On Shootings and Appropriate Discourse
Those of you who follow my journal know that occasionally I feel the need to make political remarks. In the wake of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona I feel the need to once more.
I won't comment much on the shooting itself, but I will talk a little bit about gun control. It's come out that the shooter was probably criminally insane. He was apparently suspended from school pending some kind of psychiatric evaluation, and yet was still able to procure a firearm.
I've discussed gun control in the past, since I come at it from a somewhat unique perspective. I'm a liberal in a very conservative state, and what's more, I'm a gun control advocate in a state where gun control is the kind of buzzword that makes people sleep with their rifles. Let me be clear - my family owns a firearm, and I will be the first one to stand up and scream if lawmakers attempt to outlaw that firearm. My family lives on an acre and a half of land in a relatively isolated section of town (seriously, look Rose Hill, Texas up on a map sometime, it's pretty country), and the firearm we own is a shotgun with very loud pump action. This gun is an appropriate weapon for a family in the country for several reasons:
- The pump action is extremely loud, and very recognizable. Because of this, it's possible that if someone did enter our home with the intent to do us harm, we may not even have to fire. People run away from the sound of a shotgun being cocked.
- In the country, there are lots of critters. Raccoons, possums, skunks, rats, and snakes. A shotgun is simply the best weapon for shooting all of these critters.
- My brother hunts birds.
- It is easy to load and reload, and since it's semi-auto, it has less recoil than some other weapons might. This means that when my father is out of town, my mother and I can still operate the firearm with little difficulty and no injury.
- And finally, perhaps most importantly, this gun can be loaded with non-lethal rounds.
In contrast, the firearm that was used in this shooting was a pistol (9mm Glock) with an extended magazine that could hold up to 30 shots. The problem with pistols is that they are easily concealable and have little to no practical usage except as a tool to take human life. True, hunters carry sidearms as a precautionary measure in case a hostile animal gets too close for them to use their rifle or shotgun, but they are not appropriate hunting weapons by any means. They exist for one purpose, and that is to kill other humans.
Now is where the debate strays into the sticky territory of the second amendment. Most people agree that the second amendment was put in place by the founding fathers in case the government they built became the very thing they had just successfully rebelled against. The right for the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because if it is infringed, the people lose the ability to overthrow the government - if it becomes necessary in the course of human events. That is the reason for the second amendment, and I fully support it because of that.
What I'm calling for is communication. While he hasn't been convicted yet, it's fairly obvious to everyone that Laughner is the shooter. He had a history of mental illness that was known to his family and to the school. It is insensible that this information not be made available to firearm vendors. There are dangers to creating any kind of national database of the mentally ill, including stigmatizing non-neurotypical citizens. But there are greater dangers in not having such a database. There are greater dangers in the fact that anyone can walk off the street into a gun show and purchase a firearm with no background check. There are greater dangers in the fact that if your firearm is stolen, the amount of paperwork you have to file in order to be disconnected from future crimes committed with the firearm is far greater than the amount of paperwork you have to file to purchase the firearm in the first place. There is a greater danger to the fact that there is no psychiatric evaluation requirement to purchase a deadly weapon.
Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights, and I'm the last person that will advocate for the removal of those rights. But the right to buy and own a deadly weapon is not inalienable, and can be limited, and that's what I want. It's just as senseless to ban all firearms as it is to legalize all firearms without limitations. The former is just as dangerous as the latter, there is a middle ground, and I sincerely hope the legislative body will work to find it.
Speaking of middle ground - the larger discussion that seems to be spawning from this shooting is about how we talk to each other across party lines. Something I'm sure more people than me have been noticing is how strongly divided we have become. It's come to the point where I will automatically refuse to disclose my party leanings if it looks like I'm going to get into an idealogical discussion - because it's very hard to have a discussion if it looks like the other person is going to dismiss you out of hand for your party leanings.
The rhetoric in this country has become so vitriolic and divided, and it's disgusting. Increasingly, it seems like both political leaders and average citizens have tried to demonize their opponents, and it seems like it's succeeding. How many times have you heard someone say that "The Republicans" or "The Democrats" were solely to blame for the divisions and lack of progress in this country? How stupid is it to paint everyone in either party with the same broad brush?
I've been guilty of it too. It's sad how many times I've been in a political argument and, as soon as someone begins to blame something on the Democrats, I feel an immediate and pressing need to shout louder about how it's really the fault of the Republicans. It's sad how many times I'm presented with idiocy on the part of some Republican or another and simply point and laugh, without any feeling of surprise or disappointment.
The moment you dismiss someone's opinion because they're of the opposite party, or because you assume they're of the opposite party, you become part of the problem. The minute you begin using words like "unamerican" to refer to anyone who chooses to serve the country as a civil servant (as Senators and Representatives do), you become part of the problem. The second you turn your listening switch off because you don't like what the other person is saying, you become part of the problem.
It's difficult to think of how to close a post like this. Every time I think of the shooting I can't help but think of the nine-year-old girl killed there, and I get depressed. I didn't want my comeback to this journal from the holiday season to be about something so depressing, but I feel like it's important to discuss the problems that are presented by this tragedy rather than sweeping them under the rug.
