Posted on 04/17/2007 6:08:23 PM PDT by SJackson
There will be plenty of "rapid responses" to the gun rampage on the Virginia Tech campus, which has claimed the lives of as many as 33 people -- making it the deadliest school shooting incident in the history of the United States.
Do not doubt that the National Rifle Association is preparing its "this had nothing to do with guns" press release. The group has no compunctions about living up to its reputation for being beyond shame -- or education -- when it comes to peddling its spin on days when it would be better to simply remain silent.
But the NRA will not be alone in responding in a self-serving manner. Many groups on all sides of issues related to guns and violence in America will be busy making their points, just as many in the media will look for one dimensional "explanations" for what the university's president, Charles Steger, has correctly described as "a tragedy ... of monumental proportions."
"The university is shocked and indeed horrified," explained Steger, after it became clear that what had happened on his campus Monday was worse the carnage at Columbine High School in 1999 or at the University of Texas in 1966.
The trouble with shock and horror is that it does not often translate into contemplation, let alone serious reflection on the state of a nation in which such an incident can occur -- and, more troublingly, in which no one can suggest that it was unimaginable.
The first question, appropriately, is: Why did this happen?
The second question, equally appropriately, is: What should we do about it?
There is a simple answer to question No. 1: America is a violent country.
Unfortunately, simple answers lead to simplistic responses. If America can do nothing about its violent streak, the NRA will argue, it is silly to place limits on gun ownership. Better to arm everyone, the argument goes. Or better to allow the "concealed carry" of weapons. Or, well, you get the point -- anything to avoid taking a piece out of the profits of the corporations that manufacture and sell deadly weapons.
By the same token, the notion that banning those weapons will end the violence has become a tougher sell. Shocking and horrible rampages occur in countries with stricter gun laws than the U.S. No, they do not happen as frequently. But they do happen.
Conversely, in some countries where gun ownership is relatively high, incidents like the one at Virginia Tech are far less common.
We ought to wrestle with these contradictions and complexities.
But where to begin?
Here is a modest proposal: Instead of adopting a particular line, rent Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine."
Of course, there are those who will not be able to see beyond their rage at Moore to recognize the value of this particular film.
Moore's 2002 film remains the best popular exploration of violence and the gun culture in America. Despite what the filmmaker's critics would have you believe, it is a remarkably nuanced assessment of the zeitgeist.
Moore's purpose was to offer an explanation for why the Columbine massacre occurred and to examine the broader question of why the U.S. has higher rates of violent crimes than other developed nations.
Moore certainly does not let apologists for the gun industry off the hook. But he does not stop there. "Bowling for Columbine" explores the role that America's mad foreign policies and obscene expenditures on weapons of mass destruction might play in fostering a culture of violence. Most significantly, Moore takes a serious look at the way in which American media, with their obsessive crime coverage, create a climate of fear in this country -- a climate that actually ends up encouraging violence.
After the movie came out, Mary Corliss wrote in Film Comment: "Moore makes the mind swim with the atrocities and poignancies on display. Bowling for Columbine' should be mandatory viewing."
That was true in 2002. It is even more true today.
My modest proposal, skip Moore, and read (sorry progressives, it's not video)
A Modest Proposal: For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public
It's at the library, unless some peacenik has blown the library up.
Good source of protein, and will reduce global warming since teens drive too much.
Less teens, less global warming.
Might be a factor to consider before allowing these walking time bombs to purchase a weapon.
You forgot the Barf Alert.
I don’t believe there was any hard evidence that this kid was taking drugs...that was just a rumor.
“The value in this film”.
There is no value in it because he lied and staged scenes, and completely mislead the audience. If you want to make an honest and convincing argument, not lying is one of the important steps in that process.
They drank water within 24 hours of commiting the crime too.
That’s my first question to environazis: How many “planet killers” have you spawned?
Regarding “Bowling”: it’d be nice to see a conservative film maker (I know there are a couple) do a MM-style documentary on Virginia Tech, showing how the administration banned guns and basically set the scene for yesterday’s events.
As someone just told me, even a broken clock is right two times a day. And Moore is right here.
http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Click on the 1500 stories.
http://www.ssristories.com/
And what to explain the mind of serial killers, tylenol poisoners, and Islamonazis?
They are EVIL and CRAZY. Don’t limit my rights as a result.
If somone has been diagnosed as having violent mental disorders, they should be LOCKED UP as criminally insane.
If we are going to be told they are not accountable in court for their actions (”insanity defense”) then they should not be loose in the first place. They certainly should not be permitted to roam unescorted. If they cannot be held accountable for their actions then they need a legal guardian who WILL be held accountable for their restraint.
IMO that connection is tenuous at best. If you want a connection to violence, look to alcohol.
But it's a slippery slope, particularly if you believe in the right to bear arms.
I admit I haven't gotten as much flak on FR, a pro gun site, as elsewhre, but I've occasionally posted here on the disingenous nature of the ban on, in Illinois and elsewhere, gun ownership for those committed to mental institutions, and everywhere the ban on purchases.
"Crazy people", like felons, sure, there's a legitimate public interest in regulation.
But most affected are alcohol and drug addicts, who seek treatment.
A LEO with an alcohol problem, everything is OK till he gets help, then his job is in jeopardy. For the LEO, his union will take care of it.
What are you going to do, ban gun ownership for people on antidepressants?
The clear constitutional issue aside, if a gunowner has a problem, what do you want him to do, seek treatment and surrender his guns?
Doesn't take much imagination to see where that goes.
...it is a remarkably nuanced assessment of the zeitgeist.
Anyone who talks like that should have their arm ripped off and they should be beaten to death with the wet end.
I don’t believe there was any hard evidence that this kid was taking drugs...that was just a rumor.
I heard them say it on TV so it’s got to be true! ;-)
(DO I REALLY NEED A SARC TAG?)
No, it's the Capital Times.
While I almost always disagree, they're consistant, and I respect their opinions, so it's not a barf.
Of this, I have no doubt.
It seems that antidepressants and other related drug concoctions seem to be become a common thread with these killers who snap
___________________________________________________________
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/casualties.htm
Yeah--- sicko Michael Moore is one happy guy tonight. He is the one prick in America who has everything to gain from this tragedy.
I checked out his website, and he's exploiting the massacre for his own personal gain ["Bowling For Columbine"].
I refuse to leave his stinkin' link.
Oh puhleeeeze. Spare me.
You know, as I look at violent, murderous episodes around the world, the overwhelming majority are perpetrated by MEN. So what say we just ban men. That may not eliminate all violence, but it will eliminate most. Makes as much sense as blaming the gun industry, U.S. foreign policy, and defensive weapons for incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech does. Sheesh!
I have to disagree on that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.