The current political landscape is deeply disturbing. Politicians preach violence and toxic rhetoric; a trigger-happy populace seems eager to follow.
Unfortunately, it took an assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., the murders of six blameless people including a Federal Judge and a 9-year-old, and a dozen more injuries for this country to reopen a dialogue on decorum in public discourse and gun control laws.
As more evidence comes to light on the massacre that Jared Loughner perpetrated in Arizona, a big question remains: Was this tragedy avoidable? While no one can fully answer this question, something can be done to prevent a future tragedy.
Many have blamed the shooting on the rhetoric promoted by Sarah “don’t retreat — reload” Palin, Sharon “Second Amendment remedies” Angle, and “peaceful but prepared” tea partiers.
It is unfair to squarely blame them, but they do fan the flames of anti-government frenzy and conspiracy theories that plague the Internet. There is emerging evidence that Loughner trolled and read sites inundated with such sentiments.
In her taped speech, Palin invoked President Reagan’s belief that we should not blame society for the acts of criminals, but then contradicted herself by saying, “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
So I’m wondering, when is she going to admit that maybe she shouldn’t have put up a map with gun sights on Democrats, including Giffords? Or that the candidate she endorsed to run against Giffords, Jesse Kelly, should not have hosted an event titled “Get on target for victory” where constituents could shoot an M16 assault weapon? These actions clearly worried Giffords, especially after her office was vandalized and someone dropped a gun at an event she hosted.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor remarked, “Before speaking out, ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.” Palin and others on the political right need to heed this advice, take it down a notch and anticipate the consequences of their words.
After everyone calms down, we can logically look at the lax gun control laws in the U.S.
The facts are clear. Loughner carried a concealed weapon in the Tucson grocery store. He purchased a clip of 33 rounds of ammunition from a Walmart, mere hours before the shooting spree — without an evaluation of his mental status. In Arizona, his actions were legal until he actually shot someone.
Oklahoma is second to last in many aspects — education spending, health and gun control laws. The thing that keeps us from being dead last in the country is that universities may ban the carrying of guns on campuses.
Just three years ago our state lawmakers wanted to change the law, but students and professors held firm in the debate. Just last week, Oklahoma’s Chancellor of Higher Education Chancellor, Glen Johnson, pledged to uphold the ban on guns on campus.
The prevailing argument, presented by OU President David Boren, stated that in the event of a standoff with guns, authorities unable to identify the active shooter might harm good Samaritans.
This nearly came to fruition in the Arizona massacre. Joe Zamudio, an armed and responsible citizen, walked into the chaos prepared to draw his gun. He spotted someone he thought was the shooter waving a gun, but it was actually the person who wrangled it away from Loughner.
Luckily for all parties involved, he did not shoot.
The solution to the problem is simple, but difficult due to the influence from the Second Amendment lobbies like the National Rifle Association.
It’s time to renew the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. I understand the desire some people have to own guns for protection or sport, but there is no compelling reason to own fully automatic assault weapons or purchase clips that contain high amounts of ammunition.
There is a big difference in guns designed for sport and guns designed for killing people. Had the ban been renewed, it would have prevented Loughner from purchasing so much ammunition and harming so many innocents.
It’s also time to implement a more comprehensive process for buying guns — including a mental evaluation, gun safety training and a license. There is nothing unreasonable or unconstitutional about smart gun laws.
In response to the murder of 9-year-old Christina Green, President Barack Obama commented, “I want America to be as good as she imagined it.” We need to correct the laws that have allowed so many mass shootings to occur in order to create the country that our children expect.
One day we will get there.
— Shayna Daitch, international security studies senior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
really 1 year, 4 months ago
What gun contol and magazine control advocates fail to understand is that those measures will only work if ALL guns and ALL high capacity magazines are confiscated. Otherwise only the law abiding citizens will turn over their guns leaving the criminals with theirs. Does she really think that a man who is about pull a panty hose over his head and rob a bank cares if his magazine is illegal? If you limit the rights of honest law abiding citizens, you make them more susceptable to crazies and criminals who could care less about gun laws.
mustafa 1 year, 4 months ago
"After everyone calms down, we can logically look at the lax gun control laws in the U.S."
Everyone? It was only the liberals that went shrill. And that was all a put-on. Talking about gun control now is just the fall back position to which liberals are retreating after launching the pre-massacre prepared attack on Palin. Throughout the following days the Right responded primarily by playing examples of how the charges revealed Democrat hypocrisy.
The shooter was a god-hating atheist, heavy metal, drugged out 911 truth-er, whom the New York Times reveals would go into "a fomenting rage at the sight of George Bush."
Obama was referring to the Democrat performance when he said that the tragedy should not have been used to partisan political gain. The intellectual dishonesty of the liberals charges set a new low. Eventually the liberal charge was summed up as "Sarah Palin’s rhetoric causes violence like this, even if did didn't cause this."
