"Did the Gabrielle Giffords shooting surprise anyone?
With eighteen people openly shot at and six people dead, the attempted assassination of US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is no laughing matter.
If you asked me what was the strangest aspect of US election rallies, I’d have to say it was the persistence of people legally running around openly displaying their firearms.
I, as many non-Americans around the world I suspect, watched with a mixture of amusement and curious horror at footage of people running around with guns at political events.
Coming from Australia where the only people who openly carry firearms are the police and criminals, there’s an unavoidable uncomfortableness about seeing civilians brandishing guns.
Yeah I know constitutional rights and all that, but all it takes is one nutjob, someone with a few screw loose, someone with a few short circuits and well…
…people get shot. And some of those shot will inevitably die.
At the heart of the right to openly carry firearms is the argument that by doing so, those that participate make the world a safer place. Safe, so long as you’re rational.
There’s no arguing, reasoning or debating with an irrational person though. The kind of person who would open fire at a political event and indiscriminately mow down a crowd.
Fish in a barrel.
Yesterday, this is precisely what happened. Jared Loughner, allegedly linked to the anti-semitic group American Renaissance sprayed a crowd with bullets.
Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and remains in a critical condition. Six other people died and a further thirteen were injured.
With people like this running around America’s political rallies, inevitably it was only a matter of time before someone took matter into their own hands.
Exhibit A – A man armed with an AR-15 assault rifle at an Obama rally;
With a culture pushing the boundaries of even the most openly democratic and free of societies, is anyone really that surprised at the politically driven shooting yesterday?
Gun ownership is defensive but inescapable capable of being utlised in the offense. Yesterday’s shooting was a painful reminder of that. No matter how many safeguards are put in place, no matter how many guns are out there and no matter how hard supporters of open carry rally for their perceived rights – there’s no way to accurately determine who will and won’t lose the plot under the right circumstances.
Mind you, if Loughner wanted to take out Giffords then where there’s a will there’s a way. But what’s disturbing is that with all the ‘rah rah we’ll fight for this and fight for that’ mantra pro-gun proponents are always pushing, the culture of shooting to get your way is born, fostered and encouraged.
America is not third world Africa or some backwater dictatorship. It’s supposed to be the most open and democratic government model on the planet. Regardless of which side of the gun debate you sit on, yesterdays events clearly undermine that political ideology.
Yes, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And all it takes is one nutjob to pull the trigger.
Wake up America, the world is full of them and you are not immune.
January 12th, 2011 at 5:34 pm Ben(Quote)
“Yes, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And all it takes is one nutjob to pull the trigger.
Wake up America, the world is full of them and you are not immune. ”
Perfect. Couldn’t have put it better.
January 13th, 2011 at 7:53 am My Kafkaesque life(Quote)
I totally can’t relate to this gun obsession, to this passion for owning a gun, for the right to carry a gun. This is in my universe… nuts.
With some Americans it’s like a gun fetish. Did you hear that after the Loughner rampage, where mind you a 9 years old girl died, the sale of that gun he used, rose? Oh yeah, read here http://bit.ly/ig3H3T Isn’t that perverse? It is to me.
I would not feel safe in America. In Slovenia luke 99% of people (who are not hunters, policemen or military) never held a gun or don’t even have the desire to hold it, let alone shoot and walk around with it. We’re lucky that we never had a massacre like this one. Hope it stays that way.
I love America (well, most parts of it), but I just can’t relate to some things that Americans do or say.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:02 am Phil(Quote)
I take it this Loughner fellow showed up to a rally where others were not carrying guns, openly or at all.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:58 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
@Kafka
Wow I hadn’t read that, and yeah kind of peverse.
Although on one hand I can kind of understand it. Obviously the gun is effective, as demonstrated by Loughner, so why not arm yourself with the best?
I see it as a problematic symptom of the gun culture and current laws in the US, rather then a reflection of insensitivity of the Giffords shooting.
Dunno how safe I’d feel knowing that Glocks are flying off the shelves like hotcakes though, cmon, 250+ Glocks sold in one state alone in one day?! That can’t be good.
@Phil
Most likely. If you’re trying to get at the point that had there been open armed supporters of her at the event though that none of this would have happened, I’d find that hard to believe.
Realistically I think we’d be looking at a lot more dead. If other people were armed then nobody would be raising eyebrows at Loughner. The time it takes to draw a weapon at point blank range is negligible and he could have easily taken Giffords out from close range.
