Return to the Old Wild West: guns, guns, guns

The Gunfight at the O. K. Corral was a gunfight that took place on October 26, 1881 in Tombstone, Arizona Territory of the United States. . . .

The gunfight was part of what later became known as the "Arizona War" . . .[It] has been portrayed in numerous Western films. It has come to symbolize the struggle between legal authority and banditry and rustling in frontier towns of the Old West, where law enforcement was often weak or nonexistent. - [Wikipedia]

Just 130 years ago that was, but it seems like we're in danger of reverting to that kind of shoot-it-out mentality.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) has said, in response to calls for more gun control, that he wishes there had been one more gun in Tucson on Saturday. "I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person, that's all I have to say," Franks said.

There was. Joe Zamudio was coming out of a nearby drug store when the shooting erupted, and he rushed over to help subdue the killer. But he almost made it worse. He was carrying a gun in his pocket, and he almost shot the wrong man. Here is his story:

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed. "I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

Lucky? Or just enough wise restraint? He said at first he hesitated to take out his gun for fear of being mistaken as a second gunman in the massacre.

An armed populace, ready to shoot it out, ready to make those quick judgments between who are the good guys and who the bad -- is that a good idea? I don't think so.

Ralph

A different kind of insanity

I feel the need to inject a note of comic relief here.

All those reports of hundreds of dead blackbirds falling from the sky, first in one place and then another. And then there was a story about lots of dead fish, I believe. Well, now we have the answer -- or at least one irrational, bible-based answer by a self-proclaimed woman prophet.

Cindy Jacobs and her husband have this ministry called Generals International, which seeks to "change society through prophecy and intercession." Her bio explains that "Cindy Jacobs is a respected prophet who travels the world ministering not only to crowds of people, but to heads of nations."

Their website has a new video in which Cindy explains that the recent spate of dead blackbirds and fish is God trying to talk to us through nature -- and that perhaps message of the dead birds is God's displeasure that we repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which goes against his scripture that forbids homosexuality.

Well, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Ralph

Rachel gets it right

As usual, Rachel Maddow provided a liberal voice of sanity and reason in response to the Tucson massacre and assassination attempt.

Whether political rhetoric motivated this kid or not, whether this kid was sane enough to process political rhetoric as sane people understand it or not, whether we will understand sooner or later or never the motivation behind this kid...here's the question: do we have any tools to stop the next gun massacre?"

She then ran through a long list of mass gun shootings that have occurred in the United States in the 22 years since Jared Lee Loughner was born, then showed clips of politicians responding to these "unimaginable" happenings at the time (Columbine, VA Tech, etc.) "Inconceivable" and "unimaginable" are routinely used to describe these massacres. Rachel counters:

It is hard for anybody to find the words to express the horror and the anger and the grief that are the only rational responses to massacres like this. But the one thing that events like this are not, in America, now, is inconceivable or unimaginable.

We can discuss at length the effects of political hate speech and violent images. As a nation, we need to have an adult conversation about this, separated from heated political rants. But that is not the solution that we need to focus on in a case like this, or at least it is not the most salient solution.

This young man, obviously mentally ill and having caused concern among classmates, faculty, and neighbors, was nevertheless able -- perfectly legally -- to purchase a handgun and extended ammunition magazines, allowing for firing 30 rounds of bullets without having to reload.

We have laws that prevent selling guns to mentally disturbed people. But how do you get on lists that show up on background checks? That is where Jared fell through the cracks. He had no official designation as mentally ill, even though his college had handled his disruptive behavior appropriately by barring him from classes until he got mental health clearance. Absent overt threats, they had no authority to force him to seek help, nor to report him as mentally ill.

Despite our gun culture (collectively we Americans own 277,000,000 guns), and though we differ sharply on questions of gun control, we should be united in wanting to prevent the next such massacre when a mentally unbalanced, angry young man easily obtains guns designed for mass destruction -- and does just that -- destroys masses of people before he can be stopped.

We can't have that conversation until we get past the need to blame someone for this one.

Assigning blame in this case and discussing the effect of hate speech in political discourse should be two separate issues. So far, that's proving very difficult to do -- because the private demons in Jared's mind, that led him to think the government was trying to control his mind, seem to coincide with much of the right-wing paranoia about government taking over our lives. And he did, after all, go to a political event, shot a politician, and on his web site called it "my assassination."

Ralph

Gov. Deal

I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised by one item in Gov. Nathan Deal's inaugural address -- his seeming rational, enlightened thoughts about treating drug addicts.

Picked up and featured on Huffington Post, Deal's agenda included this in his comments about drug addiction:

For violent and repeat offenders, we will make you pay for your crimes. For other offenders who want to change their lives, we will provide the opportunity to do so with Day Reporting Centers, Drug, DUI and Mental Health Courts and expanded probation and treatment options. As a State, we cannot afford to have so many of our citizens waste their lives because of addictions. It is draining our State Treasury and depleting our workforce.

AJC's political writer, Jim Galloway, pointed out that House Speaker David Ralston has also been commenting on the same problem -- so, as he said, "Maybe something's up."

Galloway also noted that Deal had put a lot of emphasis on transportation problems. In neither case did he propose specific solutions, but it gives me reason to wait and see before judging this career politician whose record suggests we're not likely to get much in the way of leadership or initiative from this governor. It may be just words of a good speech writer; but I'll wait and see.

