THE TUSCON MASSACRE and AMERICAN CULTURE - CAN THERE BE A SOLUTION?

INTRODUCTION

The violent events of Tuscon would be an earth shattering blow to the sanctity and integrity of any society. On it's face the shooting of 20 people, who were attending a political meeting, could be symptomatic of a deep malaise in that society. This particularly so as among the 6 dead is a Federal Chief Justice of Arizona, a congressional staffer and a nine year old child. In critical condition too, was, the chief target of this outrage, Gabriella Gifford, an elected Representative of the United State's Congress. This senseless killing raises issues about the culture that it occurred in. 

The prevailing culture is embedded in Constitutional law and American history itself. Society needs to take note of the consequences that might ensue should violence become a regular byproduct of political discourse. This type of gun violence is common and the response to each of these overwhelming tragedies is predictable.  Each catastrophe, as was this, is handled as if it some type of anomaly and rarity that has been perpetrated by a "lone nut". The calamity is then met with crises management rather than an analysis of the underlying causes and figuring out a comprehensive plan as at how to prevent the next one.

The Tuscon incident, is the first time that a mass killing took place in an everyday conventional political context. (In Oklahoma, Timothy McVeigh acted as a representative of the lunatic fringe). This potentially could set the stage for anarchy. There are supporters, of the right to bear arms, who believe that this right is also an insurance policy against the possibility of a tyrannical regime ever overthrowing the Constitution in this country. There are others who believe the answer is arming everyone - a return to the Wild West.

ENDEMIC VIOLENCE AND GUNS.

As an isolated happening this circumstance would be unsettling enough but mass violence has become commonplace on the American scene. This so much so that it is only the "big" incidents that see the light of day. As opposed to acts of externally grown terrorism this regular home grown violence, for violence sake, is sadly, uniquely American. There appear to be knee jerk responses following these major atrocities. After each and everyone there is a call for some sort of gun control. Also there is to a lesser or greater extent references to the pernicious influence of inflammatory speech and the portrayal of violence in the media. Inevitably, too, are the calls for better care and control for the mentally unstable. Then after some token activity the incident is forgotten and we move on till the next traumatic upheavel.

Violence is endemic. It is instructive to visit violence that occurs at institutes of learning where one might least expect it. There has been a succession of school and university incidents of injury and death. In 2009 and 2010 alone there were 14 incidents that involved death and injury and 27 involved injuries. There were also literally hundreds of incidents involving firearm possession and even shootings. For practical purposes other than Columbine, (18 killed), Virginia Tech, (33 killed), University of Austin Texas, (16 killed), California State University, (7 killed) and Northern Illinois, (6 killed), everything else is largely outside the public consciousness.

Then of course there are attacks on postal facilities, usually by disaffected employees. There have been well over 20 since 1980, the most recent being in Tennessee last year. The frequency that these attacks occurred led to the introduction, in the vernacular, of the term "going postal", a term commonly used for someone going off the deep end irrationally. Other, recent events that engendered 24/7 coverage on the news channels were the 2002 Beltway sniper killings, (10 dead 3 critically wounded) and the recent Fort Hood massacre responsible for 12  deaths and the wounding of 30. These are just some examples of these occurences that are not foreign to even churches and are common in families. All of these whether it be the Oklahoma bombings or any other are handled the same way- numbness, grief, "pulling together as a nation" and "healing".

And all this does not even begin to look at the impact of gun violence in society as a whole. In the USA over a 100,000 gun incidents are recorded of which close on 32,000 died. Of 20,000 people that attempted suicide with a gun only 3,000 survived. U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates.  The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher. Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States. 

So there is little doubt there is a problem.

 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AND TUSCON

With this culture of violence rampant, and if it was to become as commonplace in politics as it is elsewhere, we would on our way down the slippery slope to anarchy. (Already a victim of the Tuscon carnage threatened a Tea Party member, at a public meeting, with death).

While political motives do not appear to be in play in Tuscon, the episode did take place in the context of political rhetoric which nakedly and unashamedly used metaphors of violence.  Sarah Palin had drawn up a map of the USA with 20 bulls eyes and crosshairs on it. These depicted key seats that the Tea Party was targeting. One of these was Gifford's, a conservative Democrat in a republican stronghold. And after Giffords' Tucson office was vandalized that same month, the Democratic congresswoman told MSNBC, "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. But the thing is, the way she has it depicted it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."

Palin, who touts her gun toting heritage, also tweeted, "Don't retreat, RELOAD!" Palin mocked the criticism of her as being politically correct, and used her Facebook platform to apply the same language to College basketball's Final Four.  

Jesse Kelly, the Tea Party Republican candidate defeated by Gifford, held a rally where they fired off machine guns!

Chief Justice Roll too has had his share of invective. Roll, one of those shot and killed in Tucson, had ruled in 2009 that a lawsuit by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher could go forward. Afterward, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales said that talk radio shows fanned the flames and prompted hundreds of calls to the judge, some of them threatening. "They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,'" Gonzales told the Arizona Republic.