Then the only difference is that you’ve got a whole lot of civilians at the time not really sure who shot what and worst case scenario they all open fire on anyone they personally don’t know who is armed.
Meanwhile you’ve got a crowd of unarmed civilians with nowhere to run caught in the crossfire.
Sounds like a nightmare scenario to me.
January 13th, 2011 at 8:15 pm mike(Quote)
“But what’s disturbing is that with all the ‘rah rah we’ll fight for this and fight for that’ mantra pro-gun proponents are always pushing, the culture of shooting to get your way is born, fostered and encouraged.”
(1) Do you have evidence to support that conjecture, or is it mere presumption?
(2) How would such a culture differ, ethically, from a culture of using the democratically sanctioned coercion of the State to get your way?
January 14th, 2011 at 3:36 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Hows about
You only need to look at rally coverage to see just how much gun toting open carriers have taken this to heart at recent political rallies in the US. This has been particularly notable when Obama was confirmed as the Democratic candidate.
The democratically sanctioned coercion of the state doesn’t involve opening fire on members of the public and members of congress at political events.
January 14th, 2011 at 4:41 pm mike(Quote)
“Hows about.. ‘You can have my gun when you prise it from my cold dead hands’
Charlton Heston, president of the NRA 1998-2003″
No, because in that example, the gun owner is not looking to “shoot to get his way” (i.e. to get something he doesn’t already have), he is merely expressing his willingness to defend his right to be free from the violent coercion of other men. It is these other men, the gun-control lobby who are trying to “get their way”, i.e. to confiscate firearms by means of the threat of violence which necessarily underlies State legislation.
“The democratically sanctioned coercion of the state doesn’t involve opening fire on members of the public and members of congress at political events.”
Oh doesn’t it? Were the, admittedly crazy, Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas in 1993 “members of the public” or were they not?
Furthermore, does not the fact that State coercion operates principally upon the threat (occasionally carried out) of overwhelming violence invalidate any distinction between it and say, an armed robber who uses the threat of violence to “get his way”? If not, could you please explain why not?
January 15th, 2011 at 12:41 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
If gun ownership laws are legally changed, then the implication is that gun owners will not surrender their firearms to the authorities (as they would legally required to do) without a (gun) fight.
Nobody is suggesting that guns will be removed by force without the relevant legislation passing first.
The only people making threats here are the gun lobbyists, in that they are threatening a firefight should the government pass anti gun-ownership laws.
The Waco incident was not a political rally. Additionally they obstructed a legal search warrant from taking place and at no time were forced to enter into a siege with the authorities.
Yes, they were members of the public but as you readily admit, they were crazy. I’ve got no problems with the authorities taking out crazy people by force, or should we just let them run wild and do as they (illegally) please.
If ‘the state’ does so to uphold the law, then there’s a clear distinction between their actions and Johnny McIloveguns threatening anyone with violence to get his way (not to mention illegal).
Give me an able police force over a bunch of self armed vigilante groups any day.
January 15th, 2011 at 11:14 am Phil(Quote)
Do you know why the 2nd Amendment exists in the constitution of the United States?
January 15th, 2011 at 7:24 pm mike(Quote)
“Nobody is suggesting that guns will be removed by force without the relevant legislation passing first.”
Nobody is presuming that suggestion to be made, nor does the mere legality of such coercion per se alter either the fact that it remains coercion, or an instance of State aggression against individuals, nor does it alter my ethical objection to it. Were legislation passed requiring all foreigners to submit to a sterilization program, would the mere fact that you would then be legally required to submit to such a program invalidate any ethical objection you might have to it? If your answer is no, then would you either (a) deal with my objection to your Charlton Heston example differently, or (b) kindly return to the question put to you: do you have any evidence to support your assertion that a “…culture of shooting to get your way is [being] born, fostered and encouraged.”
“The only people making threats here are the gun lobbyists, in that they are threatening a firefight should the government pass anti gun-ownership laws.”
I believe it is the potential enforcement of those laws upon which any threat hinges, not the mere passing of them.
“The Waco incident was not a political rally. Additionally they obstructed a legal search warrant from taking place and at no time were forced to enter into a siege with the authorities.”
