by the slavish lackeys of totalitarianism -- potential impetus for warped minds to construe murder as heroism.

We can point to opportunistic politicians who fan the flames of resentment against Big Government, fueling the sorts of conspiracy theories to which the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, appears to have subscribed. We can examine the cavalier way in which disingenuous cultural arbiters assert that everything in America would seemingly be marvelous were it not for the illegals streaming over the border.

We can look at how the cosmopolitan elite lampoons those distrustful of the federal government as a bunch of trailer-dwelling fools, the condescension that too often infuses mainstream-media treatment of people with real grievances and fears.

We can drill into Loughner's unique history -- his reported attempt to enlist in the military, his bizarre outbursts in an Arizona college classroom, his proclivities for libertarian politics and his potential sympathies for hate groups. We can buy into any number of potentially plausible explanations for what produced this particular vessel of pathology, this alienated young man who ultimately showed up in a supermarket parking lot in Tucson and opened fire.

But in the end, these sorts of treatments amount to nothing more than an intellectual exercise, an attempt to impose a coherent narrative on something that otherwise is so morally repellent as to be senseless. Sifting through the tragedy for the cultural or biographical explanations that seem to fit the case will not keep semiautomatic weapons out of the hands of people with lethal intent. Only serious gun-control laws and stiffened enforcement have a chance to do that.

We Americans have developed an agreed-upon social protocol for how to react to the gun-related horrors that regularly capture the news pages. Journalists spring into action with a standard-issue set of questions: What happened? Who did it? What made him snap? Should someone have known? Yet this whole exercise of seeking to identify the unique strain of madness at work seems more about enabling false comfort then fully elucidating how we got here, a sideshow distracting us from the hard work that would be required to take on the gun lobby and limit access to the only part of the narrative that weighs in as a hard, cold fact: the weapon.

This is an understandable human reaction to tragedy, like when someone you know gets mugged, and you find yourself trying to identify their error: What were they doing on that street at that time of night? (Because, as the question makes implicit, you wouldn't have been stupid enough to be there.) Didn't they know better than to put their wallet in that pocket? Here is the mindset of denial, the attempt to bury the universality of what has just happened beneath differentiating details that render the case an aberration.

So it goes now with our search for the secret to Jared Loughner. Was he mentally ill? Was it something he read on a particularly hateful website? Was it religion, hatred of immigrants, something he suffered as a child? Was it the wrong medication? Should the authorities have stepped in and stopped it before it happened?

These questions -- inherently interesting and relevant in their own way -- will not help us avoid the next such chapter in our national history. Every country has mentally unstable people, conspiracy theorists and kooks. Every land has angry young men with rage enough to hurt other people. But not every country has easy access to semiautomatic weapons, a uniquely American feature that can be awfully difficult to explain to citizens of other countries, be they Japanese, French or Australian.

We are the only developed country that has managed to turn a rightful pride in our hard-earned independence into a justification for social insanity. We have taken our identity as a nation forged on the frontier, our enduring sense of resourcefulness, and transformed it into a fetish for gun freedom. We are not Europeans in need of the nanny state, we like to tell ourselves, and somehow that has gained political currency as a justification to enable seemingly anyone to walk into a store and walk out -- eventually, after a little paperwork -- with a hunk of metal capable of ending multiple lives in a matter of seconds.

Until we fully we reckon with that, we will certainly be here again, sorting through the life of one or another deranged individual, holding the culture up for scrutiny, asking what went wrong.

Surely, another young man will eventually become disaffected enough to resort to violence. The culture, the polity, perhaps mental illness and the vague influences of a talking head will combine to yield a deep enough sense of fear and injury to instill murderous intent. That will happen as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. The only truly meaningful question is whether that young man will be unleashed into a country that offers him the material for efficient killing, or whether we will put aside our political dysfunction, our polarized distrust and accusation long enough to accomplish something of enduring value: a reasonable set of rules governing who can carry a gun.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Amid the conjecture, pop psychologizing, hand-wringing and condemnation provoked by this weekend's terrible carnage in Arizona, only one inescapable fact emerges: A young man who had decided to kill p...
Amid the conjecture, pop psychologizing, hand-wringing and condemnation provoked by this weekend's terrible carnage in Arizona, only one inescapable fact emerges: A young man who had decided to kill p...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,921
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (53 total)
  1 of 15  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
BeasleysMom 08:51 PM on 01/10/2011
Here's the deal. As is frequently my custom I switched back and forth between O'Reilly and Olbermann tonight for about the first half hour of their shows. O'Reilly started off his time with an angry diatribe about Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times, denouncing him for daring to say that Fox and Limbaugh are into hate speech.  Then two right wing pudits--some woman named Ham and a black  Read More...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:30 AM on 01/12/2011
time for a firearms refresher course.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.

Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

The United States Constitution ) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand ?

The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.

You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.

If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.

Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to control them.

You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't make more.
.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

The American Revolution would never have happened with
11:42 AM on 01/12/2011
What are guns actually useful for? You keep talking about how it's a bad idea to ban them and how most people use them responsibly but unless you're using them to hunt then what is the point of having one? The only other use I can think of is to shoot someone.
04:16 PM on 01/14/2011
"The only other use I can think of is to shoot someone."

That's the only reason I ever expect to use mine, but it will only be if someone else with a gun threatens me first, and there is no safe alternative for me to escape. If you want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, make sure you first take them away from those who would use them for criminal activity, from those who would threaten innocent people with them, and those who would be the first to draw them in order to take my property or the lives of my family or me. By making it illegal to own or carry a firearm, the only people who will be dissuaded are the ones who are already law abiding, and we are not the problem in the first place.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:54 PM on 01/15/2011
"what is the point of having one?"

Paper!!! A reasonable guess is that over 99% of all bullets are sent flying through paper!!!
SoSorry
There are no gods.
10:32 PM on 01/11/2011
Another great article by Peter Goodman.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paperless Tiger
09:11 PM on 01/11/2011
Far more people are killed by automobiles. Are you going to ban them, too?
SoSorry
There are no gods.
10:34 PM on 01/11/2011
Not sure I get where you are going with this.. automobiles are not made to be used as weapons. Guns are.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:11 AM on 01/12/2011
Guns give the victim the opprtunity to defend themselves against crimnals. In states where guns are banned the crime is always hgh (Chicago DC LA NYC BALTMORE PHILLY ADNASEUM) Whereas places with little or no gun laws like New Hampshire have the lowest crime rates in america.
04:17 PM on 01/14/2011
Americans are more murderous by nature. We have a higher per capita rate of murder with knives as well, because Americans, by nature, by history, by the American heritage, and by every other measure, are simply more likely to kill each other.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SallieParker
08:02 PM on 01/11/2011
Give me a break. Most people with guns are law-abiding and seldom use them and never brandish them around. If you don't like having guns around, fine--that's understandable, and neither do I--but let's not make our personal quirks into a mania. If you have such a problem with guns, why did you come to this country in the first place? It's not as though you have deep roots here and there aren't any other countries.
09:04 PM on 01/11/2011
I don't think that the argument here is for a full scale ban of guns, but rather a reasonable restriction on the types of guns that are designed specifically to unleash a massive number of rounds in seconds, and thereby have the potential to do massive damage to large numbers of people in a short period of time. I can't think of any non-paranoid reason to have such weapons readily available to anyone outside of the military.
07:58 PM on 01/11/2011
I would have commented about cops not having a problem, but then...

...well, Google "Glock leg".

Cops aren't exactly the best example of safe gun handling either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aaron Cogan
Your Mom's micro-bio is empty.
07:43 PM on 01/11/2011
Dear NRA Jackholes,

You lost any credibility whatsoever after the 2000 election. For years you proclaimed you needed your guns 'in case someone tries to take over our government.' Then someone DID steal the presidency; your response was to crow that you'd have a desk in the Oval Office. (I guess it's not theft when you buddy's the one stealing?)

Pres. G.H.W. Bush is the only one of you with a modicum of honor that I can see. He quit the after NRA Exec VP Wayne LaPierre referred to members of the federal government as "jackbooted government thugs."

I'd be surprised if half the NRA's membership could spell "patriot." They certainly don't know what it means.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:16 AM on 01/12/2011
Dear gun grabbing fascist

You lost all credibiliy in the 2008 electons. You screamed that Bush was a dictator and evoked Benjamin Franklins those who give up freedom for security deserve neither and then when Obama took over demaned that any one who opposes socialism or obama be killed. Now you want law abiding americans to be dfenseless just because your government failed to prevent Loughner from shooting up Giffords and failed to enforce gun laws already on the books therby making us give up our only way of defending our rights from a bloodthristy dictatorshop which will no doubt come from the Democrats.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sophiemaki
07:03 PM on 01/11/2011
how diid he learn how to shoot?
12:51 PM on 01/12/2011
it's not that hard
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
05:37 PM on 01/11/2011
The rights of gun owners to own weapons stops when it may be used in the way Loughner used his gun. Why is it all the gun afficianados always start whining when there is a suggestion that gun laws be tightened up? Afraid that a clinical psychologist might find a good reason for them NOT to be allowed to purchase/own a firearm? The sad fact is that the AZ gun laws are far too lenient and need to have some safeguards added so that people with mental problems are not sold a firearm that will have a good possibility of being used to kill others.
08:42 PM on 01/11/2011
The rights of CAR AND BEER owners to own CARS AND BEER stops when it may be used in the way ANY PERSON WITH A DUI used his CAR AND BEER. Why is it all the CAR AND BEER afficianad­os always start whining when there is a suggestion that CAR AND BEER laws be tightened up? Afraid that a clinical psychologi­st might find a good reason for them NOT to be allowed to purchase/o­wn a CAR OR BEER? The sad fact is that the AZ CAR AND BEER laws are far too lenient and need to have some safeguards added so that people with mental problems are not sold a CAR OR A BEER that will have a good possibilit­y of being used to kill others.