In the wake of the tragedy, Arizonian Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik criticized those who are making a living off "inflaming the American public." As a public official he had little doubt that there was a climate that was being created that could result in chaos.

So the writing is on the wall. With violence rampant and political divisiveness at an all time high one does not need this inflammatory rhetoric.

HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR GUNS.

It does not take much research to identify the historical basis to this phenomenon. America has always been a frontier society. Hollywood has provided endless evidence in depicting ongoing wars against the indigenous Indians, the war of Independence and the Civil war. However the cult of the gun, it's power and the tremendous role it played in in the society of the West was immortalized in Western movies. The skills of how fast you could draw and shoot straight defined your power and were the most saleable qualities on the job market. But the reverence for the gun is ingrained far more deeply than that. It is enshrined in the American Constitution as an inalienable right in the Second Amendment. This right assumes almost a religious undertone by it's adherents.

THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION,(NRA).

The National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, is the organization that integrates and articulates the cause. They are one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and contribute lavishly to campaign funds. In addition to the philosophical arguments for their "right" there are strong commercial interests of the gun sellers that carry weight in more ways than one. Nor do they have any false modesty about their political power maintaining inter alia that the NRA were responsible for keeping out Gore in 2000 who had advocated responsible gun control. They maintianed that they were further instrumental in electing even more gun control advocates in 2002.

The NRA's philosophy is no better articulated than an article on their website:

"For almost 200 years, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was sacred in American law. In addition to hunting, the right of law-abiding citizens to buy, keep and carry guns was essential for defending yourself and your family.  The reason that gun rights was included in the Bill of Rights was as a last resort both against foreign invaders and also as an insurance policy against the possibility of a tyrannical regime ever overthrowing the Constitution in this country".

While the political battles are never over they don't appear a real issue for the moment. Obama generally believes in gun rights, Reid the powerful Democratic leader in the Senate is strongly pro and so is  Gifford.  Clinton passed an Act that for 10 years prevented anyone from buying these powerful semi automatics that would have limited the carnage at Tuscon but Congress allowed it to fall away in 2004. This latest episode is all but forgotten in the halls of Congress and there is no legislation pending.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE COURTS.

As far as the Courts are concerned they have been supportive of the "right" in general and the Supreme Court have ruled that the States have no right to place any restrictions on gun owners and sellers other than to allow background checks that have proved ineffective. Those prohibited for one reason or another can get a gun and if you fail you have only a one in a 120,000 chance of being prosecuted for illegally trying. Even though mentally disabled people are listed and should not be able to buy a gun, this provision has proved useless with several of the perpetrators of violence who were so classified, including the Tuscon perpetrator, still able to get guns.

Bear in mind that all the second amendment states is - ".A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  Thus far it has been interpreted as meaning the right of ownership, possession and transportation of guns.  The current Supreme Court regards itself as "constitutionalist" and this has generally meant that they don't easily interfere with the literal meaning of the Constitution's contents. The latter states pure and simply that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. In a landmark decision in the District of Columbia in 2008 the court affirmed this right is unconnected to the militia and can apply to other situations such as self protection and protection of family.

So it is unlikely that the Courts would act as a vehicle for change in gun law.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AND THE COURTS 

The first amendment essentially guarantees for seperation of church and state and freedom of religion. In addition it allows for free speech, free press, right to assembly and right to petition the government. The Freedom of Speech and Free Press have, too, been broadly interpreted by the courts . In most other democratic countries there are defined limits to speech which include incitement to violence. However the Courts have over the last half century raised the bar as to what speech is not allowed under the First Amendment.

In the early half of the 20th Century the printing of a pamphlet that, inter alia, intimated fervent opposition to the draft and urged potential draftees not to be subject to intimidation was considered to  create a clear and present danger to the State and therefore it was not protected speech. In the 1970's wearing a tee shirt in a Los Angeles Court House, which stated "Fuck the draft" was ruled free speech.

The Supreme Court in the 70's referred to the right to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms: [Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.

Thus under this ruling very little that is said or written could be construed as not covered by protection of Free Speech under the First Amendment. Certainly, as tendentious as some of statements leading up to Tuscon might be considered, they are protected by the First Amendment. 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has been consistent in returning to a strict constitutionalist position.  From Flag burning to unrestricted anonymous campaign finance all have been considered to fall within the ambit of free speech. Likewise laws of obscenity and defamation have far broader interpretations in US courts than they do in other countries.

So there can be scant hope that the solution to violent political rhetoric could be found in the courts.

THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED AND GUN RESTRICTIONS

Ostensibly there is legislation out there that should restrict who is able to buy guns. The United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 922: "Firearms, Unlawful Acts." current as of February 1, 2010 has the following restrictions in that if persons:

1. Were convicted of a crime punishable by being in prison for more than one year;
2. Are a fugitive from justice;
3. Are addicted to, or illegally use, any controlled substance;
4. Have been ruled mentally defective by a court, or are committed to a mental institution;
5. Are an illegal alien living in the United States unlawfully;
6. Received a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces;
7. Renounced your U.S. citizenship, if you are a U.S. citizen;
8. Are subject to a court restraining order that involves your 'intimate partner,' your partner's child, or children; or
9. Were convicted of domestic violence in any court of a misdemeanor.
All those who fall into the above categories should be exempted form being able to purchase a gun as a result of background checks. 
For practical purposes the problem relates to those who "have been ruled mentally defective by a court, or are committed to a mental institution". Other terminology includes those who have been "adjudicated to be mentally ill". The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) requires state and federal agencies to report all mentally challenged individuals who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or committed to a mental institution.” The immediate problem is that There is a wide discrepancy in background checking, reporting and record keeping from state to state and from gun shop to gun show. Add to this the unknown but extremely large number of unregistered and thus untraceable guns already out there in America; and the problem of controlling guns and who owns them is considerable.
Thus the screening objective has met many obstacles and for practical purposes is a failure. As evidence of this virtually every major incident points to perpetrators that should have been on the list but were not. In 2007 it was reported, according to one government estimate, that there were at least 2.7 million people in the United States who should be banned from owning firearms for mental health reasons. But there were only 235,000 names in the FBI's computer. 

In 2007, Virginia was one of the only 22 states that was reporting to the FBI, yet the Virginia Tech killer, who had been previously been determined to be a threat to society, obtained guns and reeked havoc. There is instance after instance of the mentally unstable doing likewise. In the Tuscon massacre, the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was a known recluse and a rejected Army recruit due to drug use with a history of troubling behavior that he documented in rambling postings on his MySpace page, YouTube videos and classes he attended at Pima Community College in Tucson.” The University threw him out and felt they had no further responsibility other than to tell him he could only return if he had a mental clearance. No-one put him on the list! This is not that surprising as Arizona is woefully behind in entering the 121,700 records of disqualifying mental illness into NICS, having entered only 4, 465 between 2008 and 2010. In 2001a study showed that investigators using fake drivers licenses were all able to obtain guns.

Also the current gun laws do not define how to determine who is and who is not mentally ill. Applicants are asked on the current form whether they have been  adjudicated dangerously mentally ill!  The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) requires state and federal agencies to report all mentally challenged individuals who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or committed to a mental institution.” It is unsure what mental health records the State and Federal Agencies they may provide to the NICS. At gun shows private individuals are allowed to sell guns. These sellers are not legally bound to do background checks or even ask purchasers if they are eligible to buy a gun.

So for practical purposes the safeguards supposedly in place are just not working as evidenced too by the never ending succession of mass killings.

ANY SOLUTIONS?

There are 300 million people in America and it is estimated that there are over 300 million guns, of all types, in circulation. Over 50% of households have one or more guns. As shown there are, in addition, tremendously powerful belief, political,judicial and financial forces supporting the "right to bear arms". Two politicians in the forefront of gun reform have stated even in the wake of Tuscon no new gun law reform will be passed. 

When cities such as Washington DC and Chicago were legally able to ban handgun sales there was no impact on lowering homicides. If anything the data show otherwise.So any solution has to take into account the fact that guns are here to stay and just tinkering with the system as it is will not help. Also tinkering always creates partisan fights.

It is fair, however, to say that no-one wants mass killings and high homicide rates. The NRA condemned the recent senseless killings in Tuscon There is also consensus that mentally unstable citizens should not possess guns. The NRA supported this. This too is the intent of all the legislation on the books. So it would not  be revolutionary if we all worked towards everyones' objective.

It appears that what is needed is a method whereby this consensus, that only qualified and competent people can possess guns, can be put into effect. It is also obvious that in the current poisoned atmosphere of Congress that it is not going to happen there. One needs an authoritative bipartisan group led by out going respected politicians and members of the pro and anti gun lobbies in congress. Also representatives of involved groups such as the NRA and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence should be involved in the process. The solution is going to cost money - big money but Representative Henry Waxman states that the current lack of gun control costs the country a 100 billion dollars a year.

While a tremendous amount of work needs to be done let us look at a hypothetical solution. It is everyones right to drive a car subject to restrictions. The car is in unqualified and untrained hands a killing machine. Consequently every driver is subject to meeting a certain set of standards before being permitted to drive. Every car driver is registered and has to maintain his or her skills. Also if the drivers facilities such as eyesight deteriorate the right is removed. Why not the same standards for another killing machine - a firearm.

Every gun owner will need to obtain a license to use that gun. This will require the owner to exhibit competencies on using that gun safely. Who better than the current gun lobbies such as the NRA to set standards and train owners so they could obtain licenses. Those currently regarded as mentally unstable and who would qualify for the NICS list would need a psychiatrists letter to allow him or her to qualify. Training courses would also quickly identify some of the unstable. In most of the instances of these mass killings lay people had identified these people. One could go on and on with the details such as infrastructure but that is not the point.

Sooner or later something will be done but how many more mass killings is it going to take? How many more attacks on the integrity of the democratic process are needed?