Like many people who have come forward to speak or write about the Tucson massacre, I know and adore Gabby Giffords. It is virtually impossible not to adore her. She has a presence and graciousness that light up a room.
That she survived a shot from a semi-automatic at close range is remarkable. Yet the trauma she has endured -- psychologically and neurologically -- is not one that ever leaves a person untouched. The only question at this point is how much of that radiant light anyone who knows her has seen in her eyes and her smile will return. And for that, we can only hope, pray, and wait for her brain to heal itself.
We know little about the events that led to her shooting, to the death of at least six people, and to the massacre that left 14 others on the ground. But we do know three things.
The first is that the man witnesses say was the shooter, who did everything he could to destroy the brains of his victims, was likely himself the victim of a damaged brain. Even before reporters started to interview his professors and college classmates who were frightened by his erratic behavior in class last fall, the three YouTube videos he left as testimony to his mental state left no doubt that he is delusional and probably in the midst of a psychotic episode (a fancy way of saying that his brain is no longer functioning so that he can tell reality from unreality -- even by Tea Party standards).
We know a great deal more about illnesses such as schizophrenia than we knew when our laws on "insanity" evolved. Perhaps most importantly, we now know that the kind of conceptual and linguistic incoherence in Jared Loughner's YouTube videos is the result of a broken brain -- more "madness" than "badness," although we do not yet know enough about him to know how clear the line between them is in this case.
Allowing someone who is clearly paranoid, delusional, and incoherent -- in the midst of a psychotic episode -- to have a semi-automatic weapon in his hands is like putting a car in the hands of someone in the midst of an epileptic seizure during rush-hour traffic. Should Loughner turn out to be psychotic and brain-diseased, as appears to be the case, he will be no more genuinely culpable for the acts he has committed -- regardless of what the law says -- than a person who had his first seizure while driving through a crowded Tucson intersection. Less can be said for our political leaders -- a point to which we shall shortly return.
Second, the fact that the shooter is mentally ill does not mean that his mind and brain exist in a vacuum. When Bill O'Reilly and his ilk on Fox began their attacks on "Tiller the Killer" -- the physician who provided legal abortions until he was gunned down in his church in the name of Jesus -- they fired the first shots in the uncivil war that has just claimed six more lives. To make the claim that the constant propagandizing against Tiller by a television network -- including the publicizing of his whereabouts -- played no role in the events that led an assassin to choose him as his target would be as psychotic as Loughner's incoherent YouTube diatribes. Surely a deranged killer could have found someone else to target among the over 300 million people who call this country home.
But the fact that the causal link between Fox's jihad against an American citizen and his ultimate assassination at the hands of a religiously motivated terrorist never became a topic of widespread discussion except on a couple of evening shows on MSNBC, that it prompted no change in the way the rightwing propaganda machine has villified American citizens, and that it prompted little more than one or two brief written statements from our top elected officials -- perhaps a congressional hearing or two might have been in order? -- is a profound indictment of both our media and our political system.
And now we have seen the same thing play out again.
The quasi-delusional rantings of media personalities such as Glenn Beck and the cognitively and psychiatrically impaired candidates and elected officials we have come to accept as part of the American political landscape in the 21st century, like the hate-mongering of Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, are part of the political and psychological air a psychotic shooter like Jared Loughner breathes.
Did prominent personalities like Brewer (or Sarah Palin, who literally put Gabby Giffords in her "crosshairs") cause this attack? No, any more than Bill O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch caused the jihadist attack on a physician who had violated a terrorist's religious sensibilities -- or, for that matter, any more than jihadist websites that publicize the "blasphemies" perpetrated by the United States cause alienated young men to become suicide bombers against us or our allies.
Did Beck, Brewer, and crew contribute to the conditions that created the latest assassinations, irrespective of the prayers and pieties they and Republican politicians like John Boehner are now lavishing on the people they have encouraged their fellow citizens to hate (those with their "job-killing" and "baby-killing" agendas -- which they apparently pursue when they aren't setting up "death panels")? Try reading alleged shooter Loughner's rants about government, the terrorists who have seized control over it, and what they are doing to our Constitution and argue that he was not breathing in Foxified fumes and Brewer's bigotry.
