PLANK JULY 20, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The deadly shooting in Aurora, Colorado is a tragedy. So why don’t we want anything good to come out of it? That’s the consequence, after all, of insisting that we avoid “politicizing” a horrible event like this. Instead we’re supposed to sorrowfully shake our heads, proclaim it an act of senseless violence, and pretend that comforting words are all we have to offer in its wake.
Garance Franke-Ruta wrote this morning about the “template of grief” that is so heartbreakingly familiar now when something like this takes place. Statements are issued, memorial services are televised, moments of silence are observed. After a length of time that is deemed respectful (days, maybe a week), we move on. Maybe someone offers legislation to change our gun laws, but it doesn’t go anywhere. And then, in a different place and at a different time, it happens again.
Surely that isn’t the best we can do. As Michael Grunwald notes, we politicize the trivial all the time—why are the pundits who serve as the Miss Manners of the political world always warning against politicizing a tragedy?
It’s telling that the people who get paid to analyze politics recoil at the notion that its practitioners should connect it to real-life pain. They think they’re covering a sport, an entertainment. But politics matter, because policies matter. “Obamacare” and “gay marriage” are not just issues that might play badly with swing voters or turn the tide in Virginia; they’re issues that affect people’s lives. Gun control and the Second Amendment are issues, too, and now seems like a pretty good time to talk about them.
Of course, not everyone thinks that government should be in the business of coming up with ways to address violence in our country. But many people do think that it can play an important role. That’s a debate to be had—just because one side doesn’t want government involved doesn’t mean we don’t discuss policy options at all.
Yet that’s essentially been the accepted status quo for the past few decades. For goodness sake—a congresswoman was shot in the head two years ago and her colleagues didn’t do one thing to reform laws regarding guns or the mentally ill.
That’s why it was refreshing to hear Mayor Mike Bloomberg call out the two presidential candidates this morning and demand they respond to this shooting with specifics. “Instead of these two people, President Obama and Governor Romney, talking in broad things about [how] they want to make the world a better place … Tell us how,” said Bloomberg. “No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them, concretely, not just in generalities, specifically, what are they going to do about guns?”
I’d add to that a plea for an honest debate about guns. There are genuine differences of opinion regarding the right balance to strike between gun control and protecting the rights of gun owners that deserve to be taken seriously. But it’s nearly impossible for that to happen, because the NRA feels the need to make its case by lying. Right now, representatives from all the world’s countries are at the United Nations to negotiate the first-ever Arms Trade Treaty to regulate the international sale and trade of firearms. The treaty has broad support, especially from religious groups—from the Vatican to the World Evangelical Association.
But the NRA has whipped up opposition to the treaty—and to Obama—by telling its members that if the treaty is accepted, UN and Obama will be able to come take their guns. Never mind that the treaty has no impact on domestic laws and would not supersede the Constitution. Never mind that it addresses just the international export, import, and transfer of conventional weapons. Former congressman Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, wrote an op-ed for The Daily Caller on July 2 that alleged the treaty “could seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm.” Cox gave himself a little wiggle room with that “could,” of course, but somehow, by the time it filters down to action alerts and conservative talk shows, that “could” almost always becomes “would.”
It’s easy to feel helpless when a tragedy like this shooting that claimed at least a dozen lives occurs. But that doesn’t mean that our nation’s leaders shouldn’t even try to talk about ways that we might make such incidents less likely or at least less deadly. That’s not being political—it’s being responsible.
23 comments
Yes, just what we need in America. Honest debate. But asking for honest debate about guns is setting the standard way too high. How about honest debate about something, anything, no matter how trivial. Not gonna happen. Not since St. Ronny proved that you can smile, utter the most preposterous falsehoods, and not only not pay a political price for it, but actually achieve political victory that way. "Honest" no longer has any bearing whatsoever on American politics and it's not at all clear that it ever will again. It has become an oxymoron to relate the two.
- roidubouloi
July 20, 2012 at 1:06pm
The Federal government may have something to say about weapons imported into the United States. Then again, it may not depending on the day of the week, etc., Municipalities are often left with the task of restricting possession and punishments. Imagine an honest debate about gun restrictions between candidates for mayor of a major metropolitan city. Those debaters in favor of greater weapon restrictions would flail their arms, look to the heavens and demand the federal government do something fast. The dissenters would talk about why action from the federal government is necessary to solve the problem.
