""""It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence."""
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary. """"
Krugman, America's official counselor, overlooks a few causal factors, such as the AZ handgun laws (you say you need a Glock to take of some lib-rawls, son? aw-raht), the NRA (bipartisan, as like a Bailout), the influence of Paul-tards and libertarians (Ayn Rand's "We the Living" one of J-red's fave tomes, as was Mein Kampf) as well as teabaggers on the wingnuts out in the Heartland. The Pauls' anti-government agenda probably influenced this sick individual as much as Sarah Searchlight or Foxnews did (J-red's claimed to be atheist as well). For that matter, democratic incompetence and hypocrisy (as with, say, the LA Dems rallying for more defense handouts for drones) may have had something to do with it.
12 comments:
"The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary. """"
Yeah. Like that is gonna change. Beyond that, Krugman doesn't get to decide what there's room for in this country.
Krugman is a lefty blowhard and his opinion means nothing at all to most of America.
Whether one agrees or not with all he says (I don't), Krugman's not incapable of rational analysis--perhaps a bit bureaucratic but not a blowhard. Rush Windbaugh's a blowhard. Or Ben Gleck. And Krugman's syndicated across the US--so fairly well known, though probably hated from San Antone to Savannah.
That said, I agree one might quibble with his idea that the "eliminationist rhetoric" definitely led to Loughner's madness. It's relevant, perhaps, though you can't just pin it on a Palin, or teaparty, though some naive democrats are tempted to do so.
The most relevant factor would be the AZ gun laws that allowed an obviously disturbed kid to buy a high-powered gat. The gun store owner/salesman should be held accountable at least, and the law changed (include psych. evaluation, etc). As should NRA people who approve of McSemi-Auto Mart Drive throughs--so in that sense, the Palinites, teabaggers, and Fox hysteria crew are culpable, perhaps, but I think some of the PC sentimentalists who fancy themselves democrats went too far in accusing them of actual crimes (tho crosshairs on posters looks borderline).
keep it somewhat civil, Anny.
Krugman is perfectly capable of rationality, that is not at issue. I don't read Krugman much, but it seems like he is wading deeper and deeper into the partisan screeching pool he has been decrying. He is as opportunistic as Limbaugh and Beck. They are about making tons of money. I personally don't give a rat's ass about what any talking head has to say.
I don't think the AZ gun laws or the store owner are to blame. Their FFL's are at risk if they don't follow the rules. A serious ATF violation can close the business. If the kid filled out the 4473 and passed the NICS check, then that's that.
That 4473 form and the NICS is the same across the country. Some states do require a waiting period, or they may have another layer of bureaucracy like firearm owner's ID, but it's still going to based on whether or not you are a felon or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. If your are clean, you can make the purchase.
The news has been saying, especially NPR, that AZ has these loose gun laws. Not exactly true. I lived there from 2002 to 2009. If you walk in to buy a gun, you have to pass those two criteria that you have to pass anywhere. AZ has recently changed their permitting process for concealed carry, which I disagree with. It is now easier to carry concealed without the training requirement.
Nevertheless, you will get in just as much trouble in AZ if you brandish a weapon as you would in MA. The difference is that AZ doesn't try and play gotcha with transport or defending your life, like, say, Illinois does. The same guy that can get a firearm in AZ can get one in IL, there are just a couple more requirements. The underlying qualifiers are the same.
So the the media's take on the lenient gun laws in AZ are meaningless as far as who can get a firearm. The exact same incident could have happened in Chicago or Seattle or San Diego.
There will be some gun control talk for a little, but it will go away. The people don't want it in most states.
I don't think Obama or the Dems want to open that can of worms after the butt-kicking that was just administered. Oh sure, Laughtenburg or Feinswine or a dem in a safe, gerrymandered district or blue state may bleat a little, but it ain't going anywhere. As a matter of fact, if Obama even makes a peep about gun control, the pro-gun orgs will turn it into a tornado, if they can. I don't think Obama has the stones to talk any gun control before the 2012 elections. Afterward, if he wins, I could see him doing anything.
Actually, that type of thinking could make a great campaign against him "look what he did his first two years, do you really want to give him 4 years unconstrained by having to win another election?"
Your admonishment to keep it civil is unnecessary, I don't get worked up about what other people think to use profanity.
Krugman's an economics professor as well as NYT hack, so that's a bit different than a Windbaugh or the Fox/Beck clan, or MS-NBC Pathos-Crats for that matter. Actually I might grant that K's point-- that eliminationist rhetoric influenced Loughner-- was a stretch, ie a type of Pathos --and not really logical or "actionable" as shysters say. Merely a ...possibility. It's a type of causal fallacy actually--"post hoc ergo propter hoc". A Mere succession in time..X happens, then Y happens... does not prove a causal relation--assuming it did, all or at least many gullible fools who listen to a Palin or Beck-belch would be out trying to shoot at lib-rawls.
