Catching Up On The Times
Nappy-headed schmoOh, blog, dear blog, I've been neglecting you. I'm racing toward a deadline on my script right now, so I've been keeping you at arm's length. Then, a couple of days ago, when I was thinking about posting, I gave myself a concussion (my head + underside of my son's wooden loft bed = pain and puking). But I can't stay away from you. I want to touch quickly on two topics that have been dominating the news.
First, the Virginia Tech jerk.
It's normal for everyone to navel-gaze and point fingers after something like this happens. One of the best classes I ever took in college was a course called "The Psychology of Justice." In that class, I learned about a phenomenon that is incredibly pervasive and persistent across all cultures: the Belief In A Just World. Belief in a just world often means that we deserve what we get, and we get what we deserve.
However, in cases like the Virginia Tech shooting, it's clear that the victims didn't deserve what they got. That doesn't mean Belief In A Just World goes away. Instead, the BJW theory says that great evils must have great causes.
The space shuttle doesn't blow up because a piece of rubber got cold—it blows up because of a culture of failure and the incompetence of an entire space agency and perhaps because of humanity's hubris… You know what I mean?
In this case, BJW says that video games, isolation, access to guns, non-access to guns, popular music, coarsening of culture and ultimately society itself is to blame for the tragedy at VT. Of course, the problem with BJW is that it's not true. The world is not just. Existence is not fair. Great evils sometimes happen for the most mundane reasons. The poor people who died at VT died because a mentally ill person made the insane choice to kill them. And if someone chooses to kill you, they are going to kill you, and there's nothing you can do about it. They might use guns, they might use gasoline and fertilizer, they might use poison…
…not a very comforting thought.
But that's life in an unjust, unfair world.
Of course, one can imagine Don Imus thinking to himself, "If only this asshole could have done the shooting a week earlier…I'd still have my job."
Frequent commenter Kevin Arbouet has a post up on the Imus situation. I agree 100% with Kevin that this is not a free speech issue at all. No one has the right to a radio talk show. The government didn't fire Imus. He's free to say "nappy headed-ho" all day long without fear of imprisonment or fines.
Now, when this whole thing went down, I was honestly puzzled. Imus has been saying stupid crap like that for years. So has Howard Stern. Have you heard the stuff the comedians say on the Friar's Club roasts? Hell, any four second sample of Lisa Lampanelli's act is waaaay worse than "nappy-headed ho's."
Should Imus have been fired? Yes, but years ago. For sucking. My view of this latest debacle is that it's an example par excellence of our nation's inability to discuss racial issues honestly. We have two cultures. The first culture is soaking in racial humor, racial observations, the n-word, bitches, ho's, racial suspicion, racial resentment and occasionally racial hostility. The second culture is a color-blind, multicultural rainbow coalition where no one sees race, no one ever says or thinks anything "offensive," and we all live, work and play in a bridge-of-the-Starship-Enterprise-like world of ethnic harmony.
The first culture is true. The second is a fraud. We all burble along in the first culture, until, occasionally, someone makes a stink. It's not always Jesse or Al. Sometimes it's the ADL, sometimes it's the guy from the Catholic League, sometimes it's GLAAD, sometimes it's O'Reilly yapping about the coarsening of culture. At that point, everyone suddenly pretends that the first culture is the anomaly, and the second, fraudulent culture is the reality. Somehow, we begin doing rhetorical backflips to denounce true culture as transgressive against a fictional culture that has never been and probably never will be.
But why Imus? Was Imus' "nappy-headed ho's" comment funny? No. Was it accurate? No, not even close.
The reason Imus said that comment is obvious to me: he thought he was sounding "cool." See, perversely, Imus is not part of true culture. He's out of the sphere of what is current. His attempt to be a part of that culture immediately rang false, and I think that's what caught people's attention.
If Howard Stern says, "Nappy-headed ho's," no one blinks. I guarantee it. Why? Because Howard has been manufacturing this kind of relaxed culture for years. Not Imus. When Imus tries it, it sounds tinny and fake and creepy.
Of all the stuff I've read about this affair, the best and most honest perspective is from this guy. I don't agree with everything he says in his piece (I don't have a stake in the cultural battles between black men and black women), and I think he's too hard on Cosby in particular, but when I read his essay, I thought, "Points for honesty."
When it comes to discussions of race in this country, we're in dire need of a Diogenes.
As far as I can tell, the main reason Imus was fired was because advertisers were deserting his show in droves. Anyone know differently?
Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed ?king of all media,? is a talk-radio superstar whose audience once rivaled Limbaugh?s. In 2006, he became the biggest player in direct satellite radio, and, through a $500 plus million deal, the highest paid talk host in the world. He has been called the ?the most innovative and high-profile talk host in the business? by Talkers Magazine. NewsMax Top 25 Radio Hosts rates Howard Stern as America?s 13th most influential in America.
I’m afraid I still don’t understand quite why the Imus comment was considered racial in the first place. Pat Summitt holds the Lady Vols to a high standard when it comes to personal appearance, and the women of Rutgers were covered in tattoos, had wild (even…nappy?) hair, and just generally didn’t live up to the same standard.
He also called the Lady Vols cute. The two teams had almost the same number of black players. I think it was seven for Tennessee and eight for Rutgers. Am I supposed to believe that Imus is that special breed of racist that finds seven black women appealing but is repulsed by eight of them? Like that one extra black woman is just too much for his racist sensibilities?
And what of the white women on Rutgers? As far as I know, he didn’t single out the black players. At the end of the day, he was calling one basketball team more rough-looking than another. Why the race baiting ever entered the picture is beyond me.
Ironic that the writer of Scary Movie 4 and Senseless should suggest somebody be fired for sucking.
True, but I also wrote Rocketman!
Ironic that the biggest loudmouths always sign anon.
If there’s any aspect of the media that can shoulder a significant part of the blame for people like Cho Seung going on killing sprees it’s the news media that turns them into celebrities.
We can debate all day about the “message” the games like Grand Theft Auto send to potential killers, but the message the news sends to mass murderers is clear enough: If you want to make a statement to the world, just send us a tape, kill thirty-three people, and we’ll make you famous.
Cho said in the tape that he had been inspired by the Columbine killers, just as he wanted to inspire others like himself. Thanks NBC, for lending a hand.
I think the BJW theory is an excellent point. The reason I’m anon on this comment is b/c I have a coworker (who I don’t want to out) who has this viewpoint.
A few months ago a former employee stole $ from the company and she just couldn’t believe that he would do that.
It’s so hard to embrace the real truth about the world sometimes. It’s easier to blame society at large for not being just.
BTW, so far there’s no evidence that Cho was into video games.
I’ll bet he watched the Dear Sister sketch on SNL last weekend. Somebody should check his iTunes for Imogen Heap.
I like what Mr. Kung Fu Monkey had to say about Imus: America likes a rebel, but they don’t like a bully. When he started ripping on the Rutgers team, he was picking on people who really didn’t deserve it.
I think you’re a little too quick to dismiss the part that firearms played in the college massacre. Yes, the killer was ill, and yes he made the wrong choice. No, I don’t believe in a just world. I think his choice was made a lot easier by his access to firearms.
Supporting evidence? We’ve not had a comparable crime in Britain since we outlawed handguns, as a result of a massacre in a junior school. Yes, we do still have knife crime here - but it’s pretty damn hard to massacre 32 people with a knife.
As you say, he could of always found another way of doing it… a bomb for example. Again, I say, much harder.