Third, although the political context was different, we have seen this movie before in yet another sense. Columbine, Virginia Tech, countless shootings in schools and churches in between and since -- what do they share in common? Deafening silence from those who call themselves our leaders.
Since the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy in that terrible summer of 1968, over a million Americans have died at the wrong end of a firearm. In most countries, we would call that genocide.
This was not the first time Gabby Giffords -- or countless other lawmakers, candidates, and elected officials, including President Obama -- was confronted at a campaign rally or town hall meeting by gun-toting bullies, whose primary goal -- at least until this time -- was intimidation. That bringing a weapon (in Arizona, concealed) within that proximity to an elected official could be legal in the world's longest-lasting democracy is both surreal and shameful -- and now it threatens that democracy.
Whether they are owned and operated by the NRA, too cowardly to take on the NRA for fear of being defeated in the next election, or misled into believing that the average American is as psychotic as the man who opened fire in Tucson (i.e., that most Americans can't tell the difference between hunting deer and hunting people, or between a hunting rifle and a semi-automatic), our leaders have either faithfully served the interest of Smith and Wesson and the gun lobby or failed to oppose them. The result is that the country has shifted to the right on gun safety, which is what naturally happens when the right is vocal and the left is frightened and silent.
But even today, if you simply speak to ordinary Americans in plain English, they do not believe in the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment. Americans are, if nothing else, strong believers in common sense, and the same people who willingly walk through metal detectors at airports and other settings understand the importance of metal detectors for protecting their elected officials -- just as they support them for protecting their kids if there's any chance they could be harmed at school.
Consider a message colleagues and I tested with two large national samples of registered voters, which beat a tough conservative anti-regulation message on guns by 20 points with both the general electorate and swing voters:
Every law-abiding citizen has the right to bear arms to hunt and protect his family. But that right doesn't extend to criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill... We need to use some common sense in deciding what kind of weapons we want on the streets. I don't know any hunters who keep stockpiles of munitions in their basements, and I don't think the Founding Fathers had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Another message beat the conservative message by forty points with Independent voters, by beginning with a simple statement of principle with which voters across the political spectrum agree if they simply hear it enunciated:
My view on guns reflects one simple principle: that our gun laws should guarantee the rights and freedoms of all law-abiding Americans. That's why I stand with the majority who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt and protect their families. And that's why I also stand with the majority who believe they have the right to send their kids to school in the morning and have them come home safely.
Or consider yet another message, which began as follows:
"Every law-abiding American has the right to own a gun to hunt and protect his family... But you don't need an assault weapon to hunt deer, and if you do, you shouldn't be anywhere near a gun."
Americans get it, if you just speak to them like adults.
None of these messages is a "hard left" message on guns -- a message that might better fit the sensibilities of (and be more appropriate for) New York City, Connecticut, Massachusetts, or much of the West Coast. But these are messages that win all over the heartland -- and even win in some unlikely places, like the Deep South and the West -- because they aren't about taking away the rights of law-abiding gun owners. They are about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens, whether they own a gun or not.
We used to be the arsenal of democracy. With the events of this weekend, our arsenal has been turned against our democracy.
If our elected officials are in the pocket of those who would allow the shooting of their colleagues with semi-automatic weapons with no legitimate civilian uses -- while mouthing platitudes about their concern for their colleagues -- it's time to call their bluff.
Guns don't kill people. Cowards and lobbyists do.
Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
Charles Howard: Heeding God's Call to End Gun Violence
Richard T. Hughes: Echoes From Gettysburg: How We Can Save Our Country--Part 1
Brad Hirschfield: Finding Solace After Arizona Shooting
Did you ever hear of that quaint little called England? What about the Magna Carta? I know you Americans think you are better than everbody else but don't strat re-writing history.
"to hunt and protect his family." The II A does not mention hunting and protecting family. Point is irrelevent.
"But that right doesn't extend to criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill..." Agreed
"We need to use some common sense in deciding what kind of weapons we want on the streets." This is just more Brady Campaign talking points of "common sense" blah blah blah. The sentence should say "we need to use some common sense in deciding how much we want to protect our rights against government interference.
