A Modest Proposal
The news of yet another shooting spree--the latest, as of this writing, at Northern Illinois University--begs a question that's rarely asked these days. Not "Why did he do it?" It's human nature to want an answer to that one, of course, even though the headlines move on well before anything approaching a useful analysis can ever be figured out, and we're left to conclude what's most obvious: Like the others, he did it because he could. And the question isn't "How could this happen here?" Sadly, most people have come to understand that they shouldn't expect their communities to be immune.
No, what I want to know is this: Since when did the repeated and senseless murder of innocent Americans by other Americans become a subject that's too trivial for politicians to address in a serious, sustained way? And I mean going beyond the robo-response "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families." I'm talking about leading a public discussion on how to prevent others from needing our thoughts and prayers.
First, as with all problems, we need to recognize that one exists before attempting to solve it. Is it too much of an impossible dream for Americans on both sides of the ideological fence to agree that disturbed people mowing down their fellow citizens in public places is a bad thing? And if we prefer not to live a modern version of "The Lottery," the Shirley Jackson short story in which a community's citizens draw lots to see who's going to be stoned next, do we have a choice other than to resign ourselves to it? No one says "Diseases are here to stay." No one says "I guess the economy is just going to suck."
One only has to look to other western cultures to see that they don't play this game. It's not that they don't have disgruntled former employees, victims of bullying, and loners who feel that their lives have gone down the drain, and no one cares. Random violence breaks out in their societies, too; it's just that their laws don't make it so damn easy.
Where's the leadership on this issue? Why aren't candidates for the highest office in the land at the very least opening a dialogue on the subject? The Democrats used to act as if finding solutions to gun violence mattered, but at some point--during the Gore campaign, as I recall--they decided that the topic was a political loser, and the less said about it, the better. So the attempt to solve the problem went away. But the problem never did.
So Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain: I'm talking to you. In exit polls, voters may not name anxiety about gun violence as one of the reasons they voted for you, but the toll on their quality of life, in terms of stress and tears, is high. If you really want to prove that you're a strong leader, let Americans know that you recognize their anxiety and sense of loss, and you're going to make it your mission to do something about it.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The collective right of "THE PEOPLE" as per the 2nd amendment.
I think that the Bill of Rights was not written to be obtuse, only to be understood by lawyers. It was written to be read by any literate citizen.
The 2nd, especially in the context of other writings of the time, is quite clearly intended to protect the personal right to own and carry arms. Arguments stating that it represents a collective right only are in flagrant denial of the discussion surrounding the creation of the Bill of Rights.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?
On the flip side, there is no doubt that mass production, low cost, and a general stupidity on the part of the majority of our citizens adds a painful downside to the legacy of the 2nd.
If you do not like the 2nd, change it. After all, we are a nation of laws.
What strikes me about every dialogue concerning the 2d Amendment neglects to consider how far new technology has amplified the lethality of "arms."
Would the founding fathers sign off on the right of citizens to own more firepower than the police have available to them? Would they have approved our right to own and use armor piercing rounds?
Let's stop worrying about what they would have said about this and use a little common sense.
I don't think we should guarantee the right of any ciitizen to own an assault weapon, or armor piercing ballistics.
Debate? What debate? The 2nd Ammendment is cast in stone. Nobody is listening to a "debate" about guns.
He was able to do it because he was not living in an insane asylum. That's why we have insane asylums -- if we could render the criminally insane safe to be around we wouldn't need them. Laws are never going to be more effective with guns than they were for alcohol, marijuana, cocaine or heroin. That's why, in a free society, the people need the immediate means of self-defense -- a well-trained and armed private citizenry (i.e. militia) being UNnecessary to the security of a state or country that _isn't_ free.
Meanwhile, we have to ask ourselves how many more mass killings the media is going to promote until they finally realize that this is not going to get them their way on the gun control issue?
the united states is a police state, not in the traditional sense of an everimposing gov't but because of threatening violent criminals. this feeling doesn't exist anywhere there is not a war going on. americans pride themselves as being the freest people in the world. they have no idea how much freedom is given to the fear of criminals(and now terrorists). if they did they might, then, get upset.