I don’t think you can ignore the role that guns played in this tragedy. The 2nd amendment won America it’s freedom many years ago, but now it’s being destroyed by it.
actually, Cho compared himself to Jesus … there was some furor when it was originally reported that the shooter was Asian, some knuckleheads on the internet made the assumption that, since he was asian, there was an Islam connection.
Turns out, he had a Jesus complex, not unusual with paranoid schizophrenics … not at all.
But unfortunaly it’s very easy to acquire a Glock semi-automatics in VA … and yes, I know the gun-show checked his ID, but even if that hadn’t of worked for him, all the shooter would have had to do was go to a gun show, where there is no background check whatsoever when one wants to buy.
In another aside, VA is one of the states targeting by NYC mayor Bloomberg as a major source of illegal guns which end up on our streets. He sent undercover officers down there to buy and made a case out of it.
Instead of rectifying the situation, I was told, VA instead made it against the law to run sting operations on their gun-dealers …
So while I agree with you that BJW isn’t necessarily true, not all the time, it’s still a very ironic bump to the story …
Sick people who want to hurt people will always be with us. Some will get better. Some won’t. Perhaps we should do more to keep semi-automatics out of their hands, hmmm?
True, Oli -
Such a pathetic excuse for a man could never have taken out 33 people with, say, a machete.
And I bet even LA circa 1990 ever saw any “drive-by knifings”.
I grew up hunting at a young age - I had a BB rifle when I was 5, and a deer rifle at 10.
But pistols are something altogether different: they have one purpose: killing human beings.
There’s no good reason for us to be making pistols so damned easy for any mentally ill idiot to get.
Oli:
It’s tempting to think that the 1996 shooting in Scotland would have been stopped by a gun law, although apparently the laws against murder and trespassing weren’t enough.
In the U.S., we had a similar school shooting in 1966, and again in 1999. Now we’ve had one in 2007.
I’m not sure we can draw conclusions about the causes when these things happen so infrequently (and not just here, but in Germany, Argentina and Canada…which has very strict gun laws).
Given that a school shootings like this are, happily, quite rare, I think it’s impossible to suggest that the availability of guns is the cause or even a contributing factor.
Once you’ve decided to break the law against murder, and once you’ve decided to kill other people and then kill yourself…why would you bother obeying a gun law? We know that drug laws haven’t eliminated drugs, and we know that theft laws haven’t eliminated stolen cars…
The reason for a law is not to prevent crime…crime is inevitable. The reason for a law is to punish crime and remove the criminal from society. Removing the criminal from society is the de facto prevention. If a criminal is hell-bent on suicide, then our laws are worthless in the face of their grim determination.
I think people who blame this incident on the presence or lack of policies are engaging in the BJW fallacy.
So tell, me, Josh…if you’re interested in shooting 30 people and then yourself, how in God’s name would I ever be able to keep a gun, legal or illegal, out of your hands?
Because I can’t think of a single way.
BTW, you’re seeing my libertarian streak here. I may be a Republican, but I’m also for the legalization of drugs. All of ‘em.
I remember once thinking that all drugs save heroin and meth should be legalized, because those drugs seemed truly awful.
Then a friend said, “If you wanted to do heroin or meth right now, couldn’t you?” And I thought, “Sure.” He pointed out that it wasn’t a law that stopped me or anyone from doing those drugs, but plain old common sense.
If gun control meant the universal and irrevocable disintegration of weapons, then yes, I’d be all for it. I think.
But it doesn’t. It just means you have to buy your gun from some dude on a corner, instead of from some dude who makes you fill out paperwork.
Legalizing hard drugs would increase drug-related problems by reducing the social stigma. It certainly wouldn’t prevent anyone from becoming addicted, losing the ability to function normally, and making life more difficult for everyone else.
Consider, for example, the number of people killed by drunk drivers over any recent 10-year period to the number of innocent people caught in gangsters’ crossfire during Prohibition, or, for that matter, the number of innocent people caught in drug-related violence, then tell me how legalizing cocaine and heroin would improve society.
I have my own libertarian streak, but it ends before it reaches drug legalization. My world really doesn’t need more junkies. (If I honestly thought that legalizing drugs would in any way improve the world, I’d be all for it.)
In countries that have stricter gun laws, is the actual murder rate lower or just the murder-by-gun rate? Obviously, the impulse to murder can’t be legislated. Only the least ambitious wannabe killer would be thwarted by the difficulty of obtaining a firearm. It would certainly be great if there were no guns for us to worry about, but given their availability and the number of disturbed people out there, it’s kind of a miracle we don’t have a massacre of this scale every day in this country.
On the issue of race:
Yes, our race relations are a disaster. But it would seem that the problem isn’t the notion of whether or not racism exists, but rather the question of what is or isn’t offensive.
And that there’s the problem.
Trying to pinpoint what’s racially offensive is like trying to pinpoint who makes the best chocolate (trick question—it’s a Swedish company named Marabou). We can’t talk openly and honestly about race in this country because we’re actually scared of race. No, we’re terrified of it. And while we’re so busy trying to determine what is or isn’t racist or offensive, we’ve stopped paying attention to little things like context and/or intentions. What is it about us as Americans that we feel this sense of entitlement to complain to a complete stranger when we’ve been offended? Besides, we need to pay attention to the real enemy of this country.
Queers.
On the issue of gun control:
While this is true, gun laws serve other purposes than just prosecuting those who sell or buy illegal firearms. One of the biggest problems that we have with guns in this country is the availability. Most guns that have been used in a crime have a history and the fact that it’s so easy to obtain one is a problem. Unlike the movies, not all guns are bought out of a trunk from a Jamaican guy. A lot of guns are obtained at gun shows and states with lax gun laws (i.e. Virginia).
It’s true that whenever I park my car anywhere, there’s a danger of it being stolen but that doesn’t mean that I don’t lock my doors. And it’s a proven fact (just made up by me) that visible wheel locks does act as a deterrent against car theft.
That pyscho in Virginia was a maniac. We all know that. But something tells me that if we had stricter gun laws for obtaining firearms, it could’ve acted somewhat as a deterrent. Why in the world should obtaining a gun be easy? And why in the world would we make it easy? Shouldn’t buying and obtaining a gun be difficult?
Yes, it’s true, gun laws won’t prevent people from getting guns anymore than drug laws prevent people from getting drugs. As long as there’s demand, there will be supply. And yet, there is something odd about making guns that exist for the sole purpose of shooting people easily and legally available, while making people jump through hoops to get the illegal drugs that only do direct harm to the user. Laws don’t just exist to punish crime. They also serve to define who we are, and to provide protections that would not exist were we living in a state of nature. These protections against harms that come from outside of us (e.g. gun violence), and not the harms that come from within (e.g. drug use). The problem with libertarianism, by the way, is that it presumes mankind is better than it is. Left to our own devices, we have been known to slaughter and enslave.
While I don’t think “it’s impossible to suggest that the availability of guns is (…) a contributing factor” in school shootings, I do think Craig has a point.
Logic says the harder it is to buy a gun, the lesser people will do so. Human nature is not logical! Especially not when dealing with a psychopath.
Shit, it’s even cheaper to get a gun on the street than plunking down 500 on a glock at a gun show. Keep in mind the columbine kids bought their weapons in a straw purchase, i.e. illegally! Proof positive that those prone to go on a shooting spree don’t give a shit about any laws!
Sad, but true.
Scratch that — TERRIFYING but true.
Waitaminute. Are you telling me that making guns illegal wouldn’t keep them out of the hands of criminals? Preposterous! If there’s one thing criminals are known for, it’s a healthy respect for the law.