That Waco wasn’t a political rally does not invalidate it as an instance of democratically sanctioned institutions aggressing with lethal force against members of the public. That the Davidians obstructed a legal search warrant may be true, but again, as an objection this point seems to presuppose an equivalence between the legal and the ethical. Perhaps you might qualify that equivalence, but are you nevertheless really prepared to claim that the murder of the Branch Davidians was not an instance of the democratic State opening fire against the public? If not then would you kindly withdraw your assertion that “The democratically sanctioned coercion of the state doesn’t involve opening fire on members of the public and members of congress at political events.”?
“I’ve got no problems with the authorities taking out crazy people by force, or should we just let them run wild and do as they (illegally) please.”
Well I do have problems with that. Not only do I distrust any politician (of all people) to make decisions about who is and who isn’t crazy, but I stipulate to the principle that force should only be used in self-defense or retaliation, and even then that decisions about the use of force should be made very carefully and are therefore too important to be entrusted to a monopoly provider, especially one which is institutionally prone to stupidity and to committing acts of wanton aggression without just cause.
“If ‘the state’ does so to uphold the law, then there’s a clear distinction between their actions and Johnny McIloveguns threatening anyone with violence to get his way (not to mention illegal).”
See above on your apparent equivalence between the legal and the ethical; when is a law ethical and when is it unethical? Or are all laws ethical simply because they are laws? It’s no good hiding behind this “rule of law” stuff – what are the relevant ethical principles here by which you believe that some people have the right, exercised on their behalf by the State, to aggress against others and forcibly take their firearms, or any other property, away from them?
January 16th, 2011 at 6:22 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
@Phil
I’m not subject to the US constitution, and as such am able to look at it from a broader perspective. The fact that the constitution itself mentions that ‘a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State‘ indicates the use of force is ingrained into US society.
Other than opening fire as they see fit, how else are a militia going to secure a free state? Invite people around for a tea party?
The danger inherent here is that when it comes to the complex structure of politics, one man’s conspiracy is another man’s revolution. What happens when an open carrier feels a conspiracy is upon us?
Politicians get shot in the head.
Has there been one instance in US history where a politician has been justifiably shot or the action has resulted in wide spread acceptance as a matter of necessity?
@Mike
The act of amending gun ownership laws is not an act of aggression against the individual. If legislation passes and the individual chooses to ignore the law or disobey – then, as with any other law being broken the state is required to respond.
I’ve got no problem with force being used against criminals.
Strawman argument. Sterilizing foreginers has nothing to do with gun toting culture and the attempted assasination of politicians.
As Phil brought it up, have a look at the second amendment. Other than opening fire how else are a militia going to be necessary to the security of a free state?
One man’s free state is another man’s dictatorship. It’s all in the interpretation and that’s where things start to go wrong.
How is this in any way a threat to the individual? In Australia we introduced stricter gun ownership laws back in the 90′s. This was done so in an orderly fashion and after the amnesty period, if you chose not to comply you were in illegal posession of a firearm.
No excuses and you were dealt with appropriately and subject to the full extent of the law if you were caught.
Obstructing a search warrant passively is one thing, arming yourself and standing off the police is an entirely different matter. Nobody is above the law and if a search warrant is executed on reasonably ground of suspicion, and then you decide to obstruct it via means of armed force – I not only assume the authorities will reply in kind but expect it.
I don’t consider the state using force when fired upon to uphold the law as murder. I have no problems with force being applied to criminals (which they became once they entered an armed standoff against the authorities).
Being from Australia I guess we have a much more heavy reliance on our police forces to uphold the law. As such I’ve got no problems with them using force against crazy people who enter into an armed standoff against police.
I’d classify entering into an armed standoff against authorities as a means to obstructing a search warrant from being carried out as an act of agression against authorities.
If police want to excute a legal search warrant and you threaten to open fire against them, taking you out is self defence and further an act towards the preservation of society. Absolutely no complaints from me as a citizen if the police pursue this type of retaliation when threatened attempting to uphold the law.
If you disagree with the ethical nature of laws there are existing procedures, policies and courts in place for you to challenge the system as you see fit.
Arming yourself and shooting politicians in the head is not the way to go about it. Any suggestion otherwise should be neutralised and discouraged.
January 16th, 2011 at 9:18 pm mike(Quote)
“The act of amending gun ownership laws is not an act of aggression against the individual.”
No, no, I’m sorry but I’m not letting you off with that: I was responding to your apparent assertion that the mere legality of removing a person’s guns (or any other property) by force is enough to either discount such an act as an instance of coercion or to render it ethically acceptable.
