Every time some nutcase like Jared Loughner takes his frustrations out by spraying bullets at innocent people, it seems appropriate to ask the following question:
Are these mass-slayings just a fact of life in America?
The answer, unfortunately, seems to be "yes."
Because although it's technically true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," it's also true that it's much easier for people to kill people if they use guns.
Obviously, with 300+ million people in this country, we're not going to stop some people from going nuts. And given the depth of the American commitment to the right to own guns, we're also apparently not going to stop having guns available at Walmart -- or at the neighborhood sports store, which is where Loughner got his Glock.
So that means that nutbags slaughtering innocent men, women, and children with guns is just something that we have to accept in America.
Right?
I mean, how could it not be that we just accept it? People have been going crazy since the dawn of time. And Americans overwhelmingly support the right to buy guns. Combine those two things, and you're just always going to have wackos going postal and shooting other people.
Yes, some are saying that this is a political shooting -- an assassination -- and rushing to blame the violent political rhetoric of the past few years. But this shooting isn't "political" any more than all those other garden variety school -- and workplace -- shootings are political. Sure, Loughner babbled about favorite right-wing pet causes and hallucinated that his "enemies" were Democrats, but if his enemies hadn't been Democrats, they would have been other kids at school, or mean bosses at work, or the IRS or any of the other targets that crazy people tend to obsess about.
Walmart: Everyday low prices on guns!
And, try as we might, we're never going to identify and lock up all the budding Jared Loughners before they open fire.
So, should we just accept these slaughterings as a fact of American life? Or should we try to do a better job of finding the crazy people and locking them up before they start shooting? (If the latter, how do you propose that we do this? Lots of people talk and act crazy. Not so many actually start firing.) Or should we finally get serious about restricting access to guns?
If the answer is that we should just accept that these shootings are fact of life in America, we should acknowledge that. Specifically, everyone who thinks that guns should be available at Walmart should also say, "Of course I don't like that crazy people use guns to slaughter people, and I know that they always will, but I'd rather have that than give up the right to bear arms."
Alternatively, we can consider seriously restricting access to guns. (Yes, "criminals" will always get them, and there are enough around that some crazy people will get them, too, but the fact that Jared Loughner just walked into a store two months ago and bought one has got to leave even gun supporters shaking their heads).
There are no easy answers here. With folks like Jared Loughner wandering around, I'm certainly not sure that I want to give up MY right to bear arms (though the idea that each citizen should carry a six-shooter around for protection in today's world is preposterous). But it's still hard to believe that, as a society, we allow guns to be sold in Walmart.
Follow Henry Blodget on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hblodget
Cenk Uygur: Was Jared Loughner’s Act Political?
Was Jared Loughner's act in shooting Rep. Giffords political? Apparently this is what's being debated with a straight face now. Is this a joke? He shot a politician in the head. He called it an "assassination." What part of that was unclear?
He didn't shoot Gabrielle Giffords randomly and it turned out she just happened to be a politician. He sought her out, targeted her and then tried to k;ll her based on the fact that she was a politician. He thought the government was the problem and it was unresponsive to his psychotic demands on grammar and currency.
So, is Loughner a psycho? Obviously. And that's not just because he shot all of those innocent people, but also because it is abundantly clear from his writings and videos that he has significant mental issues.
But why does the act have to be either psychotic or political? It's obviously both. It was a psychotic act driven by his political beliefs. What's so hard to understand about that?
What do we do about people in Loughner's condition? There were plenty of people who realized he was dangerous both to himself and those around him, yet he was allowed to remain free. This was mainly because there were no authorities to take charge of him until he was deemed to be competent enough to return to our society. We've stigmatized ill mental health and then tried to ignore it, but as we've seen, we do so at our own peril. Our society needs some way, hopefully a fair one, to deal with these kinds of problems both to protect our society and to spare people like Loughner torture from their own demons.
Politics up here has all the suspense and excitement of watching grass grow. You Yanks are INTERESTING!