It time for liberals to explain what it is about Palin that has them so afraid. They are giving the impression that they would welcome the murder of a million 9 year old girls if it would only result in Sarah Palin not get the Republican nomination.
Below is a short list of conservative/Republicans that believe Palin is either not qualified, would make a poor candidate/president or would be creamed by Obama in 2012.
Bill O'Rielly Charles Krauthammer Carl Rove Michael Steel George Will John Gibson Michael Savage Rusty Humphries Neil Bortz
Yet liberals continue to wet and load their pant at the prospect of a Palin candidacy. Why are you so scared of this powerful woman?
sgilliam001 1 year, 4 months ago
The remarks that "right-wing" fundamentalists influenced Jared Loughner to kill people is a farce. People that knew Loughner have even come out and said that he never watched the news. He started casing Giffords in 2007, before Palin even came onto the scene. He was clearly an extremely deranged man. Now if you're really going to get serious, you should also lobby to force Target to change their logo, because we all know when people see a bulls-eye, it automatically instills violence in them.
Your argument for gun control is comical. You claim anyone can legally purchase a fully-automatic assault weapon, and that is false. You must first acquire a Class 3 Federal License before doing so, which involve stringent background checks. Also, many people use the scary-looking "assault rifles" for predator hunting. Loughner is obviously a criminal; why then in turn should you punish law-abiding citizens and take away our rights for a criminal's actions? Go look at statistics and then come back with an educated opinion. I thought getting a quality education at the University of Oklahoma would prevent you from writing an article full of logical fallacies, but I guess not.
As for Loughner, I absolutely condemn his actions, and was angered when I heard about the death of the 9-year old girl. I hope for his despicable actions he will receive the death penalty (which you also probably don't agree with me on), and I believe he will. Despite this, however, I will be happy to provide you story after story where guns have saved the lives of the young and elderly. I do sincerely hope that the next time the OU Daily posts an opinion, they will make sure that it is an educated one.
unknown 1 year, 4 months ago
Just to tack on to what was posted above: They're called MAGAZINES, not CLIPS. I'm not going to waste my time explaining the differences, spend some time and look it up. It's not "easy" to get a weapon, it's actually pretty expensive and difficult depending on what you're looking for (as stated above). Please, research your topic before you write an opinion column about it.
sthomas 1 year, 4 months ago
You should probably do some research before embarrassing yourself in the OU daily. First, Loughner owned a 33 high capacity magazine, not a clip. There is a difference. Yes the 1994 Assault Rifle ban made high capacity magazines illegal, but I don't see the difference in Loughner using three 10 capacity magazines that two seconds to reload each. You also state that we need to reinstate the assault weapon ban of 1994. I hope you know that the ban of 1994 only banned owning "assault weapons" made after the ban. It did not cover owning assault weapons made before then. So is there a difference between an assault weapon made in 1993 compared to 1994? I'm pretty sure they both shoot the same. How does this change anything?
You also say there is no reason to own fully automatic weapons. I hope you're not trying to connect the AWB of 1994 to fully automatic weapons because they have nothing to do with one another. To own a fully automatic weapon you have to apply for a Class 3 license which requires a lengthy evaluation. AWB only banned semi-automatic assault rifles, which makes zero sense. A .45 ACP handgun bullet is going to do much more damage than a .223 bullet that an AR15 shoots.
I do believe firmly in gun control, but sorry, the solution the problem is not simple. You obviously know nothing of guns and also failed to research the topics at hand be
wray2874 1 year, 4 months ago
To say that "Politicians preach violence and toxic rhetoric; a trigger-happy populace seems eager to follow." Is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Do you really believe that Sarah Palin inspired this shooting by using the slogan “don’t retreat — reload”, or is it just another way for liberals to attack Palin. What about when President Obama said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun", referring to republicans at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008. Do you really think he meant this literally. That Obama was trying to incite all the liberals out there to assault republican candidates during the 2008 election. If you do think that, than you are insane and have a severe mental disorder. That is exactly what Jared Loughner is, insane. The tragedy that took place that day was no ones fault but Loughners. For you to say that we need to examine the gun laws does not make any sense. Jared Loughner could have got a gun no matter what regulations are in place. Why would anyone want make it harder for a law abiding citizen to obtain a gun, don't we have the right to protect ourselves. It is in the Constitution that we have the right to bear arms, some would argue that this is even more important than Freedom of Speech. Our founding fathers did not create the second amendment so that we can own guns for sport or recreation use, they created it so that the American people could protect themselves from both foreign and domestic threats. You also said "there is no compelling reason to own fully automatic assault weapons or purchase clips that contain high amounts of ammunition" and once again I completely disagree. There is a very compelling reason to own a fully automatic assault weapon. The reason being that it is our right to own a fully automatic rifle. If any thing I believe that gun control laws should less strict and more people that have guns the safer we will be. According University of Chicago Prof. John Lott, that for each additional year a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, robberies by over 2%, and the rape rate by 2%. So to say that we need more gun control is absurd.