Now, when you take tylenol and your headache goes away, you can believe in the causal efficiency. The medicine works. Or you drink a few shots of tequila, and voila, you're drunk. So ...causal efficiency, ie alcohol has a def. effect on our nervous system. But ...Palin's rhetoric and Loughner's shooting Giffords? No relation, certainly not in any serious sense--not even "Twinkies" level BS. So that was the phony liberal's appeal to emotion--like this raving lunatic, Byronius of New Worlds (what's really amusing about this is that B-ron's a recovering drug addict--from Arizona hickland as well-- turned mormon, and loves that fat POS Glenn Beck). That's quite beyond a Krugman and approaching psychosis--not to say , possibly a crime itself. Accusing people, even Sarah Palin (Not that I approve of her politics, whatsoever), of being party to a mass murder was fairly ludicrous --she should sue some of these punks. It was like a Stalinist show trial mindstate--
I would say the selling of the gun WAS causally related, however, even if proper, legal, so forth. Why didn't Loughner's obvious psych. issues appear in a background search? Ill tell you why: the legal authori-tays operate with a sort of cowboys and indians mindstate--cops n robbers. Has nothing to do with psychological issues. Is he a Perp, or not? Not--good to go. Assuming Loughner had been diagnosed as a psychotic even that would probably would not have prevented the sale. I know a few ...gun people and usually (not always) an experienced counter person knows when not to sell a semi--or ammo-- to a wild-eyed punk. It's a judgement call thing. Someone---the victims' family members perhaps--should hire an attorney and sue the store for negligence.
Post hoc fallacy:
""Occurring after an event is not sufficient to establish that the prior event caused the later one. To establish the probability of a causal connection between two events, controls must be established to rule out other factors such as chance or some unknown causal factor."""
You want to give Krugman credential points for being a professor - that would be alright if he was using his education and accrued experience with the U.S. economy to express facts. That isn't really what he is doing. He is using his cachet with NY liberals to hold court in areas that liberals are interested in politically. All well and good. But in doing so, he has left the realm of academia - at least knowledge seeking academia. The statements he makes about deficit spending and Keynesian principles cannot be proved without a serious roll of the dice. That aside, I still say he has crossed over into opinion commentary, and that he is doing it for his own benefit - the fact that he likes and probably believes what he is saying is secondary to the money he gets paid and the accolades from the liberal community.
On the gun thing, I say that there is a risk in being alive. This talk of gun control is political, again. It comes up because the libs try to use every instance to further their goals. For various reasons, they want the nation disarmed. The nation does not want to be disarmed. I don't think that even if they were able to pass a restrictive law, that it would do anything other than piss off a large portion of citizens and open a pretty good sized black market. The real reason that they don't push for more gun control is that it is a loser outside the deep blue states - and everyone knows it.
As I said yesterday, I be willing to bet Obama doesn't utter a peep about gun control - though I surely hope he does - because he knows any number of groups that oppose him will club (oops, can we say "club", gulp) him with it over and over again. I bet if I went over to the daily kos, they will be saying Obama ought to do something and....they will disappointed again.
I think they should transfer this desire to constrain activities to cops killing black people and hispanics. The police are killing on average one person a day http://www.colorlines.com/archives/2007/11/killed_by_the_cops.html
The libs ought to get back to beating up on the establishment like they did when I was kid - the problem is they have become the establishment.
The libs ought to get back to beating up on the establishment like they did when I was kid - the problem is they have become the establishment.
Agreed, to an extent.As you would note by perusing a few months of Contingencies classics, I rarely if ever promote/defend corporate liberalism, which I contend is not FDR/Harry Truman or even JFK -style democratic tradition, which I may defend at times (when ah keep me irish, or Nietzsche under control). There are many GOPers in the Establishment as well, however.
Obama and the DINOcrats might not care to discuss gun control, but that does not imply that they should not discuss it.
Gun ownership should probably depend on a license of sorts, coursework, a test, which could include a psych. evaluation. Of course we don't want semis in the hands of psychos of whatever type--the present system does not prevent that from happening. Believe me, I know all about the yokels and their guns (or the gangsters for that matter). As Quigley's post indicates, there are --millions-- of semis out in the Heartland. The sh*t could kick off.
Quigley's post? Did I miss something somewhere? You must point me towards this Quigley guy.
Yes, many GOP types in the establishment, actually between the dems and reps it is a combine, I saw it put that way somewhere.
I think a politician, when starting out, decides which platform fits his/her personality and status. I believe they become a dem or rep like putting on a suit. With most of them, it is about making the right noises to whichever group they have chosen as their stepping stone to power.
The dems and reps simply play us off one another so that they may continue to feed at the trough.
At any rate, what I would like to see is the left and right agree to some things like reasonable limits on taxes and spending. Which will not work, probably, when you have the dems using the entitlement class as a weapon, and the reps protecting the corps.
Gun ownership should probably depend on a license of sorts, coursework, a test,
I have conflicting feelings on this. As a long time participant in the shooting sports, I have seen my share of stupid moves. Gun safety has to become ingrained over a period of time, much repetition. I think that many folks need to spend more time becoming familiar with their weapons. I have seen people in CCW classes that, were I the instructor, would either be required to attend a remedial class or flunked.
On the other hand, I am not really in favor of giving the government any more power to decide who gets to defend themselves. I am sure many will disagree with me as to regulation, but so be it.
Actually, we in the shooting community have done rather well these last 10 years in regards to more favorable (from our standpoint) gun laws and CCW states and castle doctrine laws, etc.
I think the only two states where CCW is not permitted in some form are IL and WI, and I am sure WI will have it before the year is out, now that the dems have been shown the door.
Your right that there are millions of guns out in America. Lots of money was spent right after Obama was elected, too. I was at J&G sales, a large gun wholesaler in Prescott, AZ in November 2008 after the election - place was mobbed. I saw a pair of guys spend 10K between them. The ammunition dried up and when it was available it was 50% more expensive. Primers and powder were backordered for a year. Stockpiling was the order of the day. Any AR manufacturer was mobbed. Things have finally settled down again and prices are back in line.
I live in rural area now, because I like it. Everyone around here has gun(s) - some have many guns. But I can't imagine what could cause the "sh*t to kick off". I know your remark about the yokels with guns was sort of off-hand, but these people in the country are the salt of the earth. Everyone knows everyone, crime is seldom and far between.
If the sh*t is going to kick off, it is going to be in the cities. When is the last time you heard of unrest away from an urban area? We out here in the country don't riot. We also don't start violent sh*t with our neighbors.
If for some reason the sh*t from the cities boils over into the countryside and starts to affect these rural communities, it will be over very quickly. It's like Switzerland - a rifle in every home.
When they cross the line, the gloves will come off and it will be as if God snapped his fingers.
Other than something like that, I doubt there is reason to worry about the heartland. That kind of thing just doesn't start out here.
I know your remark about the yokels with guns was sort of off-hand, but these people in the country are the salt of the earth.
Some are. Some aren't. For some time I lived in the 'burbs next door to a veteran who had dozens of guns and rifles, including fully automatic (illegal in CA). At times he'd be out in the front yard, pointing at a bird or something with a rifle. He also drank a lot. It was not a pleasant environment, even if he never pointed a gun at me (...AFAIK). "Salt of the earth" also use speed. Or other drugs. Speed and semis--not a good combination. Now, things may not kick off in Prescott for some time. Palmdale's another matter.
Loughner might have been tweaking, reportedly (tho suppose they would mentioned it)--or had previously at times. And that's fairly common out in the Heartland (and urban areas as well).
Given the possibility of Loughner, or Cho's or the Ft Hood psycho (and many others), gun control sounds fairly reasonable if not a necessity. Not ...no firearms at all (perhaps allow an old duck hunting .12 gauge, etc)--but preventing perps (of all ..colors) from getting semis, glocks, or machine guns . And I suspect that might be on the table so to speak, after the TUscon madness.
See my latest post re Quigley. Though I doubt yll care for it overly much, Anny.
Quigley. Wow. Quigley is not very knowledgeable, on this matter at least. He comes across like a ineffectual woman wringing her hands, what to do! what to do!
He beclowns himself with this passage:
"The weapon reportedly used in the mass murders in Tucson was a serious weapon - a Glock 19, semi-automatic pistol, with an extended magazine. Some weapons like that were illegal to sell in the US from 1994 to 2004 under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban."
It may very well be that he is in fact as ignorant as he seems. It could also be that he knows his audience is unaware. It is probably a combination of the two. To the audience, I am sure it doesn't matter, if they are at that site reading that stuff, they are "on board", as they say.
The Glock 19 was never outlawed. It is a typical 9mm pistol of which there are many examples from many manufacturers. Semi-automatic 9mm pistols have been around since 1902 or so. Before the Glock models were introduced in 1982, there was the Browning hi-power, introduced in the 1920's, with similiar capabilities. In other words, the G19 is nothing extraordinary in terms of practical use. It is not a machine pistol.