Nick,
we’re not talking about criminals here per se. We’re talking about deranged children and their access - or willingness to gain access - to firearms. They spend their days doing homework and watching movies, not stealing cars and robbing 7/11s. Obviously they perform criminal acts in the course of planning and executing a massacre, but law and justice do not apply, because, well, they all fucking kill themseleves anyway.
Laws work because they promise punishment - This is not a matter of how to punish, but how to prevent !
Nick,
we’re not talking about criminals here per se. We’re talking about deranged children and their access - or willingness to gain access - to firearms. They spend their days doing homework and watching movies, not stealing cars and robbing 7/11s. Obviously they perform criminal acts in the course of planning and executing a massacre, but law and justice do not apply, because, well, they all fucking kill themseleves anyway.
Laws work because they promise punishment - This is not a matter of how to punish, but how to prevent !
I believe that the very first person to use a gun on another human being was a coward. And going back further in time, the first stick, stone, or sword to be used was used by a coward who did not have the power to overcome the fists of their competitor - they needed an edge in the fight. They were weak.
Our society, unfortunately, is full of cowards with guns. Maybe the only way to fight a coward with a gun, and to keep the peace, is to arm everyone.
A gun does not make you a strong individual, it only equals the playing field so we can overcome the cowards with guns who intend to do evil and harm to good and decent people.
A sad state of affairs…
Thanks for the link, Craig. My MFAs in screen- writing, so if you need that flavor, hit me up.
P.S. I kinda dug “Rocketman”.
holla
“So tell, me, Josh…if you’re interested in shooting 30 people and then yourself, how in God’s name would I ever be able to keep a gun, legal or illegal, out of your hands?”
Have you BEEN to Japan?
I didn’t say GUN, however, I said semi-automatic Glock … there is a difference between a Glock and a single shot four-ten shotgun, right?
But I no debate you on this, sir … and I admire your view to drugs … and good luck with the Republican party in the coming years, I think they’ve been straying from libertarian values, don’t you think?
Actually, I didn’t say semi-automatic Glock, I said semi-automatic … I stand corrected … by myself.
Tell me, Craig, as a libertarian, if you support everyone having the arms they wish, why can’t just anyone make napalm in their bathtub, or a mini-nuclear bomb in their backyard.
Wait, don’t. I don’t wanna debate you on this. I know your moves. You’ll say something sly and funny and dodge the issue by zapping me on one of my own inconsistancies …
Josh:
So what’s your move? Making a bad analogy, then throwing up your hands and blaming me for the abortive debate? :)
Jim I:
No sweat. Glad you’re here.
I KNEW IT!
Hah!
Seriously, though, have you been to Japan? That might answer your question you addressed to me, specifically, especially regarding damaged folks getting their hands on Glock semi-automatics.
Also, there is THIS: http://www.barryeisler.com/2007/04/thoughts-on-guns.html
Which addresses it very well, though I’d have one or two quibbles … so legalized drugs, huh? I knew Rocketman had divine inspirado!
Ugh, tell me about it.
What this country needs is a good Libertario-Conservative (AKA Classical Liberal) Jew Party.
Oy, what a party that would be. Imagine the cake!
“So what’s your move? Making a bad analogy, then throwing up your hands and blaming me for the abortive debate? :)”
Make the bullets really, really expensive. Just because Chris Rock said it, doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.
R.
What happened to the Artful Writer’s policy of avoiding political discussions?
Eh, every now and then we have to blow off a little steam.
“But something tells me that if we had stricter gun laws for obtaining firearms, it could�ve acted somewhat as a deterrent. Why in the world should obtaining a gun be easy? And why in the world would we make it easy? Shouldn�t buying and obtaining a gun be difficult?”
Of course it acts as a deterrent - and of course obtaining a gun should be difficult.
We should show some consistency as a society and either have all drivers and all gun owners unlicensed, or license them all.
Japan (where the Air Force stationed me for 3 years) has very strict gun control laws and very low levels of murder.
In Japan, the odds are any violence you’ll run into involves another foreigner - Korea is more violent - when I was last there, Korean men, likeable most of the time, would occasionally want to start trouble with foreign men, especially if a foreigner was dating a Korean woman.
However, despite that raised level of violence, guns were hard to get, and murder rates in Korea were very low - not as low as Japan maybe, but a lot lower than in the US.
Two highly armed countries, Canada and Switzerland have far lower murder rates than the US does.
And they’re 2 highly regulated countries.
And Craig, honestly, drugs and firearms are apples and oranges. Both are products that can be sold legally or illegally, but otherwise, they’ve got nothing in common with each other.
I too think we should legalize drugs - and use social norms and stigmas to change behavior.
A working example: smoking and drinking levels considered fairly normal on the East Coast are considered excessive in California.
And don’t forget, you can’t kill someone else with a drug per se - it might influence your behavior, but you can’t generally force it on another - someone has to choose to ingest it.
Therefore in my mind it’s “personal” behavior under circumstances such as laying on one’s own couch at home.
Firearms, however, can and do directly affect the lives of other people.
Think of it as similar to Free Speech: your rights end where others begin.
Firearms are designed to do one thing: kill people or animals. You don’t want people walking into bars with them as a general rule.
Firearms regulation is the only sane solution that pronounces real results as more important than pie in the sky ideals IMO -
but due to our 50 different state laws, high crime, hundreds of millions of guns, and about 10,000 miles of borders, it’ll prove very tough to enforce. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
“Firearms, however, can and do directly affect the lives of other people. Think of it as similar to Free Speech: your rights end where others begin.”
Of course. As far as I know, murdering people is still illegal.
Has that changed recently?
“Of course. As far as I know, murdering people is still illegal.
Has that changed recently?”
Have you BEEN to Texas?
Travis:
Makes sense.
Let’s get to work banning cars, knives, blowtorches, piano wire, chainsaws, icepicks…….
NOW who’s making the bad analogies? LOL!
Yeah, that’s right, I’m staying out of the middle of this fight and plan to take snarky potshots from a safe distance …
C’mon Craig,
Imagine these headlines:
“Drive-By Piano Wirer Has City On Edge”
“Icepicker Slays 30 From Campus Clocktower”
It’s not going to happen.
I say: agree that we all have Ideal Fantasies.
God knows I do - that’s one reason I write.
And served in the Military and worked for Charity.
I’m an Idealist. God help me.
But let’s take a deep breath, and let Ideals go for second - and imagine a world…
suspiciously like the REAL world…
where ever since the dawn of Agriculture, there have been Laws and Taxes and Government.
And let’s say: “Ok, what can we DO that WORKS?”
And let’s focus on actual real results.
Make it harder to get and own guns, requiring licensing and background checks works in a lot of other countries. Why not here - why not try?
(For the record: I sold my last 9mm handgun in 1996, but I’d own another if I felt the need.)
Travis:
The killer in Virginia followed the law, registered his handgun, submitted to a state police background check (Virginia checks both state and federal police records).
He then broke the law at Virginia Tech. Well, he broke a few laws. There’s a school policy that forbids guns on campus. He broke that one.
Then there’s the law against murder. Broke that one a few times.
In other words, what you want…already exists…but was impotent in the face of a mentally ill jerk who wanted to kill people.
I agree that guns are the preferred weapon of choice of lunatics…and thank god…because fertilizer bombs and grenades and pipe bombs are all cheap ways of killing lots of people more efficiently than handguns.
Unfortunately, my hierarchy of reasoning works like this: if a crazy person wants to break the law that says “don’t murder,” then I’m certainly there is no other law that individual won’t be willing to break.
It’s fine to say “make guns less accessible.”
How?
What has our government ever successfully kept out of the hands of criminals with desire?