The act of forced removal is the coercion, not the passing of the legislation that legalizes this coercion. Since you (rather than I) have conflated the two, would you kindly deflate them and return to what is now two points rather than one:
(a) does the mere legality of an act of coercion render it non-coercive or does it render it acceptable – which one and why?
and
(b) do you have any evidence to support your earlier assertion that a “…culture of shooting to get your way is [being] born, fostered and encouraged”?
“Strawman argument. Sterilizing foreginers has nothing to do with gun toting culture and the attempted assasination of politicians.”
No it wasn’t a strawman – the example wasn’t directed against the Gifford’s shooting, but rather against your use of “legality” as an acceptable excuse for the application of coercion against individuals by the State.
You can accept my claim that mere legality alone is an invalid or insufficient excuse for State coercion and still argue a case that firearms ownership should be illegal – but you will have to do it on better grounds than that.
“As Phil brought it up, have a look at the second amendment. Other than opening fire how else are a militia going to be necessary to the security of a free state?”
I am not interested in Phil’s opinion right now and, not least for the fact that it was passed two hundred and twenty years ago, the second amendment cannot evince your assertion that a “…culture of shooting to get your way is [being] born, fostered and encouraged” (note my highlight on your use of the present tense) so I ask you again, what evidence – if any – do you have for this assertion?
“How is this in any way a threat to the individual?”
Because the enforcement of such legislation would necessarily imply an eventual act of coercion, i.e. that an individual who refused to obey the law could be dealt with by either a direct threat of violence, or even the application of such violence from an arresting officer.
“Obstructing a search warrant passively is one thing, arming yourself and standing off the police is an entirely different matter.”
Whether the obstruction is passive or actively violent is irrelevant to the more basic question : is there, in your view, nothing the State is not ethically entitled to do to an individual, so long as the appropriate legislation has been passed?
Hence my example of sterilization above – do you actually believe that whatever may be legal necessarily equates to what is ethical? If so, why?
“I don’t consider the state using force when fired upon to uphold the law as murder.”
Oh? So as long as a State has passed the relevant legislation, it can kill people who refuse to obey and not be guilty of any crime in so doing? Would the British Raj have been similarly innocent of any crime had they decided to kill Ghandi?
“Being from Australia I guess we have a much more heavy reliance on our police forces to uphold the law.”
I’m from England and I don’t give a monkey’s uncle what happens in Oz, but I do know the situation is broadly similar in England. That isn’t a valid argument in favour of your position.
“I’d classify entering into an armed standoff against authorities as a means to obstructing a search warrant from being carried out as an act of agression against authorities.”
Well the “entering” part of that obscures the critical question of who initiated violence first, which in the Waco case, is unknown or at any rate controversial. But look – if police ask to enter your property, you refuse and they then enter your property anyway, it is the police who are manifestly aggressing against you since they have trespassed onto your private property.
Unless you stipulate to the view that property is nothing but a privilege granted by the State, then your “classifying” of such an armed standoff as aggression rather than retaliation is void.
“If you disagree with the ethical nature of laws there are existing procedures, policies and courts in place for you to challenge the system as you see fit.”
Of course, but the question I am challenging you to answer is whether there ought to be any limits whatever to the scope of such State politicization of life? So far, I can only surmise that your answer is probably no, yet you haven’t confirmed it, so I shall restrain myself from asking my final question.
January 16th, 2011 at 10:48 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Where did I mention anything about removing someone’s guns by force. If the government declares tighter ownership laws then you as an individual have the option of handing in your gun or risk getting caught in possession of an illegal firearm.
The state is democratically elected and responsible for governing, thus its role is reactionary to your actions should you choose to disobey the law.
This invalidates question a. as I do not see it as coercion and I believe I’ve already addressed point b.
It’s a strawman argument because the two are not the same. If the government restricts gun ownership you have the choice to comply or to face the consequences if caught. With mandatory sterilization upon entry of immigrants there is no choice on the individuals behalf.
Well, considering I never suggested firearms ownership should be illegal, I don’t see why I would.
Do Americans see their constitution as irrelevant because it was passed two hundred and twenty years ago? American’s have babies, these babies are born into a society in which this constitution is heavily ingrained.
Unless American’s have stopped having babies and the constitution has been ruled irrelevant, then I stand by my sentiment.
