Last weekend a very unfortunate and gruesome event occurred in Tucson Arizona, when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot point blank range through the head by an unwell gunman Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner had a high capacity clip for his pistol which allowed him to fire 31 total rounds before having to reload, which resulted in 6 deaths, and numerous injuries. I have the benefit of hindsight and the distance of time and space from this event in which I had plenty of time to digest the on-goings as they unfolded in the news media and the responses of the nation and myself to the shooting.
My first thought for good or for ill, and a shortcoming in my own judgments was "what right wing gun-happpy nutbag is responsible?". That judgment is a very broad generalization as I know most conservatives while strong in their convictions, and sometimes misinformed (something I am guilty of myself) are generally not bad people. As more information emerged about the shooter various news networks tried to paint him as an extremist of either the right or left based on what is altogether an arbitrary and wide-spanning selection of "favorite books" from Loughner's myspace page. All judgments about the shooter's politics opinions and conjecture piece-mealed and selected by presenting what was altogether only a limited selection of his readings.
As more information about the tragedy unfolded, we found out that Representative Giffords was part of Sarah Palin's Political Action Party's site to take back twenty districts from Democrats who voted to pass the Federal Health Care Reform. The districts marked off under a rifle scope's cross-hairs (I don't care what spin you try to retroactively put on the images, they are NOT surveyor's graphics, I know a rifle scope cross-hairs when I see it.) There are people who believe that symbolism and language riddled with gun euphemisms, and metaphors. This sparked a debate as to whether or not the political rhetoric was responsible for generating an environment in which politicians play on the public's fears and that in turn results in acts of violence seeming justified; a "do onto others BEFORE they do on to you" kind of mentality. I thought it was amusing to see the response from either side of the political spectrum, as it is telling when someone feels they are being called out on the offending behavior. It seemed a lot of the conservative news media and politicians responded with a "what are you accusing us of?" kind of response, where as some of the liberal media outlets acknowledged what might constitute their own infractions and adjusted their speech accordingly. My favorite example of the adjustment is Keith Olberman's satirical segment "Worst Person in the World" usually poking fun at people whose disregard for their fellow man may not be necessarily dangerous, but certainly deplorable if comedic in how it is presented. Olberman did not run this segment in the past week, acknowledging that not everyone may be able to appreciate the segment's satire.
What has been brought to light as well in terms of the shooting was the long history and frequency of mass shootings which have occurred in the United States. I do believe we have the second amendment for a reason, however I think that we should look at the Right to bear Arms with reason and a sense of wisdom. What sorts of things are perfectly admissible in terms of owning firearms, and why is it justifiable. This week Congress has introduced a Bill which would ban the public sale of high capacity magazine clips. High-capacity magazines are not used by any part of public service. Policemen do not have them, and many members of the military do not use them, so why should any civilian individual need them? There is public acknowledgment that automatic weapons are also effectively banned on a federal level, and depending on the state, actually banned. What I mean by 'effectively banned" is that access to certain kinds of materials involve a rigorous process and series of background checks as well as some large fees which need to be paid and are a hassle. If you are willing to go through the process, and your state does not have an outright ban on automatic weapons, you can get a machine gun.
These events of course are not without their heroes. For every sociopath who has no regard for their fellow man, there is a selfless courageous individual who you would swear has ice water running through their veins, and the well being of others becomes tantamount. In the Arizona shooting, this person is Daniel Hernandez, a 20 year old, Latino intern who happens to be gay. Three traits which are no more important that any other, but given Arizona's recent controversial political history, three traits which should not be left out of the dialogue about the shooting (Also three traits which as one reader of the Dan Savage Blog, will guarantee a teabagger's head to explode). Daniel ran TOWARD the gunfire once he heard bullets and attended Gabrielle Giffords' injuries, keeping her upright and applying pressure to the wound. Danile has been lauded as a hero by the nation, including President Obama. During the Memorial, Daniel Hernandez while appreciative of the sentiment "humbly rejected the mantle of 'hero'" to a standing ovation of everyone in attendance. My thoughts on his response were ironically "spoken like a true hero". He really is, in spite of his rejection of the title. I certainly sympathize with the rejection of the sentiment.
Overall, the events are unfortunate, however they are just another series in a chain of a bloody and violent history of shootings here in the state. The shooting in Tucson is horrible, but it is anything but inconceivable.
No comments:
Post a Comment