I support background checks, I support cooling-off periods, I support licensing, I support regulations of gun shows, I support ballistics fingerprinting, I support it all, baby.
None of that stuff is going to stop the next Cho or the next UT bell-tower guy or the next wingdoodle who wants to shoot up a McDonalds. None of it.
Germany has far stricter gun control than the U.S. They’ve also had a number of recent, tragic school shootings. Not coincidentally, they also have a massive illegal gun problem. Most of their illegal guns come from Eastern Europe.
Most of ours, should we abolish the 2nd Amendment, would come through Mexico, no doubt, along with the marijuana, cocaine and other items the government believes it can keep out of our hands.
I’m not sure anyone’s advocating banning guns (or at least I’m not). But I don’t think it should be easier to get a gun license than a driver’s license.
However, we really can’t or shouldn’t be comparing our society to other cultures. Japan is great if you don’t want to get shot—but not so hot for the scores of Japanese women that get felt up on the subway and can’t say anything. Also…they sell used panties.
In vending machines. I wish I was making that up.
I will say this. I have never, and I mean NEVER heard a credible argument as to why we shouldn’t make getting a gun difficult. One of my friends is on a 6 month waiting list for a purse. A fucking purse. Which she’ll use for about 4 months before it goes out of style.
Now could someone please explain to me why we shouldn’t make gun laws tougher?
On a side note, regarding legalization, this may sound like I’m being a smart ass but prostitution should be legal. It’s actually kind of insane that it isn’t.
I don’t think that’s true at all.
Let’s be honest here and stop pretending we have our fingers on the pulse of inner city crime. If any one of us wanted to purchase a gun, would you really have any clue where to go first? More than likely we’d all end up looking like a version of Steve Martin asking random black guys where they could score a “piece”.
Well now that’s the problem now, isn’t it? Those steps that you indicated took all of 10 minutes. The Brady Bill has been effectively over turned and that 5 day waiting period doesn’t exist anymore. A background check should include prohibiting those who have been admitted into a mental institution from buying a gun. Doesn’t that make sense?
Kevin:
I think in the absence of legally available guns, illegal avenues would become far clearer.
Illegal drugs? Don’t think I’d have too much difficulty with that. Would you? I presume the same would happen with guns, as it has in Germany, for instance.
As for the waiting period, like I said, I’m all for it. On the other hand, you and I both know that waiting five days or five weeks wasn’t going to stop Cho. This guy spent time editing a video manifesto, for chrissakes. He was nothing if not patient.
I agree on the mental institution thing. Cho didn’t spend any real time in an institution…the school got a court order forcing him into one for an evaluation, which he pretty much passed.
Catch and release.
Of course, I’m thinking this guy gets his hands on a gun one way or another. Because he wants one. He’s got time, motivation and absolutely nothing to lose.
I maintain that, uncomfortable though it may be, there was absolutely nothing that could have prevented this from happening. It will happen again, and we won’t be able to stop it.
This is the element of chaos in our world.
Ohhhh,poor America!! Once again the innocent victim! A whole 32 dead in the “worst mass shooting in US history.” Ah,poor baybeez…
Try 162 dead in car-bombings in Iraq today. Try an average 62 people you might actually know killed every day in Iraq.
Courtesy of the USofA.
All this wailing and gnashing of teeth over people none of you ever met or ever would meet is even more unseemly than going to war for all your good friens who got killed on 9/11.
BTW - I actually had someone I know get killed on 9/11. David Angell - co-creator of “Frasier,” who died in the airplane from Boston, where he and his wife had gone to enroll their eldest son at Brown. David Angell, whose greatest joy in life was to make people laugh.
All this phoney emotionalism in America is how we became the Land of Phony over the past 30 years of far fight bullshit permeating life as some sort of “reality.”
Wail and gnash your teeth when someone you actually know got blown away for trying to make the world a better place.
What’s your point TC? People are not allowed to have an opinion - or an emotional response to tragedy - unless their loved ones get blown up and their guts are splatterd on their faces dangling from their chins like bloody spaghetti?
I don’t have a particular opinion on that issue, but I’ve always found it a little strange that it’s OK to pay actors to be in a hardcore porn film but not OK to pay someone to just have sex.
My understanding is that in fact Cho should NOT have been sold the guns (or at least the one he bought locally), but that somehow the information about his mental health history wasn’t given to the dealer.
I’d like to see you say that to the face of one of our troops over there.
I suppose you were yelling “baby killer” at soldiers coming home from Vietnam, too.
If we make handguns harder to get, how will TCinLA ever kill himself as an artistic statement on his feelings of guilt over American imperialism?
“I think in the absence of legally available guns, illegal avenues would become far clearer.”
I don’t think you have evidence to support this … again, in Japan, it’s not impossible to get a firearm, but it’s hard as hell … REALLY hard.
And ones you can get aren’t semi-automatics, as a rule.
It makes more sense that, in the absence of legally available guns, illegal avenues would become harder … because there would simply be less guns to traffic …
But I’m unclear … are you arguing against gun control, against banning guns, or are you merely saying that the easy availability of a Glock semi-automatic played NO role in the NUMBER of people killed in VA?
The first two, I can kinda understand, there are arguments for or against …
If it’s the last one, I call shenanigans … the type of weapon played a role … and why some folks call for oversight.
And isn’t that understandable?
Craig:
I agree.
I don’t agree. I don’t think drugs and guns are at all comparable. Drugs are substances that most people either use recreationally or they abuse them.
Guns are just not the same. Just because they both can be illegal doesn’t mean they can be compared.
While I agree with you regarding Cho, meaning that he wanted to hurt himself and other people (hindsight makes geniuses of us all), my point is this:
If stricter gun laws just saved even one life then it’s worth it.
I know you agree with that but I just wanted to say it because it made me sound grown up and/or running for office.
Don Imus: Good-natured Racist? By James Joyner
Constance Rice,* a civil rights attorney in Los Angeles, has the smartest take I’ve yet seen on the Don Imus “nappy headed hos” controversy. More to the point, Imus should only be fired when the black artists who make millions of dollars rapping about black bitches and hos lose their recording contracts. Black leaders should denounce Imus and boycott him and call for his head only after they do the same for the misogynist artists with whom they have shared stages, magazine covers and awards shows. The truth is, Imus’ remarks mimic those of the original gurus of black female denigration: black men with no class. He is only repeating what he’s heard and being honest about the way many men — of all races — judge women. Just as black comedians who make mean jokes about Asians and Latinos don’t see themselves as racists, I’m sure that Imus doesn’t see himself as a racist either. He reveres blues artists such as B.B. King and Ray Charles. He praises American icons such as Jackie Robinson and Martin Luther King Jr. He clearly likes former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford and has interviewed Sharpton a few times. He treated Lani Guinier with uncharacteristic respect during her guest appearance to discuss her latest book. His sympathy for the Katrina victims came through. And after the James Byrd dragging-lynching in Texas in 1998, Imus did not joke. In serious tones that couldn’t hide his sorrow or disgust, he quietly remarked that it was unwise for black people to ever trust whites. After listening to him for 10 years, I’ve concluded that Imus is not a malevolent racist. He is a good-natured racist. And the streak of decency running down his self-centered, mean persona is sometimes pretty wide.
That captures Imus perfectly, I think. I used to listen to the show a quite a bit during my morning commute and have seen the MSNBC simulcast a handful of times. My general take is that he’s a weird dude. He’s simultaneously a self-centered jerk who berates his staff and will ramble on for weeks on end about some perceived slight and a guy who devotes considerable time, energy, and money in trying to ease the suffering of kids with cancer and other debilitating diseases. He’s both a Neanderthal and a patron of the arts. He’s a naive rube and an incurable cynic. Most bright, talented folks are a bundle of contradictions, I guess, but Imus is much more so than most.
