OP-ED | The Pen Is Mightier Than The Gun
by Sarah Darer Littman | Jan 13, 2011 10:19pm
(16) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
My favorite angry email from eight years as a columnist is one that accused me of “using the American way of Life to destroy the American Way of Life and the Rest of Western Civilization in the process.” It gave me a buzz to think anyone imagined I had the power to destroy Western Civilization (ZOMG!!) with a 700-word column published in a few Connecticut newspapers.
But it reminded me that words have power and must be used responsibly, especially by those with a public platform.
When I heard about the horrific shootings in Arizona on Saturday I was shocked, deeply saddened, and incredibly angry.
It’s clear that the shooter in this case, Jared Lee Loughner, is a deeply disturbed individual. Anyone who could intentionally shoot innocent people in cold blood must be.
I’ve written about the disturbing political rhetoric over the last two years. It had frightened me to the point that at a meeting on the Thursday before the shootings in Tucson, I’d half jokingly remarked to someone that I was considering firearms training myself. This is from someone who’s had the occasional go at target shooting, but believes in gun control and strict background checks. After living in the U.K. at the time of the 1997 Dunblane massacre when sixteen 5-year old children and their teacher were murdered at a school in Scotland, it still amazes me how the reaction of the British public – overwhelming calls for stronger gun control laws — contrasts with the sickening spike in Glock sales here.
Spare me the “guns don’t kill people, people do,” drivel, and look at the cold, hard facts: comparable countries with tighter gun-control laws have lower murder rates. The gun homicide rate per 100,000 for the U.S. is 5.28. For Canada, it is 0.47, for Australia it is 0.07, the U.K. 0.06, and Japan 0.05. Yet the solution from the right is to call for more guns. Heck, former Connecticut Attorney General candidate Martha Dean suggested gun training in schools! To say that more guns equals more safety ignores the facts, something we cannot and should not do for the sake of political expediency. No one “needs” an extended magazine, outside of the military and law enforcement, no way, no how.
But back to the other “weapon”: words. Part of the anger I felt last Saturday was because although shocked and saddened, I wasn’t at all surprised. I’ve been afraid that something like this would happen, because of the corrosive political atmosphere.
When the Secret Service tells you that your rhetoric has caused an increase in death threats against a presidential candidate you’d think it might cause you to take a pause for reflection. But not Sarah Palin. She doesn’t retreat – she reloads. And puts bulls-eyes (oh sorry, “surveyor marks” on the districts of political opponents, a potentially inflammatory act that was criticized by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords herself.
There’s no evidence yet that Jared Lee Loughner was influenced by anyone other than his own delusions. However, in a recent incident in the U.K., where an irresponsible socialite was twittering about “Managed Anorexia”, a former columnist who was a recovered anorexic wrote: “Any rational person knows not to take any notice… but when you have a mental illness like anorexia, you cannot necessarily be rational about things that might justify your illness… You can’t see how sick you are…You have lost control…By exercising his “liberty” to say whatever he likes, he risks infringing the liberties of others who read his words – those with a mental illness who have no control over the effect his words might have on their minds.”
This should be been a I’m starting with the Man in the Mirror moment, for everyone in this country. I know it has been for me. President Obama’s speech was pitch perfect, focusing on the victims, and calling for unity, introspection, and kindness.
It was a stark contrast to the video statement released by Palin earlier in the day. One wonders if Palin is completely tone deaf or if she took advice from her email buddy Glenn Beck and tried to be deliberately provocative by invoking “the blood libel”. For anyone unfamiliar, it’s a heavily loaded term referring to the accusations that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood in the manufacturing of matzoh for the Passover seder. The blood libel has been used as the basis for the murder of Jews for centuries. It persists to this day, in certain parts of the world. For Palin to claim it in relationship to her own “victimhood” particularly after the assassination attempt on a Jewish congresswoman, boggles the mind.
The contrast between her statement and President Obama’s speech could not have been starker. I might not always agree with Obama, but he was a leader in our nation’s dark hour. Palin, at a time when she could have showed leadership, proved that she’ll never be anything but a self-aggrandizing rabble rouser.