Totally right. No one should own a car or a beer because of DUI drivers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:56 PM on 01/15/2011
"Why is it all the gun afficianad\u00ados always start whining when there is a suggestion that gun laws be tightened up?"

When you go around talking about how you want to rob people of their property, their liberty, and their lives - they are gonna get testy.
04:33 PM on 01/11/2011
The right to bear arms is in our constitution.
one crazy person does not make it right to take away the rights of others.
outnow
Ban the bomb
05:14 PM on 01/11/2011
The high court is devided about this. Roe vs. Wade is the law yet many still disagree. A future court may overturn the right to bear arms and jhave already alowed limitations on that right.

Your exercising of your rights might invade my rights. I have the right to be free from danger created by guns.

Your insecurities about your safety interfere with my right to be free from potential carelessness of gun owners. Statistics prove that guns are dangerous and few gun owners are able to respond in damages for the harm their carelessness causes. A few have homeowners insurance and a very few have renter's insurance.

Auto policies have loading and unloading of the vehicle covered as far as accidental discharges are concerned. It happens all the time because people are careless by nature. Would you give chimps guns? Many people are not much smarter unfortunately.
SoSorry
There are no gods.
10:37 PM on 01/11/2011
Fanned
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:17 AM on 01/12/2011
When a conservative doesnt like guns he doesnt own one but a liberal will make sure no one but crminals owns one.

Move to Chicago if your hate the 2nd amendment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:35 PM on 01/11/2011
So lets outlaw guns now too because a crazy person killed some people? Do you really think thats going to stop murders or keep you safer, it will give the criminals alot more pwer and strength, and gun runners will be even more prosperous selling illegal guns everywhere, this crazy kid would still be able to get his gun and kill people, the only difference is that the good people wouldnt be able to buy a gun now, or they would have to buy themillegally on the streets. Look what prohibitin and drug laws have done, imagine the same thing but with way more deaths if stricter gun laws are enacted.
outnow
Ban the bomb
02:58 PM on 01/11/2011
Selling guns should require insurance and a certificate from a licensed clinical psychologist as well as a background check, including juvenile arrests and juvenile mental health admissions.

Of the people I know, the desire to own a gun raises some troubling red flags. How do I know that these people have both oars in the water? How does some gun dealer at a gun show? They have no clue. The record check does not reveal many things, like if you are evn close to being sane, but gun owners all believe in their own sanity. I don't.

This will happen again and again. I know of cases of people buying guns and passing the background check with jevelie criminal and psychiatric records that are confidential. A current psych eval would help eliminate this. If getting gun insurance is too costly, why would that be if guns and their owners are so safe?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gerald4
licensed mechanical and electrical engineer
03:48 PM on 01/11/2011
The clinical psychiatrist opinion in a criminal court of law generally reflects (only) the desires of the criminal or the prosecution, depending upon who is paying the psychiatrist.

I do not trust the opinion of any of our mental health professionals, and I consider their opinions worthless.
04:33 PM on 01/11/2011
Amen........
outnow
Ban the bomb
05:04 PM on 01/11/2011
So all mental health care professionals are worthless in your opinion? Upon what facts do you base your assessment of the all mental health professionals? Who pays an expert is the basis of bias of some professionals, but not all. I trust mental health professionals more than I trust gun dealers.

The prediction of "dangerousness" is very difficult for mental heath care professionals. That is very true. But some prospective gun purchasers are overtly psychotic or suicidal. Should we seel guns to them? What off those with mental health records who are on anti-depressants?

I spoke to a young man today who bought a gun for suicidal purposes. He was accidentally wounded two days ago when a friend examined his gun. That friend has a weapons permit for a concealed weapon and owns twenty pistols. He is an "expert" but was momentarily spaced out.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:19 AM on 01/12/2011
The psychiatrist if he's a white supremacist can take guns away from blacks then.

By the way, the KKK supported gun control for that very reason. Defenseless victims. Criminals and the insane will still get guns anyway.
outnow
Ban the bomb
12:13 PM on 01/12/2011
Especially if the largest manufacturer and distributor is the US. At least we manufacture something - too bad it is just more killin'.
02:40 PM on 01/11/2011
As if criminals will forfeit their weapons or attain them legally.