It is no "scarier" than what police usually have in their holsters - actually, it is less scary than most police pistols issued, because the police have upgraded to .40 and .45 caliber since the FBI shoot-out in Miami in 1986, where the FBI subsequently wound up with .40 caliber handguns.
-continued -
As an aside, the cops themselves have become plenty more scary with their military tactics and no-knock raids. Most of our domestic police now are running around with automatic rifles exactly the same as the military is using. I wonder why Quigley isn't after them as a public menace, considering how many people they kill that should not be killed.
He has a portion of this right, regular capacity mags were outlawed under the assault weapons ban.
Regular capacity mags for the G19 are 15 round. Ten round mags were what could be sold. During the time the law was in effect, regular capacity mags, used, were being sold for over $100.00. The typical price before the ban was 20 dollars. The law had created an artificially inflated price. When it looked like the ban was going to be allowed to sunset, the prices fell to below 20 dollars.
When the law DID sunset, tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of "high cap" mags were sold. If the weapon was designed to take a 15 or 20 round mag, then that is regular capacity to me. We'll say "high cap", in honor of Mr. Quigley.
So the result of the ban was to create a demand for the previously available items.
Thanks to the democrats, I bet you there are 10 times the high cap mags out there than would have been if they hadn't outlawed them. To say nothing of the other banned items.
-continued-
Finally, to your last comment about the possibility of gun control measures coming out of this:
Given the possibility of Loughner, or Cho's or the Ft Hood psycho (and many others), gun control sounds fairly reasonable if not a necessity. Not ...no firearms at all (perhaps allow an old duck hunting .12 gauge, etc)--but preventing perps (of all ..colors) from getting semis, glocks, or machine guns . And I suspect that might be on the table so to speak, after the TUscon madness.
See my latest post re Quigley. Though I doubt yll care for it overly much, Anny.
Again, the liberal base may clamor for some measures, but I don't see it happening. Obama probably would be conflicted to even sign a bill if it made it to his desk, for fear he would be tarred as a gun-grabber. I guarantee there will be no statement from the white house calling for gun control, unless it comes with a qualifier that distances Obama from the responsibility for it as in "if congress, in it's wisdom, decides to send me a gun control bill, I will consider signing it." The bill would have to be very bi-partisan in this political climate for him to say even that.
Obama wants to be president for a second term above all else. He is not going to overtly call for any gun control because he knows it will be used against him in a year and he is going to have to have some things he cannot control go right for him, as well as a very good campaign.
None of these national "leaders" have the strength of conviction when it comes to getting re-elected, unless they are a Schumer from a very safe area. Schumer isn't any different, he just knows he can talk his sh*t.
Most will not take a chance that they will run afoul of gun owners. That's how it is, ask Bill Clinton.
The left has seen the level of Obama's courage and found it wanting on many issues. I drop by the daily kos once in a while just to check on the levels of dissatisfaction and they are pretty high.
As to Quigley and my not liking what he has to say, I would bring up a mirror - after reading a few of his articles since you made me aware of him, I view him as a run-of-the-mill leftwing nut job whacko. He is just another member of the liberal echo-chamber burnishing his commie credentials. See? Anyone can be a bomb-thrower.
Seriously, I don't care whatsoever what he has to say on any matter. And I doubt most of the electorate does, either.
I have been around quite awhile now. Over time, I have realized that it is foolish to put any trust in these elected a-holes.
Either party will betray you, as the left has had recent reason to note. Invest yourslf in them and you will be an emotional wreck, as so many at the daily kos find themselves.
I am not, therefore, partisan per se. I don't like the Republicans, I detest the Democrats.
Until some better situation comes along, it is better for all Americans to have a divided government, in my view. If they are busy fighting each other, there is less chance they are screwing us.
Well, J, I must take my leave of you. I am traveling up north for a couple weeks. It has been interesting exchanging comments with you, as we clearly have divergent views, though we seem to have managed it without rancor.
Good luck with your blog, and perhaps I will look in on you from time to time.
T
He has a portion of this right, regular capacity mags were outlawed under the assault weapons ban.
That was Quigley's central point.
Loughner not only had a Glock, he had the expanded mag (not "regular). Quigley may ...whine a bit, but his point on the madness of American gun ownership, in the words of Miss Cleo, cannota be denied.
Thanks to the democrats, I bet you there are 10 times the high cap mags out there than would have been if they hadn't outlawed them.
That's a different issue, concerning the effectiveness of enforcement. Actually A., I don't totally disagree with your point re the modern police force. Not all non-conservatives love the cops . Ive witnessed LAPD/SD raids, with the GPS-guided gear, 'copter, tank, and a few dozen cowboys in kevlar, most with like AR-15s, riot guns, glocks, etc. Rather Orwellian and alarming.
Hasta, A.
Post a Comment