DancingTableLeg 1 year, 4 months ago
For once, I agree with mustafa, although Loughner's atheism and its relevance to his crime is questionable indeed. Almost as much as his alleged preference for heavy metal. I think liberals hate on Palin simply because she, remarkably, retains much of her 2008 fanbase and it frightens them that someone so incompetent could have such influence. That said, her remarks probably had nothing to do with the shooting.
DancingTableLeg 1 year, 4 months ago
@Wray: I agree, but those who would argue gun rights are more important than free expression are idiots.
drummer425 1 year, 4 months ago
The assault weapons ban? What does that have to do with anything?
You say we should renew it because people shouldn't be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, but the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 didn't outlaw automatic weapons. It outlawed common sporting rifles, everyday handgun magazines, and things that are used commonly in everyday life, and used rarely in crime. That assault weapons ban was not renewed because it failed, and it was useless.
The ban would not have prevented Loughner from buying a large amount of ammunition. It would have forced him to use smaller, more reliable magazines. The shooting stopped because his 33-round magazine malfunctioned and jammed, allowing people time to subdue him. Had that not happened, Zamudia would have had to return fire to stop the violence. Then your preaching would have the wind taken out of its sails, and wouldn't that suck.
Before you write something that is going to be published in public, please at least perform a modicum of research. You do not seem to understand what the AWB of '94 did. You also seem to think that telling Loughner he isn't allowed to carry a gun in public would be more of a disincentive than telling him he isn't allowed to shoot people in public (or anywhere else).
We tried gun control. It didn't work. Now we're trying something a little smarter.
drummer425 1 year, 4 months ago
The M16 is an assault rifle. It is not an assault weapon. "Assault weapon" is a made up term used to pigeonhole a number of sporting guns into a scary title so people won't think about whether they should be banned.
Strategy: make up term that sounds like a machine gun that describes regular guns and say it should be banned, and everyone that doesn't know better says "oh yeah! machine guns should be banned!", without knowing the discussion isn't about machine guns. Machine guns are defined legally as automatic weapons (fires more than one round for one pull of the trigger).
drummer425 1 year, 4 months ago
Studies consistently find that citizens lawfully carrying concealed weapons that are accountable to civilian law are way more disciplined about whether they pull the trigger than are police officers, who have immunity if they harm innocent bystanders. Case after case of lawful citizens carrying show that they quite often choose not to pull the trigger unless they absolutely have to, and this case is repeated in the case in Arizona, where Zamudia was ready to act, but did not when he found he did not need to. His weapon never even left its holster.
Spirograph 1 year, 4 months ago
"In her taped speech, Palin invoked President Reagan’s belief that we should not blame society for the acts of criminals, but then contradicted herself by saying, “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”"
What you've just quoted Palin as saying does not contradict what Reagan said; in fact, it reinforces it. Reagan says that we should not blame society for the acts of criminals: that we should instead place the blame for criminal acts solely on the perpetrators. Palin simply reinforces this by restating that each person is responsible for his or her own actions. There is no contradiction.
"Many have blamed the shooting on the rhetoric promoted by Sarah “don’t retreat — reload” Palin, Sharon “Second Amendment remedies” Angle, and “peaceful but prepared” tea partiers."
If you're going to headline an article with "Tone Down Rhetoric", you should start right here.
"This nearly came to fruition in the Arizona massacre. Joe Zamudio, an armed and responsible citizen, walked into the chaos prepared to draw his gun. He spotted someone he thought was the shooter waving a gun, but it was actually the person who wrangled it away from Loughner."
What's interesting is that you evidently didn't read Zamudio's statement; being from Arizona, I had the pleasure of reading his personal statement on the issue. He talked about how important it was that he had access to a weapon and the appropriate training; that had he lived in an area where guns were a less common occurrence, he would likely have been less informed as to how to handle the situation. He states, frankly, that because of his experience with firearms, he noticed that the handgun in the man's hand had the slide locked back, which means that it is: A) incapable of firing for the moment, and B) likely in the process of reloading. Instead of shooting the man, he instead tackled him until bystanders informed him that he had the wrong guy. It is only because of Zamudio's immersion in an environment where weapons are not "the monsters in the closet" that he was able to act appropriately.
"It’s also time to implement a more comprehensive process for buying guns — including a mental evaluation, gun safety training and a license. There is nothing unreasonable or unconstitutional about smart gun laws."
Another contradiction worth pointing out: if you're touting the idea that we should not blame society for the act of a criminal, then why should society suffer for the fact that one mentally damaged individual went on a shooting spree? I can understand an argument for having the military turn over drug use records, or for an integration of law enforcement that would allow for the numerous signs that this person should not have a weapon to be noticed, but to institute a widespread lockdown on weapon ownership is not only unrealistic, but a waste of valuable government funds.