This entry was originally posted at http://farasha.dreamwidth.org/120948.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
I won't comment much on the shooting itself, but I will talk a little bit about gun control. It's come out that the shooter was probably criminally insane. He was apparently suspended from school pending some kind of psychiatric evaluation, and yet was still able to procure a firearm.
I've discussed gun control in the past, since I come at it from a somewhat unique perspective. I'm a liberal in a very conservative state, and what's more, I'm a gun control advocate in a state where gun control is the kind of buzzword that makes people sleep with their rifles. Let me be clear - my family owns a firearm, and I will be the first one to stand up and scream if lawmakers attempt to outlaw that firearm. My family lives on an acre and a half of land in a relatively isolated section of town (seriously, look Rose Hill, Texas up on a map sometime, it's pretty country), and the firearm we own is a shotgun with very loud pump action. This gun is an appropriate weapon for a family in the country for several reasons:
- The pump action is extremely loud, and very recognizable. Because of this, it's possible that if someone did enter our home with the intent to do us harm, we may not even have to fire. People run away from the sound of a shotgun being cocked.
- In the country, there are lots of critters. Raccoons, possums, skunks, rats, and snakes. A shotgun is simply the best weapon for shooting all of these critters.
- My brother hunts birds.
- It is easy to load and reload, and since it's semi-auto, it has less recoil than some other weapons might. This means that when my father is out of town, my mother and I can still operate the firearm with little difficulty and no injury.
- And finally, perhaps most importantly, this gun can be loaded with non-lethal rounds.
In contrast, the firearm that was used in this shooting was a pistol (9mm Glock) with an extended magazine that could hold up to 30 shots. The problem with pistols is that they are easily concealable and have little to no practical usage except as a tool to take human life. True, hunters carry sidearms as a precautionary measure in case a hostile animal gets too close for them to use their rifle or shotgun, but they are not appropriate hunting weapons by any means. They exist for one purpose, and that is to kill other humans.
Now is where the debate strays into the sticky territory of the second amendment. Most people agree that the second amendment was put in place by the founding fathers in case the government they built became the very thing they had just successfully rebelled against. The right for the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because if it is infringed, the people lose the ability to overthrow the government - if it becomes necessary in the course of human events. That is the reason for the second amendment, and I fully support it because of that.
What I'm calling for is communication. While he hasn't been convicted yet, it's fairly obvious to everyone that Laughner is the shooter. He had a history of mental illness that was known to his family and to the school. It is insensible that this information not be made available to firearm vendors. There are dangers to creating any kind of national database of the mentally ill, including stigmatizing non-neurotypical citizens. But there are greater dangers in not having such a database. There are greater dangers in the fact that anyone can walk off the street into a gun show and purchase a firearm with no background check. There are greater dangers in the fact that if your firearm is stolen, the amount of paperwork you have to file in order to be disconnected from future crimes committed with the firearm is far greater than the amount of paperwork you have to file to purchase the firearm in the first place. There is a greater danger to the fact that there is no psychiatric evaluation requirement to purchase a deadly weapon.
Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights, and I'm the last person that will advocate for the removal of those rights. But the right to buy and own a deadly weapon is not inalienable, and can be limited, and that's what I want. It's just as senseless to ban all firearms as it is to legalize all firearms without limitations. The former is just as dangerous as the latter, there is a middle ground, and I sincerely hope the legislative body will work to find it.
Speaking of middle ground - the larger discussion that seems to be spawning from this shooting is about how we talk to each other across party lines. Something I'm sure more people than me have been noticing is how strongly divided we have become. It's come to the point where I will automatically refuse to disclose my party leanings if it looks like I'm going to get into an idealogical discussion - because it's very hard to have a discussion if it looks like the other person is going to dismiss you out of hand for your party leanings.
The rhetoric in this country has become so vitriolic and divided, and it's disgusting. Increasingly, it seems like both political leaders and average citizens have tried to demonize their opponents, and it seems like it's succeeding. How many times have you heard someone say that "The Republicans" or "The Democrats" were solely to blame for the divisions and lack of progress in this country? How stupid is it to paint everyone in either party with the same broad brush?
I've been guilty of it too. It's sad how many times I've been in a political argument and, as soon as someone begins to blame something on the Democrats, I feel an immediate and pressing need to shout louder about how it's really the fault of the Republicans. It's sad how many times I'm presented with idiocy on the part of some Republican or another and simply point and laugh, without any feeling of surprise or disappointment.
The moment you dismiss someone's opinion because they're of the opposite party, or because you assume they're of the opposite party, you become part of the problem. The minute you begin using words like "unamerican" to refer to anyone who chooses to serve the country as a civil servant (as Senators and Representatives do), you become part of the problem. The second you turn your listening switch off because you don't like what the other person is saying, you become part of the problem.
It's difficult to think of how to close a post like this. Every time I think of the shooting I can't help but think of the nine-year-old girl killed there, and I get depressed. I didn't want my comeback to this journal from the holiday season to be about something so depressing, but I feel like it's important to discuss the problems that are presented by this tragedy rather than sweeping them under the rug.
This entry was originally posted at http://farasha.dreamwidth.org/120948.html. Please comment there using OpenID.