Tags: Sarah Darer Littman, Tuscon, Guns, Sarah Palin, Obama, Giffords, Loughner
(16) Comments
posted by: ACR | January 15, 2011 1:01am
During the 50’s and 60’s I spent 11 years in the “Jeffco” school system in Jefferson County, Colorado
You’ve heard of Jefferson County - Columbine High is part of the Jeffco system.
The same Columbine where thanks to hand-wringing liberal weenies that should *never* have moved west (and ruined a perfectly nice state) took it upon themselves to disarm the faculty and anyone else they could.
It’s a damn shame too.
I can clearly recall my Civics teacher in 10th grade occasionally have his pistol show below his sweater. He, like I’d guess 80% of the faculty carried because it was expected of responsible adults.
We had a constant Coyote problem not to mention the occasional unfortunate rattle snake that had found it’s way into someplace most unwelcome.
(By 2nd or 3rd grade I’d learned to never mention to my mother when I encountered a rattler as I’d have a tough time going outside for several days if I did.)
Indeed, in the 50’s & 60’s with all of 6 Sheriff cruisers covering an area only slightly smaller than Rhode Island; pretty much everyone carried.
My mom & dad did, neither was very interested in guns particularly but it was considered the responsible thing to do so they did and they practiced with some degree of regularity as well.
By the time I was 14, one of my older sisters could shoot from the hip (while her hand was in a pocketbook) with startling accuracy. Her husband taught her; my dad was impressed.
Had the insidious hand-wringing liberal weenies not invaded a perfectly safe environment the faculty or at least some of it at Columbine would have undoubtedly cut the killing spree there short.
When we hear of incidents such as in Scotland where pistols are banned and all firearms strictly regulated; or the one last week in Tuscon - the reaction should be as it has been in Arizona.
If you’re not ready, then get ready to shoot back.
A loon with a gun and 100’s of unarmed people is a problem; but with dozens of armed people it won’t be a problem for long.
posted by: saramerica | January 15, 2011 1:55pm
Except that one of the people who *had* a gun almost shot an innocent person instead of the perpetrator. I’m sorry ACR, but I really disagree that more guns are the answer.
posted by: hawkeye | January 15, 2011 4:27pm
ACR: You sound like you miss the old western cowboy movies, which featured a dozen armed people. What’s your point?
posted by: ... | January 15, 2011 4:55pm
I agree ACR that Columbine was a tragedy, but I don’t necessarily agree that allowing all the teachers (or those that wish to) to carry guns would have stopped the problem. If those boys had been determined enough, they would have looked for better weapons and trained to take out those with guns first (since it was their intent to target people that day).
However, a lot of schools should have part time resource officers (who carry guns, taser, mace, etc.) work at the schools. This is both smarter and safer than every other teacher owning a gun. Many states have utilized them, and they are respected and intimidate to those who would want to act out like those at Columbine did.
But the serious conversation that should be had is not gun restrictions or greater freedoms, nor who we should place sole blame after this tragedy in Arizona, but the issues of the individual and state of mental health.
Many still own guns, but our society has progressed to a point where maybe not everyone needs to be carrying a gun all the time, and that arguments or issues can be settled with words first. Some people though are just mentally unstable, like many cases over the past 15 years (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tuscon, etc.). But they were ignored by the system and bullied/mocked by their peers. We will never be able to perfect the system, but even a bit of effort can go a long way from preventing such actions.
posted by: saramerica | January 15, 2011 8:08pm
Picking up on JonessAC12’s point about mental instability - how was someone so clearly unstable able to purchase a lethal firearm with an extended magazine and large quantities of ammunition?
Oh yeah. He was in Arizona, one of the most gun happy states in the Union.
As an employer in the UK we had to write personal references for our employees who wished to get a firearms license.Do you think Loughner would have been able to have done what he did if a similar reference had been required for him to buy a weapon? I doubt it.
posted by: hawkeye | January 15, 2011 8:20pm
JONESAC12: Only 9% of the people currently polled think we need gun control, to help curb our current, National “shooting gallery.”
Then, the question is: “How are we going to get the guns off of our streets?”
posted by: ACR | January 15, 2011 10:45pm
Saramerica said:
>>”I’m sorry ACR, but I really disagree that more guns are the answer.
You have a right to your own opinion; but not your own facts.
The fact is, without exception <U>everywhere</u> carry laws have been liberalized crime has dropped.