Interesting article:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196
03:44 PM on 01/11/2011
This one did.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Hush, was the first word you were taught...
04:56 PM on 01/11/2011
That's because he could.

If he couldn't get it legally, he almost certainly would have gotten it illegally.  He obviously had no problem getting pot.  Why should a gun be any different.
01:49 PM on 01/11/2011
I disagree with more gun control laws on the basis that the many are punished by the few. While this may have worked for us to be less selfish in school, it has no part in our world. There will always be bad people. Bad things will always happen too people in the world. We cannot stop that no matter how hard we try.

Likewise, it is our right as human beings to defend ourselves. Forget anything about the constitution, we have the right to defend ourselves and hurt or kill someone intent on doing the same to us. More gun control laws may prevent shooting sprees such as this, I don't know how spur of the moment it was, however many of these similar sprees are very calculated over a period of time. Guns could and probably would have still been bought.

So all we have left, with more gun control laws, is it's harder for the regular joe like you or me to buy a gun. While you may not think it a big deal, I would much rather have access to a firearm should I need. Too many people never think about what bad things may come to them, never expecting or planning for an eventuality that more than likely will never present itself. Others, however, would like to be prepared if anyone should threaten their lives.

I, and many others, are in the latter category. Don't punish us for that
02:10 PM on 01/11/2011
It's nice to see that there are some thinking people here.
outnow
Ban the bomb
03:03 PM on 01/11/2011
Get a certificate from a clinical psychologist and insurance. Then we will be protected from your actions, whether being careless or crazy, not that you would be. You sound pretty rational but what if you or someone else is not? Aside from wanting to protect yourself, how about protecting others from your negligence, as in auto insurance? What if you drop your gun and it discharges. Who should bear that risk?
03:39 PM on 01/11/2011
Modern guns won't do that.

You need to be more knowledgeable about the subject before you can have a meaningful discussion about it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gerald4
licensed mechanical and electrical engineer
03:50 PM on 01/11/2011
But the clinical psychiatri­st opinion generally reflects (only) the desires of the whoever is paying the psychiatri­st.
12:52 PM on 01/11/2011
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.†- Franklin
12:58 PM on 01/11/2011
Wonder what that nine-year-old girl gave up? Her freedom or her security when she went with a neighbor for a visit with her Congresswoman. This is seldom figured in because that gun and that ammo are more important. That nine-year-old was collateral damage that is "acceptable".
01:23 PM on 01/11/2011
greater good... period.
01:42 PM on 01/11/2011
Children and people die all the time. Why is she, here and now, you're rallying cry?
01:11 PM on 01/11/2011
Exactly what point are you trying to make?
That the people who were killed somehow deserved to die, so we could ensure that others are allowed to own guns with high-capacity magazines?
Please enlighten us...
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Hush, was the first word you were taught...
05:02 PM on 01/11/2011
Don't be ridiculous.  You know exactly what it means.  The only question is whether you agree that freedom is worth the price.

You of course realize that many people have directly paid for your freedom with their lives in wars.  But what you don't seem to realize is that the freedoms you enjoy every day also cost lives every day.

The freedom to own firearms is just one of them.
04:49 PM on 01/12/2011
“Well, we still don't know much about this person, do we?†todays news pretty much sealed the deal. the kid didnt watch news or listen to talk radio. do you want links? I'm open to continued betting or a payment plan.
12:36 PM on 01/11/2011
We are dumbfounded by these events because they defy logic. It makes sense to limit access to guns, right? The logic crashes around in our heads and runs right into reality. In this country, and probably now in most other developed countries, business is the main religion. There are profits in guns, extended magazines, assault style weapons, six inch blades, 50m cal. sniper rifles, etc. They are all legal because business says so and business will keep saying so as long as there is money to be made. Look at it this way, Fox News, Palin, Bachman, et al are simply marketing execs. Business rewards them well.
12:49 PM on 01/11/2011
NO, it does not make sense to limit access to guns, simply because it can't be done. You would only be limiting access to law abiding citizens. Not only this, but you would turn any 'good citizen' who owns a gun into a criminal. Really?
12:55 PM on 01/11/2011
Complete garbage.
By your logic, only law-abiding citizens buy guns. Then why do people keep buying them and murdering and robbing people with them?
01:00 PM on 01/11/2011
Our own legal arms dealers part you from your money very easily. They use smart marketing to get into your wallet. And you defend your right to be a dupe. Wonderful!
photo
patient i am
i've run out of patience
04:11 PM on 01/11/2011
fanned