- Doug12
July 20, 2012 at 1:45pm
I just don't understand. We license drivers and register cars. Why can't we do the same with shooters and guns? And if you imagine yourself to be an anti-guvmint freedom fighter, why should legality matter? Mayor Bloomberg is being disingenuous. It is the Republicans who have to put away their pandering to do-or-die paranoia about gun regulation. They have the veto power over gun regulation. Bloomberg is a Republican. He should have the guts to take the fight to his party.
- amidut
July 20, 2012 at 2:07pm
The public debate on gun control has to start with the president, but Obama has good reason to shy away from the topic. The NRA today is more powerful, politically and economically, than the Mafia was when JFK was president. Anything Obama says about guns might be similar to MLK's I've Been to the Mountaintop speech. It would have to include those electric words: "I'm not fearing any man." That's how critical the need is for such a speech. But it won't happen before November. The NRA is already saying that Obama's laying low on guns in his first term is a cover for taking everyone's guns in his second term, when he won't have to answer to voters anymore. The NRA leaders don't believe this stuff themselves. They lie like Hitler. They're sociopaths. The fact that sociopaths have so much power in this country bodes ill for us. Most Americans are in favor of some form of gun control. The president can only echo publicly what they say and think privately. Get behind our politicians, Americans, and help them get over their fear of the NRA. It's your civic duty to help save lives.
- magboy47.
July 20, 2012 at 2:20pm
Amen, we need to ask why the 2nd Amendment covers assault weapons; surely the framers didn't intend that! But, the NRA appears to be terribly powerful and I tend to agree with magboy47 too, they aren't acting like balanced people. Plus I'd like to know how/why they got so powerful (ditto Grover Norquist).
- Sophia
July 20, 2012 at 2:30pm
I can't wait for someone to say it would have been better if everyone in a darkened movie theater had been armed. I'm not kidding--I'm sure the same people who seriously suggested that the Virginia Tech shootings would not have occurred if more students had been packing will say the same thing here.
- timteeter
July 20, 2012 at 2:30pm
While I certainly welcome an honest discussion of gun laws I think tragedies like this one are different in nature than where national gun law discussions should be focused. We'll find out more about this tragedy in the coming days, and how it could have been avoided. Questions will need to be asked about why people can get tear gas and the types of weapons used in this attack. I also suspect that access to mental health care will be an issue in this case. That said, the discussions we really need to have are about why people are comfortable with that fact that over a dozen children have been killed in gang crossfire in Chicago alone this year, why people are OK with gun shop owners and dealers knowingly selling weapons to criminals, and why Americans don't see 30,000 firearm deaths each year as an issue to be addressed.
- Attrill
July 20, 2012 at 2:35pm
People are already saying it would be better if everyone in the theater was armed. They're missing the fact that it is very likely that some people were armed in the theater, Colorado and Denver have fairly lax concealed carry laws. There really isn't a lot you can do with a gun in that situation (or most situations really).
- Attrill
July 20, 2012 at 2:46pm
Congress, and the Supreme Court, outsourced gun law writing to the gun industry decades ago. If this tragedy involved legally obtained assalt rifles, then this is totally on the NRA. They own it. This is their vision for America.
- DP1024
July 20, 2012 at 3:00pm
Not just assault weapons, Sophia, hand-guns. Pistols have no role in "the maintenance of a well-organized militia." The Republicans, the NRA and other pro-gun, pro-drug war, pro-incarceration, pro-death penalty types seem not at all concerned that America increasingly comes to embody the dystopian, cyberpunk future that science fiction authors such as William Gibson and Philip K Dick first began to imagine for it a generation ago. If I were king I'd ban all firearms except those suitable for hunting and I'd limit magazines to three shots. I'd legalize narcotics and decreased the prison population by two thirds by clearing out all the non-violent drug offenders and reinstating parole as an incentive for true rehabilitation.
- AaronW
July 20, 2012 at 3:48pm
A border control agent was killed with a store bought gun in the line of duty and we have had a congressional investigation because it is just so shocking, but when ordinary folks are gunned down in a movie theatre, well, let's not make hay of it because someone else about 250 years ago had been deprived of guns.
