Gabrielle Giffords, heated rhetoric, and guns

The big news from the US the past few days has been the shooting of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The greatest tragedy was the six deaths (personally I found that of the nine-year-old girl most affecting, though any death like this is a great tragedy), and these victims should not be forgotten (nor should the people who leaped to stop the shooter or help the wounded), but the serious wound suffered by Giffords herself is almost as terrible a tragedy as the deaths, and it is natural that as a political figure and the apparent target she is receiving the most attention. However, in many commentaries on the incident, discussion has focused on broader topics, such as whether heated political rhetoric is directly or indirectly to blame.

From what we know so far of the assassin, it doesn’t appear that the connection between heated political rhetoric and the shooting is very direct. As this writer points out, many past assassins in the US have had motivations quite different from what might have been expected. I don’t agree with his implication that both sides of American politics are equally guilty of using violent imagery in their rhetoric – far, far more of it comes from the right wing, as Paul Krugman argues in his piece on the subject (though of course he is a liberal, so conservatives will no doubt just dismiss him as biased), but I agree that there is probably not a direct connection between the recent use of gun-related imagery by right-wing figures and the actions of this particular deranged individual. However, this does not mean that those public figures shouldn’t be receiving flak for their irresponsible talk. Even if they are not responsible for setting off this particular lunatic, they might be responsible for the next (in fact, there’s already been one case of a violent Glenn Beck fan taking his words too much to heart, though he was stopped before anyone was killed). And whatever Loughner’s political views (indications are they were all over the place, as might be expected from someone so clearly mentally ill), violence-tinged rhetoric might have at least encouraged him to think violence towards politicians was acceptable.

On the other hand, at least all of the major right-wing figures and organizations condemned the attack (while denying they shared any blame for it), and no one publicly praised the shooter (though since I avoided reading any comment boards, I can’t be sure that some more warped individuals might not have done so). This is a noticeable contrast to Pakistan, where a number of radicals and conservative religious organizations openly celebrated the assassination of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer. Perhaps there is some hope for the US yet (though if it ever does reach the state Pakistan is in now with respect to political climate, we can pretty much write it off as hopeless). Still, from some of the bizarre statements of a few on the right (such as claiming that Loughner was a liberal because he liked the Communist Manifesto – even though he also like Mein Kampf and Ayn Rand), it may be too much to hope for a real cooling down of the rhetoric. Also, as pointed out in this article from Slate, Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for denouncing the idea of collective guilt and asserting that only the individuals who commit crimes should be held responsible for them, as she herself holds Muslims collectively responsible for the September 11 attacks, as shown be her opposition to any mosque being built near the WTC site, no matter which Muslims build it.

Another debate which the shooting has re-energized is the one over gun control. Amazing numbers of people still try to argue that incidents like this don’t show a need for more gun control. Some right wingers bizarrely have gone so far as to claim that if Arizona’s gun laws were less restrictive the incident could have been prevented, even though it’s almost impossible to have less restrictive gun laws than Arizona, where someone as obviously disturbed as Loughner could buy a particularly deadly gun. More sensible commentators have focused on that gun, noting that there is no rational reason why a gun that can shoot over 30 rounds without reloading should be available to the general public. This contrasts with the tired argument which I saw a few pro-gun people trot out again, that crazy people like Loughner are the problem, not the weapons they use, and that they can still kill with knives or clubs. Yes, but they wouldn’t be able to kill nearly as many people. In this particular case, if he had only had a knife, the attacker might have been tackled before he could do more than wound anyone, if that. The issue of potentially dangerous mentally ill people also has to be address, but any rational person can see that making it much harder to get a hold of guns that can kill many people quickly would at least reduce the body count. If the members of Congress can manage to think logically and lose their fear of the NRA for once, maybe this incident can lead to more rational gun laws in the US.