“Deadeye” said:
>>...old western cowboy movies…
Uh.. the old west wasn’t like in the movies at all.
BTW - they sold dynamite at the local hardware store too; that wasn’t a problem either.
posted by: ... | January 15, 2011 11:49pm
Hawkeye, I’m neither for, nor against general gun control. Its not an issue I specialize in either or can talk at length. I don’t believe we need to put serious restrictions, but I disagree when people want armor piercing bullets, Ak-47s or other high power machine guns, etc.
But the issue is less ‘getting guns off the streets’ and more keeping those guns where they are and never drawn unless absolutely necessary.
I am however going to leave this somewhat interesting article about international gun ownership from Foreign Policy’s website.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | January 16, 2011 3:07am
You started off OK by speaking to gun control and then as is too common used it as a springboard to get political in the usual Obama good/Palin bad sort of way.
In the end it was obvious neither gun control or concern over the use of Blood Libel was either theme or purpose.
To quote Nick Cage in ‘God of War’: Your President moves more guns in a day than I move in a year’.
There’s many intelligent things to be said about gun sales including how the US moves weapons to Mexico which return back to Arizona via the Immigration and drug trails.
With the Obama speech
‘pitch perfect’ and Palin speech ‘tone deaf’ mantra were you seeking bi-partisan agreement on something?
Not really, right?
posted by: saramerica | January 16, 2011 10:37am
ACR - can you link to any evidence of this or are we supposed to take your word for it. The Foreign Policy article makes interesting reading, and doesn’t necessarily point to the same conclusion.
posted by: hawkeye | January 16, 2011 12:18pm
JonesAC12: The gun lobby gives big bucks to Congressional members election campaign coffers, to discourage any national gun control?
What is your alternative suggestion to national gun control, as people evidently do not want it, and Congress has been encouraged, not to act on gun control?
posted by: hawkeye | January 16, 2011 3:06pm
ACR:
Guns that shoot bullets, not dynamite, are our national problem. Throwing in an explosive, is not a solution to our current dilemna.
posted by: ... | January 16, 2011 7:36pm
Like I said hawkeye, I’m not an expert on gun control policy and not one to talk at length at it. Maybe you are and can do so, and that’s a good thing.
All I’m saying is there are more ways to solve this problem than simply creating generally stricter gun laws.
If its well proven they need to be improved, that is fine with me. But the availability of guns to mentally unstable citizens and known criminals, as well as the mentality of their use in our country are equal, if not bigger issues for Congress to undertake. I’ll leave it at that.
posted by: hawkeye | January 17, 2011 1:00pm
The only problem with the dozens of armed people, you suggest, to make a difference, is that they are currently, in the wrong hands, and being used daily for “drive-by-shootings!”
posted by: redlady | January 17, 2011 7:48pm
I love how these columnists continue to repeat every word the right-wingers say over the last two years, but cannot bring themselves to put in print the ridiculously polarizing statements made by their personal icons, including our own President (Cambridge police are “stupid”). Please, let’s at least have one honest conversation about this.
As for Gun Control - where would this country be without the right to bear arms? It kept WWII Japan off our shores. And, I cannot help but wonder where that poor family from CT would be today if they had a firearm handy. You cannot prevent a mentally deranged person from weilding a weapon - are we going to banish steak knives? How about cars? What about alcohol - oh, wait a minute! That was already tried by the government and was a total failure!
posted by: ... | January 17, 2011 8:48pm
Redlady: I think you’re trying to take it too far. If you know anything about WWII history, the Japanese actually did invade parts of Alaska (minor islands, but nonetheless). Also, they couldn’t conceive an invasion on the Western U.S. coast because they were over extended in the Philippines, Korea, and running a puppet govt. in Manchuria.
Second, CT was one of two states (RI the second) that did not recognize Prohibition and realized it was a ridiculous amendment.
To even put the idea forward people want to ban ‘...steak knives…(or) cars?’ is fairly ludicrous and trying to dramatize the liberal side, which can be ridiculous I agree ( ex: banning happy meals).
The right to bear arms is a powerful right and I agree the government should not have extreme levels of control. But to say you ‘cannot stop a mentally deranged person from getting a weapon (gun)’ is just giving up, which I believe is not an American value either party would endorse.