Some of the show’s humor, especially that by executive producer Bernard McGuirk, is undeniably racial but probably no more “racist” than that of Lenny Bruce or Red Foxx or Richard Pryor or Chris Rock or Dave Chapelle or Carlos Mencia. No doubt, we’ve learned time and again, it’s different when a member of an ethnic group makes a joke about his own kind than when an outsider does. Yet Rock, Chapelle, Mencia, and others make plenty of jokes about other races without getting nearly the condemnation of Imus. And, unlike Imus, their material is all pre-scripted. With the exception of some recorded bits, Imus does four hours of off-the-cuff talk every morning. Duncan Black, taking exception to similar comparisons made by Howard Kurtz on CNN, is dubious of the logic that, because “other people have used the word ho in other contexts” Imus shouldn’t be condemned for it. But Kevin Drum is right:
A slur aimed at specific people is obviously different than a generic slur in a rap song, but it’s not that different. If one is offensive, so is the other, and it’s hard to argue that the cesspool of misogyny in contemporary rap has no effect on the wider culture. It’s not that this excuses what Imus did. It’s just the opposite. If we’re justifiably outraged by what Imus said, shouldn’t we be just as outraged with anybody else who says the same thing, regardless of their skin color?
You’d think.
Imus has been, rightly so, condemned for using racial and gender slurs to describe some decent women whose only sin, apparently, was being less physically appealing to the Imus staff than their counterparts on the Lady Vols. But I don’t see why that’s much worse than rappers and comedians–who are much more influential with our young people than the geezerly Imus–constantly using that language to apply to women generally. At the same time, though, effective humor is often edgy. Bruce, Pryor, Rock, and others used humor to positively impact the discussion of the incredibly sensitive issue of race. We don’t want to outlaw words that make people angry, nor put topics that make them uncomfortable off the table.
It’s perfectly reasonable for the corporation that pays Imus’ check to want to protect its image and avoid alienating its advertisers and audience. At the same time, it’s been clear for a quarter century or more that this is who Imus is. Firing him for something Rice correctly notes “doesn’t even come close to one of his meaner riffs” would be much more egregious than his remarks.
UPDATE: Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr., perhaps better known by his nom-de-rap “Snoop Dogg,” has weighed in on the controversy. Snoop frequently refers to women as “bches” and “hos” in his music, but he insists Imus’ use of the term was unacceptable and the 66-year-old DJ should be taken off the air. The Doggystyle star says, “It’s a completely different scenario.” “(Rappers) are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about hos that’s in the ‘hood that ain’t doing st, that’s trying to get a nga for his money. These are two separate things.” “First of all, we ain’t no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them muthafkas say we are in the same league as him. Kick him off the air forever.”
Via Steven Taylor, who observes, “To be honest, Snoop’s right–he and Imus aren’t in the same league. Snoop and his ilk are worse in terms of propagating racist and sexist stereotypes and attitudes in our culture.” As if to prove this, the AP provides “Snoop Dogg Hit With Gun and Drug Charges.” You can’t make this stuff up.
April 13, 2007 Don Imus Fired… Now What? Marc Lamont Hill @ 1:14 pm By Dr. Mark Lamont Hill
For the past week, I have been heavily involved in the public conversation around the Imus controversy. As a result, I have had little time to lay out everything that think about the issue. Now that I have a free minute to do so… I just don’t feel like it. Instead of rehashing a week’s worth of draining debates, I’m more interesting in pushing the conversation in a different direction.
Although it is tempting to do so, we must resist the urge to view the Imus incident as a knockout victory for the Left. While this was certainly a significant victory, we have many more miles to go before the real issues surrounding race and gender are resolved. Instead of patting ourselves on the back, we must sustain the same power, indignation, motivation, and moral authority that we used against Imus and leverage it for broader and more noble purposes.
Here are a few of my thoughts on this:
It is important that we not gloat over the Imus firing. Instead of celebrating the loss of his job, we must remain focused on his humanity and his dignity by beginning the process of healing. This is why I took down the photo of Imus in the janitor’s uniform.
Although I appreciated the opportunity to discuss this issue on national television, I was struck by the lack of Black women who were asked to participate in the public conversation. This reality is not disconnected from the larger issue of Black representation on television. Simply put, there are too few Black men and women on television. In my opinion, this issue is much more significant than an individual White racist. CBS and NBC, both of which made enormous amounts of money from the Imus brand, sacrificed a star employee because of our protests. To be clear, however, these networks did not operate out of genuine regard for our dignity or our feelings.
Instead, CBS and NBC succumbed to intense pressures from activists and advertisers that would have ultimately hurt their pockets in even more profound fashion. To be sure, this isn’t a new phenomenon. Oppressed people have never received relief based on the benevolence of the state or its various apparatuses. As critical race theorists have argued, social justice has only been facilitated when our interests converged with those of White elites.
While I firmly believe that we must ultimately dismantle corporate capitalism, we must also respond to our current economic realities in order to further our struggle. In addition to leveraging our power against Imus, we must create economic discomfort for major corporations in ways that ameliorate larger issues within our community.
All week, hip-hop culture has been positioned as a scapegoat for Imus’ behavior. As I have consistently said, Imus was not conjuring hip-hop culture when he made his remarks. Rather, he was invoking a legacy of White Supremacy that precedes hip-hop culture.
That said, we cannot let hip-hop culture off the hook for its own problematic practices. In order to maintain our own sense of integrity and moral authority, we must have a consistent disgust for misogyny, violence, consumerism, and self-hate regardless of its source.
Now that Imus is off the air, we must continue our fight against those aspects of our culture that provided the vocabulary for Imus’s racist rant.
TCinLA:
Thanks to the good ‘ol USofA, you have the right to be a complete and total deluded moron — a right which you seem to take great glee in practicing minute-by-minute.
But how about you do us all a favor and save your snarling, whining idiotic BS for the DailyKos?
Sexism and Racism Run Deep
Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy
April 17, 2007
Let’s start with a simple fact: Most U.S. media outlets — television and radio stations, newspapers and magazines, movie studios, music companies and book publishers — are owned by a shockingly small number of giant corporations. These conglomerates generally are run by white men focused on profits and stock options. This reality lurked behind much of last week’s Don Imus storm.
That’s not to say that some fine behavior wasn’t on display. In fact, the outcome was a victory for all women, and particularly for women of color. After Imus called the Rutgers University women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos” (and his producer Bernard McGuirk called them “hard-core hos”—he can’t be let off the hook), organizations like the National Association of Black Journalists, Media Matters for America and, of course, NOW swung into action, alerting the public and demanding accountability.
NOW supporters sent over 30,000 messages in support of the campaign. Women and men across the country responded in force, saying enough is enough. Employees of CBS and NBC let their bosses know that a line had been crossed and the networks’ reputations were at stake. Advertisers started dropping like flies.
One week after the offensive comments were made, MSNBC discontinued its simulcast of Imus in the Morning. The next day, CBS Radio canceled the show. The week ended with an inspiring press conference organized by the National Congress of Black Women and the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, at which a long list of leaders, including civil rights legend Dr. Dorothy Height, addressed the larger challenge of creating diverse and responsible media while ridding our culture of misogyny and racism.