- Nusholtz
July 20, 2012 at 3:55pm
Major gun control will never happen in our lifetimes. Well, probably minor gun control will not happen either. The pro gun forces are just too powerful. Maybe 100 years from now.... Amazing hypocrisy that Rep. Issa pretended to be outraged by the fake "Fast & Furious" investigation (it was not a gunwalking operation but rather an investigation into the thousands of guns flowing, basically legally, from Arizona to Mexico.) And then the NRA joins the fray. Meanwhile they care nothing about the sale or possession of assault weapons in the U.S. Maybe Issa will investigate this, no wait, he only would care if the weapons went to Mexico.
- famattjr
July 20, 2012 at 5:58pm
Right on Roi!
- IggyPop
July 20, 2012 at 7:22pm
I'm Canadian. Your whole thing with guns, gun culture, the NRA with its immense power such that it can silence presidents as Magboy 47 suggests, all seem to me like things from Mars, or like a bizarre surreal nightmare that's not real and I'm justvwaiting to wake up, even though guns and gangs are fast becoming a growing problem in Canadian cities. Still it's way different here. I also think Roi's cynicism is well founded.
- basman
July 20, 2012 at 7:56pm
A congressman from Texas has already gone on record as saying the problem was that nobody else in the theater rose up and slayed the shooter with his own personal armory. An honest debate on guns (or any other issue) would require two honest parties, and we're at least one short. I'm waiting for the day when the NRA issues a statement blessing the victims of a massacre like this as "brave martyrs for the noble cause of American gun freedom" or some such horse manure. It will happen, eventually.
- cspencef
July 20, 2012 at 11:27pm
basman, America's sexualized love of guns ("happiness is a warm gun") seems bizarre and surreal to many Americans, too. Why shooting a civilian in "self-defense" is a fetish with so many citizens in my country is a mystery. I'm sure that the fear of death (particularly strong among Americans) has something to do with it, but beyond that it's a puzzle to me.
- magboy47.
July 21, 2012 at 12:27am
Really, cspence? If true, that is positively nauseating. If an elected member of the U.S. Congress can, in all seriousness suggest that the only lesson he takes away from this Aurora shooting is that the nation would be better off if every citizen of the USA went through life prepared at all times for armed combat, then we are in far worse shape than I thought.
- AaronW
July 21, 2012 at 12:33am
I sometimes feel that the land of my birth is a nation of madmen who prefer to live in a fantasy world than on planet Earth. Every man with the drive and the smarts can become rich, and every man with a gun can be Clint Eastwood, blowing the heads off evildoers... God bless America!
- AaronW
July 21, 2012 at 12:41am
There is something grimly humorous and self-mocking about complaining that nobody stood up to defend his fellow citizens with packed heat in a movie theatre. Spence and AaronW might be referring to Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas (where else?), who, of course, was not being ironic. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html.
- amidut
July 21, 2012 at 7:17am
Sophia asks: "... I'd like to know how/why they [NRA] got so powerful..." As ever, a good part of that answer probably has something to do with money. I suspect the gun manufacturers are major contributors to the NRA cause, which gives them the wherewithall to form alliances with other anti-regulatory groups & interests, & do the lobbying & politicking which has got them where they are.
- Haole45
July 21, 2012 at 7:17pm
Sure, let's have an honest debate! I'll take the Right's side: We should never, ever, restrict the sale of guns or ammo. In any way. Ever. Once we do anything, even the tiniest, most trivial restriction, we'll be just one small step from jackbooted state Gestapo thugs kicking down our doors in the middle of the night and dragging us off to the gulag. Now you take the other side.
- Mikelawyr22
July 22, 2012 at 12:02pm
The gun debate is over before it started. Meet the Press had polls Sunday showing that with each massacre incident the American public becomes more determined to keep sales of any type of gun open to everyone. I guess the public figures it'll have to shoot it out someday in the streets, and unlimited firepower will be needed in that event. I was wrong the other day when I said that the majority of Americans want some form of gun control. And I've been wrong numerous times when I said America is a great country. Our greatness is over. We are devolving--fast. The crowning touch will be when Romney gets elected president and deregulates Wall Street to the extent that Bush did, and it crashes. And then the people who voted for Bush twice and Romney will be blaming it on Barney Frank, who will have been out of Congress by then. I repeat: we are devolving.
- magboy47.
July 22, 2012 at 1:07pm
basman: "...even though guns and gangs are fast becoming a growing problem in Canadian cities..." With most of the handguns involved smuggled in from the United States.
- SMacEachern2
July 22, 2012 at 4:49pm