Ralph

Ideological rage run amok #3 - Clueless?

Perhaps Sarah Palin is really clueless when it comes to her contribution to the atmosphere of violence. She is so imbued with gun culture that she has probably ceased to think of shooting as an act of violence.

Here is an email from her to Glenn Beck, which he shared publicly:

"I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence. Thanks for all you do to send the message of truth and love and God as the answer."

In other words, she can say: "Don't retreat, reload." And put up a map with a gunsight trained on Gifford's district and her name to the side -- and refer to that same map as her "bullseye" map. But she is not a "politico inciting terror and violence." No, it's not she. It's those other "politicos" who portray others as inciting terror and violence.

Is she really clueless?

Of course the more realistic and cynical interpretation is that this email was carefully planted, knowing Beck would make it public. Maybe she's not clueless after all.

Ralph

Levels of discourse

Yesterday, I quoted Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, speaking about the "vitriol" and saying that "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous." This was said in connection with his investigation of the shooting in Tucson.

Today, Megyn Kelly of Fox News, confronted him, asking if he had any evidence that the suspect was "listening to radio or watching television and was in any way inspired by what he heard or saw?" And, of course, he didn't have any such evidence. Nor was he suggesting a direct, one-to-one causation in this individual case. In contrast, there is evidence of a serious mental disturbance and disruptive behavior, leading up to this act.

Kelly persisted: "With respect, sheriff, I know that you're a Democrat and you ran for office as a Democrat, and I just want to press you on that a little. I'm sure some of our viewers are asking themselves why you are putting a political spin on this . . . they may be asking why you the sheriff aren't just focused on the facts, on uncovering the facts."

What we're dealing with here are two levels of discourse. At one level, let's call it the medico-legal level, we have a paranoid psychotic man, with delusions about the federal government controlling his life, who opens fire in a crowd and kills six people and wounds 12 others. Here the sheriff is off base and should stick to the facts.

Let's call the other level the socio-political level. Here the sheriff is quite right to raise the issue of the general level of vitriol preached on radio, television, and on the internet and what effect that has. Does it have an effect on us all? Yes. Does that include mentally unstable people. Yes. Can we prove that the suspect listened to any of this? Not yet, although it's hard to see how anyone living in Arizona could avoid it. Or anywhere else in the U.S., for that matter, if they watch or read the news at all. But did it order him to buy a gun and shoot his congresswoman? No.

Is Sarah Palin guilty of murder? No. Is Sarah Palin guilty of contributing to the discourse of violence in this country as a way to address your grievances? Not as much as if she were actually calling for Democrats to be assassinated, paying a bounty for each one killed, etc.

But in a more insidious, subtle way, she does contribute to that way of thinking with her gun metaphors and her slogans (don't retreat; reload). At the least, I would say she is playing with fire and intentionally stirring up less stable, angry, and often paranoid people.

If we keep clear about the two levels of discourse, though, we won't have quite so much to argue about, which might open the possibility for really addressing the problem. Kelly probably wouldn't deny that the vitriol exists and has reached a dangerous level -- if she didn't need to defend her conservative base from being held "responsible" for what happened.

And the sheriff wouldn't need to keep insisting that the vitriol is dangerous, if the other side would agree that it is.

Ralph

Ideological rage run amok #2

As reported by HuffingtonPost/AP:

Pima County [Tucson] . . . sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it centered in Arizona.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.

In the hours after the shooting, Palin issued a statement in which she expressed her "sincere condolences" to the family of Giffords and the other victims.

During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.

"I don't see the connection," between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday's shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly's spokesman. "I don't know this person, we cannot find any records that he was associated with the campaign in any way. I just don't see the connection.

"Arizona is a state where people are firearms owners - this was just a deranged individual."

This is a real problem -- that they don't see the connection. No, I am not saying that the political rhetoric of violence caused this shooting. No one gave this disturbed young man orders to shoot Giffords and put a loaded gun in his hands. Nor am I even saying that it was a major factor in this individual case. Prior evidence suggests that he was a very disturbed young man with paranoid thinking, which quite typically focuses on government as the enemy. Senseless, paranoid killings have taken place in the calmest of environments.

Nor am I suggesting that those who promote the proper use of shooting weapons are to blame. People kill people even where there are not many guns. Easily available assault guns make it easier to kill lots of people fast before the shooter can be stopped.

But words do have consequences. Individual minor influences do add up in the psychotic minds of those who kill. And these particular people, attending this particular event, got wounded and killed. Ironically, this anti-government psychotic man killed a government official who had come to listen to the people, not to impose government on them.

I think it is a problem that radio/tv entertainers and politicians who encourage hatred and violence, who push the idea that your political enemy is a mortal enemy and should be eliminated -- it's a problem that they don't realize that this rhetoric contributes to the culture of violent solutions to perceived problems. It all adds up -- and it takes only one deranged mind to put their rhetoric into tragic action.

What I would like to see is that this not turn into an even fiercer battle over gun rights or civility in public discourse. I would like to see Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck take the lead in publicly calling a halt to this culture of hate and violence in favor of rational discourse and civil negotiation.

Ralph