So, kudos all around to everyone who did the right thing. Unfortunately, the media’s handling of this news story demonstrates a problem beyond Imus’ crude sense of so-called humor. My staff and I watched hours of media coverage on this issue, and I appeared on a number of TV and radio shows. The other guests invited to comment were almost invariably men. True, we saw and heard from more people of color than ever before. It’s just too bad that almost none of them were women of color. I was on two segments of an hour-long morning cable show devoted to the issue and, despite a large number of guests, I was the only woman — in other words, there wasn’t a single African American woman on the show. And with so few women in the discussion, the issue of sexism has not been given the attention it deserved.
Despite the advances that women and people of color have made as working members of the media, their presence in top management and as owners is still minuscule. The news can’t help but reflect the lack of diversity and inherent privilege of its ownership, and the power imbalance that persists in our society. Take the April 13 front page story in the Wall Street Journal as an illuminating example. The article was littered with the names of high-profile decision-makers and communicators. A total of 35 people were named in the text and photo caption — ranging from talk radio hosts to media executives, politicians to journalists, civil rights leaders to business chiefs.
Just two of them were women — a lousy six percent in a story partly about sexism! The writers and editors didn’t even bother to call Rutgers coach C. Vivian Stringer by name; otherwise the tally might have jumped to a surplus of three women.
When I took part in meetings with NBC and CBS executives last Thursday, who did the television media report was there? Only Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson. Now, I don’t begrudge these two civil rights leaders the ink and airtime they received — they were saying what needed to be said and, without their outrage, the story might never have received the level of attention it did. But it sure would have been nice for women across the country to know that women leaders were present at those meetings, speaking up on their behalf.
Women, and men, need to hear the message from feminist groups that what Imus did was not just a shock jock repeating naughty words he heard in rap songs (yeah, like Imus listens to rap). No, what Imus did was utilize an ugly, age-old tactic. When confronted with a group of successful women who dared to tread into a historically male arena, he tried to diminish them the best way he knew how—by reminding everyone of their sex and their race, and by judging them on their appearance. Not only that, he employed the term “ho” (short for whore), which often is reserved for women who step beyond male-patrolled sexual boundaries. What did these young women do to rate such a harsh assessment? — Oh, that’s right, they were playing sports.
Imus and the crew on his show had a long record of making racist and sexist comments. In 1993 he said of journalist Gwen Ifill, who was then working for the New York Times: “Isn’t the Times wonderful? It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.” Still, he attracted a steady stream of well-respected presidential candidates, legislators, news anchors and editors as guests. It’s the top-shelf company he kept that helped sink Imus — making it almost impossible for him to defend his show as merely a comedy.
While other big mouths like Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh (whom NOW targeted with a multi-year campaign) spew hate across the airwaves, none of them have the status that comes with interviewing Tom Brokaw, Maureen Dowd, John McCain and John Kerry on a regular basis.
And, despite what some may say, this is not a free speech issue. Don Imus can walk down the street shouting “nappy-headed hos” all he wants, or even get a demonstration permit, make signs to that effect, and march around with them. But nothing in the First Amendment entitles him to a $10 million a year job or a television showcase for his hate speech.
Even those inside the media agree. On the Today show, radio host Tavis Smiley said: “I think while Imus had a First Amendment right to free speech, he doesn’t have a First Amendment right to a talk show.”
We can’t heap all the blame on the media’s shoulders, though. Why was there an audience willing to snicker along as Imus insulted women, blacks, Jews and other oppressed groups? Why did Tim Russert of Meet the Press and Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe agree to go on his show? Why did so many people consider his words no big deal, or felt that his good deeds should compensate for his bigoted speech? Perhaps it’s because we’ve encountered this attitude so many times, for so long, in a society where racism and sexism continue to fester, that we’ve all become far too desensitized.
Neither Imus nor the media industry created the system of denigration, intimidation and discrimination that functions to keep women in line. But they do benefit from it.
Let’s face it, we’re all going to have to be vigilant if we want to change something as elemental in our society as sexism and racism. We must call out hate speech whenever we hear it, even from our friends and family. We must teach our kids that boys and girls are equal, and equally deserving of respect – that women are not the mere decorations or sex objects that they seem to be in most music videos (that’s all genres of music, by the way, not just hip hop).
And we must support legislation that protects women and girls as they make their way in a hostile world. At the same time the Imus flap was dominating the news, Senators Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a law that will penalize and help prevent hate-based violent crimes. The most comprehensive hate crimes legislation ever introduced in Congress, this law will finally classify as hate crimes certain violent, criminal acts that are motivated by the victim’s gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.
When I first heard of Monday’s horrific mass murder in the engineering building at Virginia Tech, I immediately thought of another mass murder at another engineering building — the one at the University of Montreal where, in 1989, engineering student Marc Lepine murdered 14 women and injured 14 other students, mostly women. That reminded me of last year’s Amish school shooting where girls were singled out for elimination. We don’t yet know whether the Virginia Tech shootings were hate crimes, but there have been enough hate crimes – more than enough — to make it clear that more expansive laws are essential. And they remind us of how deep the river of sexism runs.
We have our work cut out for us. The radio dial is chock full of raving bigots, but we’re ready. Watch out, and listen up!
“Most of ours, should we abolish the 2nd Amendment, would come through Mexico, no doubt, along with the marijuana, cocaine and other items the government believes it can keep out of our hands.”
I’m not talking about abolishing the 2nd Amendment - which, by the way, was arguably only for the purpose of communities and states maintaining Militias. I think we have a right to bear arms, in a sense - within standards of reason.
No one needs the right to stroll down the street with a .50 caliber machine gun.
You’re right: if we made guns illegal for more people than we do now, by adding more restrictions on who can own them, after licensing, a (bigger) black market will form.
But so what?
It’s reduced deaths in other countries, why not here? Because of our long borders? Perhaps.
But I don’t see our long borders as an excuse to give up defending them. Do we surrender in advance of giving it a serious try?
If we really seriously intend to control entry of products and people into America, we should build a complete border fence.
Drugs (or guns or illegal immigrants) will still find their way in, but it will become more difficult, and fewer will succeed.
Just because we won’t do a perfect job of it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it at all.
And it’ll force us to deal with the reality of what we need and don’t need re: immigration more honestly than we do now.
(Full disclosure: I drove from LA to Dallas once, stopped off at the border in El Paso, walked over, had lunch, and walked back in. A customs guy asked what was bulging in my pocket: I showed him. He missed the bottle of dirt cheap SOMA pills in my back pocket that I was smuggling in. They turned out to be very weak, but suited me fine. If I didn’t say so, I’m all for drug legalization.)
Brother Olson is BACK and he is BAD … and not Michael Jackson BAD, but Mohammad Ali whupping Floyd Patterson BAD … he’s a BAD MAN!
Yeah, I’m kissing up … whatta you punks gonna do about it?
Linda:
Could you just post a link to an article instead of posting the entire article?
Talk about CONTEXT…
Weren’t we talking about school shootings in America?!
Yeah, people die violent, unjust deaths every day everywhere in the world. Nobody said the crisis in Iraq is less tragic than what’s happened in VA. Because nobody was talking about Iraq!
Something to consider…
A US Department of Justice survey from 1997 states:
“In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.”
80% of the guns used in crimes were not obtained in a lawful manner under official permit!
This number splits in half - 40% friends/family, and 40% illegal street purchase.
One could argue that stricter gun control would bring down the percentage of firearms taken or stolen from friends and family who (presumably)purchased the weapon legally, but it’s safe to assume that the percentage of weapons bought on the street would increase accordingly.
The same goes for firearms used by students in school-associated violent deaths. In the period between 1992 to 1999, roughly 50% of the guns came from friends/family, 50% were obtained by other means.