I can tell you John McCain's solution: arm everyone. Every man woman and child should have a firearm and be allowed to carry them everywhere (except on a plane, you have to check your gun along with your shampoo). That way, when a deranged gunman opens fire, everybody can turn immediately into Rambo and fire back, and hope and pray that in their panic they don't end up shooting everybody in the room and their mother! Sounds like a plan to me. Now if we could only arm the helpless animals too, so they could at least defend themselves when the sadistic torturers come for them. THAT I'd actually like to see.
As a solution it's highly reminiscent of that episode of All in the Family where Archie Bunker in a guest TV editorial gave his solution for dealing with highjackers: arm all the passengers. So what was comedy in the 1970s is now a serious policy proposal by a presidential candidate? Hopefully your account of McCain is just a bit of comedy itself.
When you have 24 hour news networks trying to fill airtime, every local tragedy becomes a national tragedy.
Violence has always happened. When we push it up to national politicians to solve, we just hand over more responsibility (and power) to the people the furthest from the problem.
Some subjects are taboo during election campaigns because the special interests involved are simply too powerful to challenge. Our gun culture is one, but there are others. For instance, try asking Hillary or Barack why the U.S. taxpayers are obliged to send about $3 billion each year to Egypt and Israel, two thriving nations which presumably could get along just fine without our aid. Chances are the candidates would respond with a display of tap-dancing the likes of which hasn't been seen since Fred broke up with Ginger.
And it's the same issue: Egypt and Israel use much of our aid to buy guns from our military-industrial complex. But you won't hear any candidate talking about that relationship, unless it's some Republican thumping the usual right-wing tub.
So sorry, but no candidate who seriously hopes to be elcected will get anywhere near this issue, except to say the formulaic "gun control would mean that only criminals will have guns." Excpect that or else utter silence on the issue.
After all, this is America, and we have the Second Ammendment, which must be strictly obeyed, and First Ammendment, which must be strictly ignored.
Ah, here we go again...
The reason political candidates don't address gun violence is that GUNS ARE A CULTURE IN AMERICA.
Let me repeat that: GUNS. ARE. A. CULTURE.
And like any culture, if you threaten it (or are perceived to threaten it), then its membership will respond negatively.
Speaking of Al Gore, I can't count the number of times someone told me they weren't voting for him in 2000 because of Tipper's campaign for music labeling. That was a monumental disaster for Gore's presidential ambitions -- tens of millions of music lovers were turned off to him forever.
So before you go asking a candidate to offend millions of happy gun owners, think twice.
I hear the NRA is lobbying for a new motto on US coins to replace In God We Trust. They have won the support of the entire Republican party. The motto they seek to put on the coin of the relm is 'Shoot First, Ask Questions Later'. Vice President Cheney is especially keen on the idea.
Let's see: being that hair gel is necessary to the creation of a well regulated militia, I am waiting for the NRA to take on the antihair gel agenda and the banning of it in on board baggage. Seriously, screw the threat posed by a single invasion and occupation in a decade, my right to own an AK 47 is what makes life in Bagdhad worth living. Gunrunning makes the world go round. Happiness.
Before the drug companies could silence her, the girl friend of the latest shooter said the boy had been taking PROZAC.
There is so-o-o-o much data on the drugs that these shooters have been taking and many are the same and have very bad reputations, but WE allow the companies to continue distribution and do not hold them to any responsibility. That has to change.
Access to mental healthcare.
Assisting families with ill relatives to have support and community facilities and ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTHCARE.
Removing the stigma of mental illness and ACCESS TO PRESCRIPTIVE DRUGS AND MENTAL HEALTHCARE.
That is all that is needed to help alleviate a huge community problem.
Loading comments…
Posted February 18, 2008 | 05:00 PM (EST)