Too many folk feel that the unfettered right to own guns is embedded in an unchangeable constitution and they have access to one of the most powerful set of lobbying groups in the world. It is a shame that our founding fathers had no way of anticipating the kind of weapons that they were constitutionally enshrining and it is also a shame that the language pertaining to a 'well-regulated militia" has been completely disregarded but, hey, there it is: the grounds for our continued acceptance of the occasional massacre of Americans by gun-wielding fruitbaskets.
By the by, second amendment junkies: the only way to defend yourself against the current government is with nukes - and you will never be allowed to own those ... and, yes, nutjobs could kill people with knives or machetes or, hell, oversized sex toys but never so fast and never so easily as with guns.
Nobody said it can't be changed but the Supreme Court has upheld the individual right of gun ownership, unless it is changed, it's the law. (Insert "slippery slope" argument here) Any amendment can be changed, get enough people together and you can eliminate Miranda rights and habeas corpus. Imagine the good you could accomplish by eliminating illegal search and seizure protection, we could get all the bad guys without having to worry about their "rights".
" It is a shame that our founding fathers had no way of anticipatiÂng the kind of weapons that they were constitutiÂonally enshrining"
They were protecting the right to have state of the art military small arms, they didn't say we could have bows and arrows or pikes.
"the only way to defend yourself against the current government is with nukes"
I don't think the Secret Service has all those guys with submachine guns just in case the Enola Gay comes over the hill.
I don't know if this anecdote is true but it is interesting:
Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."
Rifles for hunting, I understand... but a gun that can shoot 90 rounds before needing to be reloaded... what is the point of that?
For PRECISELY the same reason that the police need those guns. Open your mind.
"Rifles for hunting, I understandÂ... but a gun that can shoot 90 rounds before needing to be reloaded..Â. what is the point of that? "
I don't know what gun or magazine you think you're talking about, but ammo capacity is generally a convenience issue, nothing more. Bear in mind that large mags can be very unreliable...that's one of the reasons that few people own them. However, do not make the mistake that gun owners will accept further infringements simply because few people are affected.
To make matter worse of course, most of the people most likely to shoot others are also least likely to care about providing the healthcare that is then needed for the wounded.
Senseless death happens every single day in America, let alone the world. Car accidents, fires, stabbings, shootings. Normal, everyday people have a right to defend themselves from someone willing to do harm. More laws, when the 20k+ laws we have already on the books, won't do anything to curb that. The only way to end gun violence is to destroy every single firearm in the world
So, we will always have free health care.
And you, Americans will always have crazy people that commit mass murders on unsuspecting people from time to time.
There you have it.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/07/kelly-mcparland-david-chen-learns-the-canadian-word-for-justice/
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/11/23/nb-men-charged-confronting-vandals.html
http://noapologies.ca/daily-news/canadian-copsprosecutors-harass-victims-lovey-dovey-with-criminals
The Canadian criminal Justice system is in fact the "Criminal's Justice System".
And there you have it.
Oh and Canada is no stranger to mass shootings, you know.
We don't allow citizens to take justice into their own hands. Sorry! That's why we have police. Otherwise, it's anarchy.
And David Chen again.
Yes, we've had a few mass shootings, but nowhere near the number in the US. Generally, after each mass shooting, there's increased pressure by the public to further restrict or regulate weapons.
I like living, so, I don't mind not having a handgun. I guess Americans are more willing to take risks.
Oh I forgot, we like homeless people in our cities wandering around talking to themselves and begging aggressively, dirty, hungry and desperate, it makes us all feel so superior.
At least the majority of Castro's whack jobs ended up in Florida.
I've suggested something similar for years for drug addicts, when an addict is found, give them a choice of rehab or drugs, give them their choice, if they want drugs, put them in a facility with a comfortable room, tv, decent food, and all the drugs they want. Let them kill themselves if they choose without harming innocent people, they can change their mind at any time. Drug dealers that are in it for the money (not addicts supporting their habit) should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and treated appropriately.
Any diagnosed mental patient that refuses to stay on their medication should be indefinitely institutionalized for the course of their treatment, as above. One step closer to Big Brother, all the government needs to do is have people they don't like declared psychologically impaired and they can be permanently labelled and locked away for their own good. Slippery slope, indeed.