Opportunity may facilitate action, but where there’s a will there’s a way.
Guys:
I understand that these are hot-button issues, but there’s no need to call each other morons or tell us to f* our viewpoints or refer to each other’s positions as insane or moronic, etc.
Stick to the arguments, avoid the uncivil personal attacks.
I don’t like deleting comments.
How does the fact that your argument is utterly devoid of any semblance of rational logic factor into your claim of sanity?
You’re going to have to explain that one, because it doesn’t stand on its own. The “fact” (supposition, to be more precise) that drug use would skyrocket if drugs were legal does not, in and of itself, shoot down Craig’s argument.
I don’t doubt that drug use would increase if drugs were made legal. Marijuana, anyway, because a good majority of Americans already consider Marijuana comparable to tobacco and alcohol. I don’t think the use of cocaine or heroine would shoot through the roof, though.
But here’s where your argument falls all to shit. Any increase in the number of people using drugs would necessarily involve people who do not currently use drugs. This should be self-evident, and yet it doesn’t seem as though you’ve considered the implications. While the number of people who use drugs would increase, it would do so because law-abiding citizens can now use drugs without breaking the law.
See that? “Law-abiding citizens.” That’s the group that is affected by legalization.
So if we apply this to guns, we can reasonably assume that a ban on guns would take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. In a nutshell, it would only make a difference where people who respect the law to begin with are involved.
See, I own a gun or two. I’m a law-abiding citizen, and I own a gun. If guns were to be made illegal, I would get rid of them. I imagine that law-abiding citizens the nation over would do the same. They’d comply with the law. So you are right about one thing. If gun ownership were made illegal, the number of gun owners in this nation would decrease substantially.
Where your logic fails—and quite substantially—is in promoting the asinine notion that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would decrease gun crime. Here’s the thing. Law-abiding citizens aren’t the people committing crimes with their guns.
Your parallel to drugs fails to give any reason why we could assume that a ban on guns would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
I can’t speak for Craig, but I’ll go on record.
Making it harder to get guns would have no discernible effect on the number of shooting deaths each year. You’d only be keeping guns out of hands that would never use them to commit murder, anyway.
The idea that a kid who was motivated enough to create a video manifesto before slaughtering 30+ people and then killing himself would have been any more than slightly delayed by an inability to procure a gun through legal avenues is ridiculous on its face. I have to believe you’re lying to yourself outright if you really think that stricter gun laws would have prevented this nutjob from pulling off his attack.
Wow. That was fast. I’ve never seen you run from an argument so fast and so hard.
I didn’t call you stupid, I called your argument stupid. I asked you to set aside your political agenda and be human and honest, and your response was to delete my comments. I’m guessing you’ll do the same here, in spite of the fact that I’m making no personal attacks here.
Clearly, you get it. Clearly, you understand that when you stop promoting an ideology and actually look at this issue honestly, you can’t possibly support the view you take here.
I’m reminded, once again, of why Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly don’t work with live audiences.
“Making it harder to get guns would have no discernible effect on the number of shooting deaths each year. “
Again, you have no discernible evidence to support this claim, while I have JAPAN and loads of other evidence to support the contrary …
The problem is that I’m far too intelligent to actually think Japan and the US can be reasonably compared along the lines you’re attempting.
�Making it harder to get guns would have no discernible effect on the number of shooting deaths each year. �
“Again, you have no discernible evidence to support this claim, while I have JAPAN and loads of other evidence to support the contrary �”
That’s the difference between people who promote Wishful Theories as superior to Real Results.
Is the US Japan? No. They’re a more regimented, heavily policed (police boxes everywhere, cops walking beats everywhere, riot busses stationed here and there, even) easy controlled society.
But there are numerous other countries more like the US, such as Canada, and any West European country you can name, which show a pretty strong link between reduction of gun ownership to reduction of deaths by gun. So it’s worth a try.
I don’t honestly think the homicidal nut at VA Tech would have been deterred by better gun laws.
But why not make it more likely that he would have ?
Joshua —
Just to play along, for argument’s sake if you will, while Japan has stricter gun laws than the US, they also have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
Gee, how can all those people kill themselves without a gun in the house ?!
I absolutely agree about Imus. He wasn’t fired because of the comments, like certain reverands like you to believe. He was fired because of the loss of advertising revenue. The same advertisors who ho adevrtised on his show for years. Les Moonves, CEO of Viacom even he stated that in his ever so diplomatic statement. BTW, who watches MSNBC anyway?
With regards to the insult, yes it was inapporpirate but I can’t belive the grandstanding that Rutgers took part in. And to be personally insulted about it? What happened to trash talk especially from athletes at all levels?
You can have gun control laws all you want, but the fact remains is if someone wants to kill another, they will find a way. Especially with someone so mentally unstable as Cho. Take for example, 9/11. Al Aqueda is so hell bent on destroying America, they used something no one ever thought could be used…an airliner as a missle/flying bomb.
BTW, as a born and raised Canuck(now a happy go lucky struggling U.S. writer), I get a little upset when people compare murder/gun laws to America’s. First, Canada is not a democratic country(as well as I believe Germanny). It is a socio- democratic country. A parliament government with very soicalistic policies. Thus the social/”free” health care. I say “free”, because how do you get a Canadian to shut up? Ask about the taxes they pay.(jk) Second, Canada has only about 26 mil. compared to our 300 mil. people. Comparing murder rates would not be accurate. The city I lived in had for several years, the murder per capita rate was higher than Detroit’s and at one time higher than all of Michigan. You’re taking 600,000 people vs. over a miliion. Almost all of the murders were comitted through stabbings and sadly, domestic violence.
Lastly, I find it quite interesting that when a drunk driver kills someone, no one ever talks about tougher DUI’s or for that matter, tougher alochol laws.
Japanese culture puts extraordinary pressure on young men to be successful. They don’t accept mediocrity. With this great demand comes unbearable failure, making it pretty easy to account for their high suicide rate.
With samurai swords, I guess. What’s your point?
Travis,
“I don’t honestly think the homicidal nut at VA Tech would have been deterred by better gun laws.”
We’ll never know about that specific situation.
But here’s what we DO know: If it’s harder to get guns, it’s harder to use guns.
That’s why the gun “debate” in America isn’t a debate. It’s a PR war, waged by the ruthless scumbags who run the NRA on the American people.
There is no rational defense of America’s ridiculous gun laws. That’s why opponents of gun control - not mentioning any names - would prefer to shut down anyone who doesn’t buy into their attempt to frame this as a rational debate, rather than speak honestly about it.
Suicide and murder are two very diffferent things, Johnny.
Suicide is cultural over in Japan … just like loud rude comments are part of the American historical culture …
But we’re not talkiing about a human capacity for murder, right? We know all humans have potential for that, throughout history … what we’re speaking about is how EASY it is for a damaged person to take out the largest amount of people possible.
It’s harder to do over there. Not impossible, but harder.
But statistically, mass murder is far less there than here … I refer you to the link I supplied above.
I don’t know how to make stylish quotes, but:
‘Lastly, I find it quite interesting that when a drunk driver kills someone, no one ever talks about tougher DUI’s or for that matter, tougher alochol laws.’
Drunk driving deaths have dropped pretty dramatically since MADD became influential.
I’m actually not a fan of MADD, because they’re fanatical: they’ve gone overboard.
Thanks to them, we now have laws which treat drivers who’ve only had two or three drinks and blow a .08 the same as those who’ve had twenty drinks and then gotten behind the wheel.