We had gun ownership laws tightened in Australia a while back and that didn’t result in any acts of coercion. Despite some non-violent protests, it was a peaceful affair.
In this case your assumption that relevant legislation and coercion would happen together is false.
Passive obstruction will not be met with reactionary force from the state. Meanwhile entering into an armed standoff with police will usually elicit reactionary force. Of course it’s relevant.
Police rock up to your property with a legal search warrant, you refuse and point your guns at them. Pretty straight forward who the agressor is here.
That’s the thing about search warrants, the police don’t need your permission to enter your property.
Under democracy the government acts with as much power as the people see fit to instill upon it. Don’t like the government, vote them out.
You don’t need to carry around guns to make a political point.
January 17th, 2011 at 12:20 am mike(Quote)
“The state is democratically elected and responsible for governing, thus its role is reactionary to your actions should you choose to disobey the law. This invalidates question a. as I do not see it as coercion and I believe I’ve already addressed point b.”
It is not democratically elected, politicians and political parties are elected to administer its functions. The “legitimacy” claimed on behalf of the U.S. Federal Government at its’ creation was that its purpose was to further assist the thirteen colonies in safeguarding the rights of the individual. Since private property is one of those rights, gun control laws are a violation of the Federal Government’s stated purpose.
A further argument claimed for the “legitimacy” of the democratic State turns on whether it has voluntary consent – yet at the most recent Congressional elections only 29% of Americans consented to be governed. For the other 71% of the population, that voluntary consent is absent.
The premise that any law a democratic State may pass is necessarily legitimate, and therefore that its enforcement is retaliatory rather than coercive is not only false but more characteristic of a totalitarian than a liberal politics.
You are in favour of principally unlimited government – the tyranny of the majority which de Tocqueville warned about and Orwell wrote against a century later. My life does not belong to you and your mates and it never will. Fuck you.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:53 am Phil(Quote)
To be fair the only ‘broad’ thing you have done is to lump the lone gunman/nutjob and other gun owners in the same pile.
Why are responsible gun owners, citizens exercising their rights cast in the same light? Aren’t these normal ones in the majority?
Also, I am not subject to US constitution, but I know exactly why it was included.
The militia is the American people. The American people is the militia. The whole point of this is that so that never again, will their government become tyrannical towards its people. Why the condescending tone towards them?
No one here is arguing against you that this lone gunman should not have had a gun. But what you are then doing to justify the banning of all guns, and lumping the crazy lone gunman together with all responsible citizen gun owners is down right dirty. Somehow the actions of the few are the actions of the many?
By the way, I don’t own a gun.
January 18th, 2011 at 2:02 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
@mike
What kind of stupid reasoning is that? I have 30kg of heroin… it’s my private property, hands off government!
Strap a bomb to yourself and try to board an aeroplane sometime.
‘No worries guys, nothing to see here, it’s just my private property!’
So by your reasoning 71% of American’s don’t recognise the United States government, the institution it represents or the laws it passes.
Rightio.
I think you’ll find no turning out to vote doesn’t necessarily equate to not consenting to be governed.
Living in Taiwan, I didn’t participate in the latest Australian federal elections. Doesn’t mean I don’t recognise the formed Australian government post election or their duty to govern.
If you have a non-violent means of publicly challenging any such laws, then it’s far from totalitarian. Such means exist in the US.
Yes, well uh… good luck with that. Rage Against the Machine, Anarchists anonymous, Linkin Park etc. Cheerio.
@Phil
Not if they’re under the assumption that the only way to get your own political way is to have a show of force as a deterrent at political rallies. By the same reasoning we have drink driving laws, knife ownership laws (at least in Australia), speed limits on the roads etc.
Not everyone is a nutjob but unfortunately we have to take them into consideration when we function as a society.
Because militia implies violence and is wholly redundant. At no time in US history post constitution can I recall the mixing of violence (be it guns or otherwise) and politics to have achieved any good, or been cast in a positive light.
These days you have the courts, you can write to your local member or you can make your voice heard at the polling booth. Given these peacefuloptions, running around with your guns at political rallies achieves nothing other then casting yourself in a nutjob light.
This is done in many countries (Australia for example) and hasn’t resulted in a totalitarian takeover.
We do it with speed limits on the roads, other weapons are classified illegal to possess, we do it with needing a permit to purchase certain chemicals, vehicle licenses, the use of recreational drugs… why are guns all of a sudden different?