"I don't know any hunters who keep stockpiles of munitions in their basements," The II A does not mention hunting. Point again is irrevelant.
"and I don't think the Founding Fathers had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment." So what. They did not have the internet or digital porn in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. You are attempting to put fear in people about AK-47's when they are no more dangerous than many other guns. How about M1A's which are not categorized as "assault" weapons but just as deadly?
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
Two years ago, I stood 15 feet away from Congresswoman Giffords at a similar event, at a Safeway, on the east side of Tucson. I was wearing my sidearm openly, on my belt, at the time. Democracy was not threatened or under attack by my doing so.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
You, sir, are the one who threatens Democracy, by advocating the disarmament of those who have done no wrong, nor intend so.
Shame on you, sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html
Total murders, 13,636
Handguns, 6,452 (47.3%)
Firearms (type unknown), 1,928 (14.1%)
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged), 1,864 (13.7%)
Edged weapons, 1,825 (13.4%)
Hands, feet, etc., 801 (5.9)%
Shotguns, 418 (3.1%)
Rifles, 348 (2.6%)
The 5-year trend 2005-2009, again per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Rifle homicide, already the rarest of all classes of homicide, is trending down:
2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
The murderer in Arizona used an ordinary pistol with an extended magazine, not an "assault weapon" of any description. Using the tragedy in Arizona to push for new and pointless rifle bans is pretty brazen, IMO.
"assault weapon" is a term invented by the anti-gun lobby to label low-to-medium power rifles and carbines with the outer appearance of military weapons, but not with military capability, i.e.not fully-automatic firing. Their normal magazine capacity is generally 20-30 rounds.
Semi-automatic pistols (full-size ones) generally have a normal magazine capacity of 12-18 rounds. They fire a round of considerably lower power than almost any rifle. Putting a larger capacity magazine into one, does not transform it into an "assault weapon".
The Second Amendment is not about hunting and/or sports shooting.
Machineguns and all other automatic weapons have been tightly restricted by Federal law since 1934. All Title 1 civilian guns in this country fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and won't fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
As far as hunting goes, deer rifles are generally optimized for high power and light weight at the expense of capacity and recoil. The thing is, only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts; most of us are much better served by less-powerful, lighter-recoiling rifles with better capacity, which is a big reason why more of us now own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-press.pdf
Many anti-gun advocates will probably cringe at the sight of this, but I encourage everyone to at least take a gander at the crime statistics.
I think we'd have less crime in the USA if we had better mental health facilities and fewer 30-round clips for guns. (I favor universal health care as a job-giver.)
Whatever happened to six-shooters? Isn't that enough? Alright, two of them. One for each hip.
The point of the Amendment, as stated in the first clause, is to preserve the right to an armed "militia". As other commenters have stated, a "militia" in the 18th century meant a group of "citizen-soldiers", like the "patriots" who resisted British tyranny prior to the Declaration of Independence.
Those who state the Amendment was added only to create government-controlled militias ignore the historical context. The framers of the Constitution were lawyers. They were well aware that English common law (which became the "general" law of the U.S.) did not preserve a general right to keep arms as a counterweight to tyrannical governments with standing armies. (Those making the "state militia" argument should read Blackstone.)
Fresh on the minds of the Framers was a lesson of the American Revolution --- the need of citizens to resist, and, if necessary, revolt against tyrannical authority. We're not talking hunting rifles here; we're talking M16s -- a modern equivalent of the 18th century soldier's weapon. Many may not like this thought, but that does not change the Constitution.
Someone made an analogy earlier in response to another claiming that the founding fathers didn't have AK-47s in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment. They responded that the founding fathers didn't have the internet either, so should the 1st amendment be concerned only with quills and writing parchment?
"Well-regulated" is the essential meaning of the Second Amendment. This was true when written and is true today; except for lying propagandists like the NRA selling guns for the gun industry by selling Americans on "new" definitions and vocabulary. Nonsense.
As Drew Westen paraphrases the NRA with his own truth: Guns don't kill people. Cowards and lobbyists do.
Well-regulated gun sales and ownership with sensible reasonable laws will protect us all.
"Well-regulated" means responsible! Obviously.
Until we confront the gun issue, lets expect more massacres.