Here’s the link again:
http://www.barryeisler.com/2007/04/thoughts-on-guns.html
Again, if a person’s argument for more guns is, “people are going to do it anyway, why not have a lot of guns? ” then I don’t get it.
If people are going to murder each other anyway, WHY make it EASY for people like that to take out as MANY as possible?
Why not make that part difficult?
Again, we don’t allow people to build chemical bombs in their bathtubs … just because Tim McVeigh got away with doing that doesn’t mean we should allow everyone who wants to build one do it for “self-defense”.
Laws are set for greater good, which is why drinking and driving isn’t allowed, for one. It hurts all of us.
Automatic weapons? Same thing.
Single-shot shotguns for hunting quail? I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, provided a person gets a permit. And a hunting license.
And my wife and future children shouldn’t HAVE to carry guns to feel safe. They have the right to safety irregardless …
Olson, I really wanna buy you a beer sometime - LOL!
Nick —
My point is gun control does not prevent violent death/s.
Was that so hard to discern ?
Olson:
On this site, it’s not necessary to call a person stupid. Anything that falls under the general heading of “uncivil discourse” is fair game for deletion. That’s advertised right there above the comment box.
You know this.
You have repeatedly violated this site’s simple rule, either intentionally or because your understanding of “civil tone” is vastly different than mine. I am certainly interested in discussing any topic with anyone who is respectful of the rules of this website. You are not.
I do not welcome you here.
You may continue to post your comments as you wish, but if I feel they are uncivil, I will delete them in an effort to preserve the sort of discourse I wish for my website.
That’s a really arbitrary (read: meaningless) distinction you’re making. The fact that people don’t inject guns into their veins, or whatever point you’ve made, does nothing to refute the simple fact that criminals—who have no respect for the law to begin with—will have no problem obtaining the object of their desire (be it weapon or drug) through illegal means. In this, there is no discernible difference between the trade of drugs and the trade of firearms.
Even with guns being “so easy” to obtain legally, 80% of gun crimes are still perpetrated by people who obtained the gun illegally. It is easier for these people to obtain their guns illegally than to do so legally. And you really want to tell me that closing down the legal avenues would have any kind of negative effect on the existing illegal avenues?
Would it be nice to “make it harder” for people to commit mass murder? I suppose so. But I haven’t seen a single suggestion here that would actually accomplish the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
“But here’s what we DO know: If it’s harder to get guns, it’s harder to use guns.”
And if you can’t use a gun, you’ll use a stick o’ dynamite, or your dad’s truck, or poison in the water cooler, or…
Tougher laws will not stop maniacs from doing maniacal things.
Is that so hard to accept?
I’m not saying put a piece in every box of Rice Crispies, but HONESTLY believe that making gun possession illegal won’t stop violent crimes or tragedies like the VA tech massacre.
To amend the first sentence for clarity:
It’s not necessary to call a person stupid in order to qualify as uncivil.
Johnny, come on.
We can’t stop violence, but we can LIMIT the scope of the damage, can’t you at least admit that?
How do you propose to do that? I want to hear a realistic suggestion for how we could keep guns out of the hands of motivated criminals.
Re: ‘The city I lived in had for several years, the murder per capita rate was higher than Detroit’s and at one time higher than all of Michigan.’
I found that hard to believe - which Canadian city had a higher murder per capita rate than Detroit, with most of them committed with knives?!
NIck, there is plenty of information out there, but before I list it, can you admit that, as a society, we can LIMIT the amount of damage criminals do to us, as a whole?
I mean, you do believe that jails have a useful function, right?
You do admit that police provide, for the most part, a useful function, right?
If you’re argument is simply, we CAN’T stop ALL the CRIMINALS from COMMITTING crimes (in this case, getting hands on illegal weapons) so WHY EVEN TRY … then you and I don’t have any future in discussing this rationally.
Because, and I say this with respect, your position is not a rational one, from what I can tell.
I believe we can, together as a whole, work to provide the basic freedoms in the constititution … which means that we pass laws that give us freedom in some areas (speech) and limit them in others (drinking and driving, rape, murder, pillaging and lying to Congress).
Rationally, we cannot stop all crime, but we can limit it’s scope and damage … that’s the point of laws, right?
Are suggesting that, since people drink and drive anyway, it shouldn’t be against the law?
Are you saying that, since people are still going to murder each other anyway, so murder shouldn’t be against the law?
Because when you say, people are going to acquire illegal automatic weapons anyway, so why even have that against the law, that’s how I get hung up on the irrationallity of your position …
Again, I’m trying to be respectful, as per Craig’s guidelines.
And Nick, can I assume you don’t care for all the NO WEAPONS OR CHEMICALS laws that govern air-travel, the searches and whatnot that one has to go through to fly, can I assume you think we shouldn’t do that, since hijacking are still happening, so we shouldn’t try to limit themselves at all?
I’m sorry, but it’s silly to suggest that NO LAWS is the way to deal with crime.
And ask yourselves, if you want to know how regulation can help, how hard or easy is it to acquire dynamite?
It’s not impossible, but it’s a fuck of a lot harder than guns - it varies from state to state, but it’s severely regulated, you need scads of permits and licenses for it …
And that’s how one could regulate dangerous automatic weapons.
Before I proceed, can I assume that all of your argument are naught but a stream of one logical fallacy after another?
Olson, if you were interested in having an honest opinion about gun control, you’d surely address the fact that most countries who have banned personal gun ownership have subsequently experienced very dramatic increases in the number of violent attacks against citizens.
And you’d also address, of course, that many, many, MANY more children drown in swimming pools every year than by handgun violence.
“Putting political views aside,” my butt. Try it yourself sometime.
Joshua —
I agree, we CAN limit the scope… I just don’t think gun control is gonna do the trick.
You know how many students were killed in school shootings in 2005? 13. And in 1992? 42! You know how many gun permits have been issued in 2005? Over 8 MILLION! More than double the amount of 1992.
Riddle me this, how come the amounts of gun permits are rising while the amount of killings are dropping??
Now, obviously this year the number is already way higher than 13. And I’ll spare you the homework, the number has been fluctuating since ‘92 (though there seemed to be an overall decline, before this week).
What this shows it that the amount of gun-related deaths in schools is unrealted to how many firearms are produced, sold, stolen or what have you, in other words - the amount of gun-related deaths in schools per anno is RANDOM !
The FACT that there is no relation between how many guns are in our homes and how many killings happen in our schools renders the debate over gun control in regards to school-shootings utterly pointless.
What really concerns me, is that this (pointless) debate over gun control overshadows the debate over the actual CAUSE for school shootings.
It’s not like some dude finds a gun in daddy’s desk drawer and thinks “uhhh, shiny…must kill classmates”.
Unless we - as a society, a people - tackle the issue of “what turns kids into killers?”, true progress will be lost.
P.S. Far as I know, nobody on this thread proposed to abolish all gun laws. So, HUH ?!
Anonymous,
Call me the next time some nut goes on a rampage and kills 36 people with a swimming pool. I’ll suspend my membership in the National Pool Association.
Craig,
Ya know, I read my initial post again, and it takes a real powerful effort to see it as a personal attack. Angry? Yeah, sure. A little. But I attacked some views, and I expressed some passion over a subject, and I suggested that even you don’t really believe what you post here, but there’s nothing there that’s any more egregious than any dozen other posts by other people here.
One exception - I can almost believe you took the phrase “fuck your political views” as a personal attack. But you’d have to take it out of context.
What I did - shockingly - is I attacked the commonly held notion that there are two equal and opposite views to every issue. I suggested that calling the argument over gun control a “debate” is dishonest.