Unless you've been vacationing on Mars for the past few weeks or something like that, you have no doubt heard of the tragedy that we had in Tucson eight days ago, which is, as I write this, still reverberating around the news channels and especially in the local and state media. When the story first broke last Saturday, there were lots of unknowns. We would get one piece of information, only to learn a few hours later that it was incorrect because it was overcome by another piece of information. There's still going to be plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking and analysis by self-appointed experts in the media, many of whom have never even so much as set foot in Tucson, yet feel qualified to lecture those of us here on how we ought to be doing things.
I guess in something like this, it's human nature to fix "blame" on something. What do you "blame"? Who do you "blame"? I've seen and read all sorts of divergent viewpoints on this. Some say that we need to repeal the Second Amendment. Others want more restrictions on guns, but not an overturning of the Second Amendment. Some say that Congresswoman Giffords should have asked for some sheriff's deputies to accompany her (that was apparently not her style) and others say the sheriff's deputies should have known better in the first place to not provide security. One person whose opinion I respect highly portends that the root cause of this is the breakdown of the family structure that we've had in the past forty years and a lack of moral baseline being instilled in our children, and I'm going to confess that I largely agree with that sentiment.
However, a situation like this is complex enough to defy any simple solution that we wish to apply to it. Think of it as a symphony. You go to a symphony, hear Beethoven's Fifth or Fanfare for the Common Man performed. You enjoy the performance, but no single instrument executed the performance in and of itself to make it happen. All things and circumstances worked together to bring it about, and from what I know of the shooter, he was mentally deranged and there were a collection of factors which contributed to it in some degree or another.
That said, I'm going to buck the trend here as far as assigning blame. Well, if you know me well, you knew I would end up doing this, but if you don't, then sit down for a minute.
The single and sole person responsible for this is Jared Loughner.
It wasn't the Tea Party.
It wasn't Sarah Palin.
It wasn't the Second Amendment.
It was Jared Loughner.
From what we now know, he had had it in for the Congresswoman for three years running at least. He had attended a previous meet, asked a question, didn't like the answer, and thus took the first step towards a series of steps that led to this. Sure, we can look back right now and say that we should have seen this coming. The Pima County Sheriff's Department had previous contacts with him. They knew about him, they knew he was unstable, but did not act on that. That likely is no fault of their own; state laws about what should be done to unstable people vary from state to state, and I can tell you that in ours that threatening suicide is not going to get you locked up for 72 hours like it would in California. So blaming the sheriff isn't exactly accurate, even if you happen to think like I do that we have a cretinous ass for a Sheriff.
The Second Amendment? The Supreme Court recently ruled that it's an individual right. In so noting, they did not overturn existing restrictions on the mentally ill from possessing guns. I am in no way ever going to opine that someone who is presently mentally ill should have a handgun, but the devil is in the details as they say, and again with fifty states we have fifty different legal definitions on mental illness. I'm not going to suggest that we federalize a standard uniform definition, mainly because the higher up the chain you go for an answer, the further removed from reality that the person you're seeking the answer from is.
I will grant that the state of Arizona should re-evaluate what constitutes mental illness. Arizona Revised Statutes make it clear that the menstally unstable are prohibited from possessing firearms (and rightly so) but there's a suggestion here that the threshold of what constitutes mental instability should be re-examined.
What about Sarah Palin? There is nothing in Jared Loughner's profiles on the various websites that he frequented to suggest that he had read her books or watched her interviews on TV. I personally think it's absurd for those who comment on the online forums here in Tucson to blame Sarah Palin for it. I've also seen it suggested that Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh might have been a factor, but again, we have one of his high school friends state that Jared Loughner did not really follow politics or watch the news. He was simply deranged, had a fixation for Gabrielle Giffords, and guess what? He's a registered independent. So am I. So are a lot of us.
I will want to, at some point in the future, maybe the near future, come back and re-visit the Second Amendment, not in the context of this tragedy, but instead with a companion re-visiting of the First Amendment. I could do that right now but I'm getting ready to slap a ribeye on the barbecue grill, and plus, there are other things I like to do too.
However, suffice it to say that from this resident of Tucson, there's only one person to blame for all of this.
His name is Jared Loughner.
I agree that the man who caused all this and should be blamed is the one that pulled the trigger. And its very possible that if he didn't use this particular weapon to attack this Congresswoman, he would have found another way. Perhaps there was nothing that could be done to have prevented his attack on her. But I still say that our country could have greatly limited the collateral damage he caused to 20 other people had he been limited to a 6 round revolver rather than the 30 magazine semi-auto gun he used. There's really just no need for these types of guns to be sold on the open market to anyone (except perhaps police and military).
ReplyDeleteIf you pass a law limiting magazine capacity, you do not stop mass shootings. If you pass a law restricting semi-automatics, then the deranged person who wants to shoot up a crowd will bring more than one revolver (he'll bring as many as he can carry).
ReplyDeleteAnd even if you do have this law, what you get with that law is a black market. Organized crime will take advantage of every opportunity they can use in order to provide a banned product/substance to their marketplace, and they'll take in a lot of money doing it.
Three, the surviving family members of a revolver shooting are not going to derive any comfort or consolation from the fact that their loved one wasn't killed with a semiauto, thus the situation wasn't as bad as it could have been. No one's going to say to them, "Mrs. Umptyfratz, I'm very sorry about your husband being killed. But look at the bright side, more would have died if he had had a semiautomatic." No one in their sane mind is prepared to say such a thing.
I don't know if I ever told you, I've already been the victim of crime committed with a handgun. The robber did not file paperwork with the San Jose Police chief to legally carry his concealed weapon. He was also in violation of a California law that says you can't have a loaded gun within the limits of an incorporated city without a permit. My guess is that he got his weapon without having to fill out paperwork, and without going thru the background check (which I happen to believe in). And he wasn't subject to the fifteen day waiting period either (which I used to favor). He plea bargained down to "attempted armed robbery" and for all I know he's added a few more robberies to his resume.
From what I know of the event here, the Pima County College Police and the Pima County Sheriff's Department had repeated contacts with this guy. We should be asking ourselves "why wasn't he locked up?" if we're asking ourselves anything.
Arizona law, as it exists now, may have constrained them for doing so, and/or failed to obligate them into taking action. I do know that the Sheriff's deputies that I've personally interacted with are competent, capable, and professional individuals, and the same goes for the Tucson Police. (I can't answer for the Arizona Department of Public Safety on that one, but my conclusion would likely be the same).
Also, Loughner was disqualified from the Army for admitting drug use. That should have disqualified him from purchasing the weapon, but he would have had to lie under penalty of perjury, on the Federal Form 4473, about his drug use. How come he's not being charged with perjury? What good are these questions on the 4473 if we don't prosecute those who lie? And aside from that, are we asking the prohibited purchasers to incriminate themselves, which may be a violation of their Constitutional rights?
There's only so much we can do.
And for the record, I'm in favor with the intent of those questions on the 4473, but I'm not sure that in the grand scheme of things, that they actually deter crime.
It would be an interesting exercise, using the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, to determine the homicide rate in those states which limit magazine capacity versus those that don't.
However, that's going to be inconclusive, as that there are many other factors that have an impact on the crime rate, and attempting to tie the crime rate to one single law may be an exercise in flawed thought process.