I will admit that diplomacy and tack are not always my strongest suit. Especially on days like to day when the backward, knuckle dragging mindset of far right conservatives is once again responsible for enabling the murder of innocents as we witnessed today in Connecticut. As noted in an earlier post, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for ordinary citizens to possess semi-automatic and automatic weaponry that by any common sense standard ought to be limited to appropriate police and military personnel. Yet, time and time again we see politicians, especially Republicans, prostrating and prostituting themselves to the NRA and other organizations best known for a a racist and bigoted agenda. In the aftermath of today's slaughter of 20 elementary school students that was enabled by gutless politicians who would rather kiss the ass of the NRA and other extremist groups rather than look out for the best interest of rank and file Americans, two pundits called it like it is and demanded that meaningful gun control and related legislative be commenced. The first is Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:
When we first collected much of this data, it was after the Aurora, Colo. shootings, and the air was thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”
Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.
Since then, there have been more horrible, high-profile shootings. Jovan Belcher, a linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, took his girlfriend’s life and then his own. In Oregon, Jacob Tyler Roberts entered a mall holding a semi-automatic rifle and yelling “I am the shooter.” And, in Connecticut, at least 27 are dead — including 18 children — after a man opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.
Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. “Too soon,” howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t “too soon.” It’s much too late.
On the other end of the political spectrum we find David Frum stating as follows:
Almost uniquely in the world, the United States suffers massacre after massacre after massacre: in schools, in workplaces, in movie theaters, on city streets. And after each such massacre, there follows a great hushing: don't you dare mention the most obvious reason for this unique American horror.
I experienced a small portion of this reaction personally today.
Earlier this week, the Seventh Circuit opened the way to a concealed-carry law in Illinois, the one remaining state not to allow citizens to carry weapons on their persons. The event moved me to revisit some writing I did this summer about the folly of imagining that law-abiding citizens make themselves more safe by owning weapons. The pieces can be read here, here and here.
Reposting them elicited angry reaction, as writing about guns so often does. There is a small but vocal community that fancies it can protect itself against the millions of illicit guns on American streets by carrying weapons itself. The evidence for this point of view is highly dubious, but it's not a view that rests on evidence.
When the news of the school shooting first surfaced, my first reaction was anger. Again? Again?! I ventilated that anger in a bitter Tweet. . . . .
A permissive gun regime is not the only reason that the United States suffers so many atrocities like the one in Connecticut. An inadequate mental health system is surely at least as important a part of the answer, as are half a dozen other factors arising from some of the deepest wellsprings of American culture.
Gun killings do occur even in countries that restrict guns with maximum severity. But we can say that if the United States worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be many, many fewer atrocities like the one in Connecticut.
And I'll say: I'll accept no lectures about "sensitivity" on days of tragedy like today from people who work the other 364 days of the year against any attempt to prevent such tragedies.
It's bad enough to have a gun lobby. It's the last straw when that lobby also sets up itself as the civility police. It may not be politically possible to do anything about the prevalence of weapons of mass murder. But it damn well ought to be possible to complain about them - and about the people who condone them.
Oh, and while it is ostensibly an unrelated issue, uncrowned GOP candidate for Governor here in Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, supports almost unrestricted gun purchases. Under the GOP controlled Virginia General Assembly, Virginia is once again the gun sales capital of the East Coast. Please remember that reality when you cast your vote in November, 2013. Children dies today because individuals like Cuccinelli prostitute themselves to the NRA and the gun lobby. In my opinion, they have blood on their hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment