Rather, it's the cold hard cash and always has been, always will be, in our world. Greed drives the corruption.
Until the peace protest comes, as it did in the 1960's by the brave college students in their hundreds of thousands. In protest of the kind of corruption being investigated today in the halls of Congress. The president resigned and everyone got arrested, then the Vietnam War stopped.
The goal, the cliche of world peace is only a cliche if we aren't in touch with our humanity: world peace is indeed our future, brothers and sisters.
This is what the students believed in the 60's and 70's when we marched nonviolently for peace. Let's all believe.
The 24/7 media are slaves to the almighty dollar. When our information is driven by the money, it will not help us find our way. Many great reporters but now being constrained by the paymasters.
Can I refer everyone to Texas songster Kinky Friedman's wonderful song, Sold American? It is in the grand tradition of righteous American hippy peace march protest songs that got us through the many days of social, nonviolent protest. This organized, peaceful, hopeful protest is what brought down the endlessly arrogant, thoroughly corrupt Nixon and all the cronies.
Peace will come, that is one of the protest chants that will come true. When humanity comes together as brothers and sisters. Right now, we have geniuses to follow who can see peace and brotherhood at last: MLK, Robert Kennedy, Greta Thunberg and the other leaders can see the promise of peace, could always see the dream of world peace.
"...this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. " Winston Churchill
"...this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. " Winston Churchill
The public is divided into camps that would help determine their response to even the most shocking images.
The Tucker Carlsons of the world already registered horror on January 6th about the insurrection, then found a way to rationalize it all away within a few days. They would manage something similar with even the most offensive and graphic images. They would certainly decry it as "political" or "uncivil" and might retreat into Alex Jones theories about "crisis actors" and other such denials.
The majority of Americans who already support some increased level of gun control would see grim confirmation of their concerns, and probably feel even more helpless in the face of determined inaction on the part of our elected officials.
There is a small, but important, percentage of voters who are uncertain how they feel about the issue. Some of these people would potentially be persuaded, or at least affected by exposure to graphic images. The fact that most voters support keeping abortion legal, but with some restrictions indicates that they have found both the pro-choice "coat hanger" images and the pro-life sonogram images to be persuasive. An analogous "keep guns legal but with restrictions" position would be a step forward from our current policies.
Thank you for sharing from the heart, great article. How to write or even laugh anytime soon, after the latest tragedy (and another new one, May 28, 1 killed 7 injured at outdoor festival shooting,Tulsa)
These are scenes of war: should those be shown to the general public to traumatize everyone even more, or maybe we should only show them to the people voting on the anti-AK bill. Viewers will have inescapable nightmares forever, ruining their lives.
The soldiers will tell us that PTSD comes from seeing similar scenes, such as the responders saw, in the school. You cannot get over it, because the utter inhumanity of being in war is so strange, so bizarre, so contrary to our idea of reality up until then. Our minds break down trying to process it.
Many have tried to fully explain the depths of human horror, writers such as Joseph Conrad and the writers of the movie, Apocalypse Now. In war, there is no humanity left, it is erased.
Those of us who have seen war, who have worked in refugee camps during war, see the loss of humanity that the soldiers see. That our fathers saw in WWII; the soldiers were just regular kids sent to the front lines to fight an inhuman enemy, the Nazis.
Now, partly because of the high body count of the innocent civilians, we should try something new:
An idea would be just to require everyone to bring in their AK now and register it. Only criminals would not want to do this.
These killings leave a huge body count with an effect on the economy, also on America's position as a safe haven. As if anyone needs a reason beyond the grieving parents and communities to do something about this interior army of insane killers being armed by gun shops.
A grace period of one month from registering your AK. After that, every effort should be made to register AK's and remove them from those who are incompetent.
But, sell no more AK's except to gun clubs to use at gun clubs. Control and register the ammunition. The gun lobby insists on use, but having the guns stay at the gun club is an idea proposed before.
Use the 40 billion dollar intelligence community to find out who has the AK's and address the public threat that is coming from this internal "army," a highly armed army of insane individuals plotting the destruction of as many people as possible in their rampages. Armed by gun shops.
"If not now, when? If not me, then who?"
Many of the websites dividing us and driving the narratives of the supremacist, racist movement are created in Iran, China and Russia. Let's let that sink in.
Thank you for your continuing analysis of What is wrong with Us. Every one of us is at risk, be safe everyone.
I hesitated before disagreeing with the consensus forming here, but I respectfully do not believe it would be constructive to show the gory images of these desecrated young children. I will risk a bit of abstraction in explaining some elements of my reflection:
The examples presented by you and your readers were effective to some degree precisely because they were exceptional and tied to an evolving narrative. This was (and still is) particularly true of depictions of the impact of warfare on civilians in distant lands; for that matter, the image of the lynched Emmett Till in his coffin was one more eye-opening proof for many outside the Deep South that the practices that we were told were from a different time had endured.
In addition, the "realistic" depiction of violence has become commonplace in our digitally interconnected experience whether fictional or not... and now too often a strange hybrid of "journalism" and "storytelling". Part of this realism is a side-effect of technology (CGI, etc.) and the other is the product of an "authenticity imperative" whether when reporting the news or when depicting violence whether historically accurate and imagined. I frankly fear that public rendering of these images would quickly be entangled in the voluminous webs of interpretation and misinformation that would mute the impact before it could be effective.
For what it's worth, I also think this situation is one in which the force of statistics and comparison are powerful and determinate. One need only see Ted Cruz running away from a Sky-News reporter asking him why the US is the only country in the world with this problem because the gun culture is the obvious and only honest response. I would definitely continue to include the concrete example of school shootings by aggressively publishing the living images of these martyred children so that nobody can be allowed to forget their innocent victimhood (and that goes for any victims of racism or otherwise bigoted violence).
The final matter is to ask who would one expect to "change" based on a public viewing of these unbearable images? You and I and your readers might be more motivated to incite change via political activism, but I'm equally certain the photographic renderings of aborted fetuses was effective when motivating the minority of our fellow citizens who would deny women *any* right to that fundamental option. Do we want to emulate that example? On the other hand, the "usual suspects" , whether at the top of the pyramid or in the amorphous "base", would simply refuse to see them for what they are: proof of the ultimately indescribable destructiveness of these weapons of war.
I should add that my initial reaction to your proposition was a visceral "No", so perhaps I am just grasping for a rationalization. Your collective response might be "what then should we do?" and rightly so, but the horrific spectacle that publishing these images without affecting anything leads me to ask about that likely possibility.
This guest opinion writer on the New York Times makes the argument far more cogently than my meager effort, and she goes one step further: even if we deem it ultimately unacceptable to show these images to the general public, those who will decide whether additional regulations on the "bearing" of certain types of firearms and their accessories are necessary should be required to view these images. The entire Congress comes first to mind, of course, but I would include all federal judges as well as the members of the Supreme Court.
I was reminded of suggestions that we should be wary of the day when there are no more living survivors of the Holocaust or of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For what it is worth, I have often considered those killed at Nagasaki as the first martyrs of the Cold War because that attack was far less justifiable than the first one. It would be wonderful, if still tragically sad, if future citizens of our democratic republic could remember the victims of Buffalo *and* Uvalde as the pivotal catalysts for change towards a more nuanced and humane understanding of the Second Amendment of our Constitution.
This is my last word on this subject in this thread. I went looking for the best publicly available account of the damage that the AR-15 does to the human body to preclude the necessity of publishing the images of innocent victims widely. I had seen the segment on 60 Minutes that you have referenced, but I was looking for words that evoke the image of the damage done to a living person.
This short article from WIRED in 2016 does it for me.
That said, I found many articles and YouTube videos by defenders of the argument that the AR-15 is no different than any other weapon. Some showed the damage done to animal carcasses, and others made dubious quantitative arguments why the AR-15 is not a "high-powered" rifle. Many sarcastically suggest that ordinary "civilians" do not know the different between things like "full-auto" and "semi-auto".
So the question remains: if images of these innocent young victims were widely available to the public, what groups of citizens might change their opinions of the AR-15 and similar weapons such that the path to a substantive and durable shift in the "gun culture" debate might be forthcoming?
I still doubt that would result, but I also believe fervently that publishing these images should *not* be necessary.
A big dilemma. I am swayed by the piece and comments toward favoring showing some photos. Maybe there is also a middle way. I will never forget the image I saw in the Times years ago of a bike lying on the pavement of a Chicago street. It had belonged to a murdered boy.
I was 14 when General Loan shot that Viet Cong man. With my friend George, we wrote our first letter to a politician (President Johnson), we were so appalled. I'm glad that photo was published. (It was natural for me to write to the pres, as my parents did that fairly frequently.)
I also have vivid memories of the frontal photo of Kim Phuc, naked and burning, and I'm glad to hear she got good care.
Mamie Till was a very brave person.
I don't know where you draw the line on photos in the media. But I'm down with the two from Vietnam.
I agree with showing the bodies of Uvalde. My only qualifier is that for things like shootings, the media should wait until they have something that's genuinely going to do the job, and avoid having photos of corpses from any shooting. You need to show the gore from those AR-15 bullets to do the job. To show less, and frequently, will only get people used to something that they shouldn't become used to.
Thank you. I understand and mainly agree. My main hesitation at the moment is that the *families* of little children shot to death seem not to have felt as Mamie Till did. As I've mentioned elsewhere, two of our grandchildren are little elementary-school kids at a public school in Texas. I cannot bring myself to imagine having to make similar decisions — about them. But, I agree, something has to happen to have people confront the consequences.
We almost moved to Littleton Colorado the year before Columbine but my husband decided to turn down that job offer. My daughter was a senior when that atrocity happened and would have gone there. After that we actually enacted an assault weapons ban when Clinton was president. According to Politifact Biden was right when he said shootings tripled after Bush allowed that ban to expire.
It made me furious that the media dismissed by saying it had not being proven very effective or that it was too weak to be effective. Most didn’t mention the possibility of strengthening the law.
The videos of George Floyd changed how Americans see police brutality. Without them, it's possible that Derek Chauvin and the other cops would have never been charged.
But I also think that by indiscriminately showing pictures and videos of such horrors, we run the risk of desensitizing people even as we hope to wake them up.
Lately I've been thinking that perhaps if people saw what a child looks like after they've been shot by an assault rifle, none of these pro-gun GOP scum would still be holding political office.
Like others on this thread, I also hope that photos of these atrocities will be shared. I believe, however, that won't happen until a grieving parent shares a photo of his or her murdered child.
With almost 90% of this country in favor of some kind of gun reform and zero % of Senate republicans in favor of even holding a vote it is time to bring out the most horrific images possible. They need to be posted and televised. They need to be disturbing. They need to be seen. All 90% need to be horrified and all 90% need to recognize that being horrified is just not enough.
Oh so powerful commentary, Jim, I feel shattered just reading the series of horrific events. Yes, I think the carnage should be shown -- to show the truth to the Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnells out there of what they permit to become a part of the American reality.
Thanks for this post. I've been thinking long and hard about this exact issue and how a response ought to be framed. I do agree that showing the carnage is appropriate. The other is the public shaming of all those politicians who state 'our prayers are with the families.' My response to this fake piety, "when will you stop enabling the killing of innocent children?"
The 2nd Amendment was written in a very different time and place. To state that it allows individuals to possess weapons of mass destruction is both laughable and terribly sad. I'm old enough to remember when San Diego policeman carried six shot revolvers that had to be manually reloaded when all six shots were discharged. Military ordinance is for the military and not for public citizens. Other countries that have strong cultures of gun ownership have recognized this.
It is time to bring the horror to the American public. Perhaps they will wake up. Meanwhile, keep up the shaming.
Perhaps the most aggressive (and progressive) thing that can be done is to repeal the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" that was enacted back in 2005. I know the Sandy Hook parents were able to prevail in court but that took a lot of years. If the liability shield was repealed, law suits against manufactures of dangerous products would be far easier to mount. Is there any other manufactured product that enjoys liability protection when it is used in a dangerous way?
While this would be great to see, chances of it happening are close to zero. Of course it could be part of a public shaming project.
The 2nd Amendment was aimed at early America and gave citizens the right to form militias to defend against tyranny. It was never meant to give citizens the right to maintain private arsenals of every firearm imaginable. We were never meant to be a society armed to the teeth, but to be peaceful people with law enforcement agencies keeping us safe.
Yes. Also, about the AR-15: (1) As I've written a zillion times, its creator, Eugene Stoner, *never* intended it for civilian use; (2) Under the assault-weapons ban in the Clinton era, there really was a difference.
There was a similar argument in Connecticut after the Sandy Hook Massacre. The Governor at the time, Dannel Malloy, emphatically refused to allow any pictures to be taken in the classroom. I agreed at the time––in retrospect, would that have shut up Alex Jones and other deniers? Maybe but worse, those pictures could also fuel those people who are impressed by this aberrant behavior. Don't show the slaughter of kids. Aim those cameras at the daily shootings that kill teenagers and other people in low income areas.
"It's the guns"
Rather, it's the cold hard cash and always has been, always will be, in our world. Greed drives the corruption.
Until the peace protest comes, as it did in the 1960's by the brave college students in their hundreds of thousands. In protest of the kind of corruption being investigated today in the halls of Congress. The president resigned and everyone got arrested, then the Vietnam War stopped.
The goal, the cliche of world peace is only a cliche if we aren't in touch with our humanity: world peace is indeed our future, brothers and sisters.
This is what the students believed in the 60's and 70's when we marched nonviolently for peace. Let's all believe.
The 24/7 media are slaves to the almighty dollar. When our information is driven by the money, it will not help us find our way. Many great reporters but now being constrained by the paymasters.
Can I refer everyone to Texas songster Kinky Friedman's wonderful song, Sold American? It is in the grand tradition of righteous American hippy peace march protest songs that got us through the many days of social, nonviolent protest. This organized, peaceful, hopeful protest is what brought down the endlessly arrogant, thoroughly corrupt Nixon and all the cronies.
Peace will come, that is one of the protest chants that will come true. When humanity comes together as brothers and sisters. Right now, we have geniuses to follow who can see peace and brotherhood at last: MLK, Robert Kennedy, Greta Thunberg and the other leaders can see the promise of peace, could always see the dream of world peace.
"...this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. " Winston Churchill
"...this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. " Winston Churchill
The public is divided into camps that would help determine their response to even the most shocking images.
The Tucker Carlsons of the world already registered horror on January 6th about the insurrection, then found a way to rationalize it all away within a few days. They would manage something similar with even the most offensive and graphic images. They would certainly decry it as "political" or "uncivil" and might retreat into Alex Jones theories about "crisis actors" and other such denials.
The majority of Americans who already support some increased level of gun control would see grim confirmation of their concerns, and probably feel even more helpless in the face of determined inaction on the part of our elected officials.
There is a small, but important, percentage of voters who are uncertain how they feel about the issue. Some of these people would potentially be persuaded, or at least affected by exposure to graphic images. The fact that most voters support keeping abortion legal, but with some restrictions indicates that they have found both the pro-choice "coat hanger" images and the pro-life sonogram images to be persuasive. An analogous "keep guns legal but with restrictions" position would be a step forward from our current policies.
Thank you for sharing from the heart, great article. How to write or even laugh anytime soon, after the latest tragedy (and another new one, May 28, 1 killed 7 injured at outdoor festival shooting,Tulsa)
These are scenes of war: should those be shown to the general public to traumatize everyone even more, or maybe we should only show them to the people voting on the anti-AK bill. Viewers will have inescapable nightmares forever, ruining their lives.
The soldiers will tell us that PTSD comes from seeing similar scenes, such as the responders saw, in the school. You cannot get over it, because the utter inhumanity of being in war is so strange, so bizarre, so contrary to our idea of reality up until then. Our minds break down trying to process it.
Many have tried to fully explain the depths of human horror, writers such as Joseph Conrad and the writers of the movie, Apocalypse Now. In war, there is no humanity left, it is erased.
Those of us who have seen war, who have worked in refugee camps during war, see the loss of humanity that the soldiers see. That our fathers saw in WWII; the soldiers were just regular kids sent to the front lines to fight an inhuman enemy, the Nazis.
Now, partly because of the high body count of the innocent civilians, we should try something new:
An idea would be just to require everyone to bring in their AK now and register it. Only criminals would not want to do this.
These killings leave a huge body count with an effect on the economy, also on America's position as a safe haven. As if anyone needs a reason beyond the grieving parents and communities to do something about this interior army of insane killers being armed by gun shops.
A grace period of one month from registering your AK. After that, every effort should be made to register AK's and remove them from those who are incompetent.
But, sell no more AK's except to gun clubs to use at gun clubs. Control and register the ammunition. The gun lobby insists on use, but having the guns stay at the gun club is an idea proposed before.
Use the 40 billion dollar intelligence community to find out who has the AK's and address the public threat that is coming from this internal "army," a highly armed army of insane individuals plotting the destruction of as many people as possible in their rampages. Armed by gun shops.
"If not now, when? If not me, then who?"
Many of the websites dividing us and driving the narratives of the supremacist, racist movement are created in Iran, China and Russia. Let's let that sink in.
Thank you for your continuing analysis of What is wrong with Us. Every one of us is at risk, be safe everyone.
Neal Katyal Retweeted
New York Yankees
@Yankees
·
May 26
Every day, more than 110 Americans are killed with guns, and more than 200 are shot and injured.
I hesitated before disagreeing with the consensus forming here, but I respectfully do not believe it would be constructive to show the gory images of these desecrated young children. I will risk a bit of abstraction in explaining some elements of my reflection:
The examples presented by you and your readers were effective to some degree precisely because they were exceptional and tied to an evolving narrative. This was (and still is) particularly true of depictions of the impact of warfare on civilians in distant lands; for that matter, the image of the lynched Emmett Till in his coffin was one more eye-opening proof for many outside the Deep South that the practices that we were told were from a different time had endured.
In addition, the "realistic" depiction of violence has become commonplace in our digitally interconnected experience whether fictional or not... and now too often a strange hybrid of "journalism" and "storytelling". Part of this realism is a side-effect of technology (CGI, etc.) and the other is the product of an "authenticity imperative" whether when reporting the news or when depicting violence whether historically accurate and imagined. I frankly fear that public rendering of these images would quickly be entangled in the voluminous webs of interpretation and misinformation that would mute the impact before it could be effective.
For what it's worth, I also think this situation is one in which the force of statistics and comparison are powerful and determinate. One need only see Ted Cruz running away from a Sky-News reporter asking him why the US is the only country in the world with this problem because the gun culture is the obvious and only honest response. I would definitely continue to include the concrete example of school shootings by aggressively publishing the living images of these martyred children so that nobody can be allowed to forget their innocent victimhood (and that goes for any victims of racism or otherwise bigoted violence).
The final matter is to ask who would one expect to "change" based on a public viewing of these unbearable images? You and I and your readers might be more motivated to incite change via political activism, but I'm equally certain the photographic renderings of aborted fetuses was effective when motivating the minority of our fellow citizens who would deny women *any* right to that fundamental option. Do we want to emulate that example? On the other hand, the "usual suspects" , whether at the top of the pyramid or in the amorphous "base", would simply refuse to see them for what they are: proof of the ultimately indescribable destructiveness of these weapons of war.
I should add that my initial reaction to your proposition was a visceral "No", so perhaps I am just grasping for a rationalization. Your collective response might be "what then should we do?" and rightly so, but the horrific spectacle that publishing these images without affecting anything leads me to ask about that likely possibility.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/uvalde-shooting-photos.html
This guest opinion writer on the New York Times makes the argument far more cogently than my meager effort, and she goes one step further: even if we deem it ultimately unacceptable to show these images to the general public, those who will decide whether additional regulations on the "bearing" of certain types of firearms and their accessories are necessary should be required to view these images. The entire Congress comes first to mind, of course, but I would include all federal judges as well as the members of the Supreme Court.
I was reminded of suggestions that we should be wary of the day when there are no more living survivors of the Holocaust or of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For what it is worth, I have often considered those killed at Nagasaki as the first martyrs of the Cold War because that attack was far less justifiable than the first one. It would be wonderful, if still tragically sad, if future citizens of our democratic republic could remember the victims of Buffalo *and* Uvalde as the pivotal catalysts for change towards a more nuanced and humane understanding of the Second Amendment of our Constitution.
re: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/
This is my last word on this subject in this thread. I went looking for the best publicly available account of the damage that the AR-15 does to the human body to preclude the necessity of publishing the images of innocent victims widely. I had seen the segment on 60 Minutes that you have referenced, but I was looking for words that evoke the image of the damage done to a living person.
This short article from WIRED in 2016 does it for me.
That said, I found many articles and YouTube videos by defenders of the argument that the AR-15 is no different than any other weapon. Some showed the damage done to animal carcasses, and others made dubious quantitative arguments why the AR-15 is not a "high-powered" rifle. Many sarcastically suggest that ordinary "civilians" do not know the different between things like "full-auto" and "semi-auto".
So the question remains: if images of these innocent young victims were widely available to the public, what groups of citizens might change their opinions of the AR-15 and similar weapons such that the path to a substantive and durable shift in the "gun culture" debate might be forthcoming?
I still doubt that would result, but I also believe fervently that publishing these images should *not* be necessary.
This suggestion may already have been made, but it works for me: pixilate the children's faces, but otherwise publish the images.
A big dilemma. I am swayed by the piece and comments toward favoring showing some photos. Maybe there is also a middle way. I will never forget the image I saw in the Times years ago of a bike lying on the pavement of a Chicago street. It had belonged to a murdered boy.
I was 14 when General Loan shot that Viet Cong man. With my friend George, we wrote our first letter to a politician (President Johnson), we were so appalled. I'm glad that photo was published. (It was natural for me to write to the pres, as my parents did that fairly frequently.)
I also have vivid memories of the frontal photo of Kim Phuc, naked and burning, and I'm glad to hear she got good care.
Mamie Till was a very brave person.
I don't know where you draw the line on photos in the media. But I'm down with the two from Vietnam.
Iconic photos and video can change things.
Thank you. Yes, I remember those Vietnam era photos very clearly.
I agree with showing the bodies of Uvalde. My only qualifier is that for things like shootings, the media should wait until they have something that's genuinely going to do the job, and avoid having photos of corpses from any shooting. You need to show the gore from those AR-15 bullets to do the job. To show less, and frequently, will only get people used to something that they shouldn't become used to.
I whole heartly agree. We must be forced to see the result of our political class's handiwork and hyprocrisy.
Thank you. I understand and mainly agree. My main hesitation at the moment is that the *families* of little children shot to death seem not to have felt as Mamie Till did. As I've mentioned elsewhere, two of our grandchildren are little elementary-school kids at a public school in Texas. I cannot bring myself to imagine having to make similar decisions — about them. But, I agree, something has to happen to have people confront the consequences.
We almost moved to Littleton Colorado the year before Columbine but my husband decided to turn down that job offer. My daughter was a senior when that atrocity happened and would have gone there. After that we actually enacted an assault weapons ban when Clinton was president. According to Politifact Biden was right when he said shootings tripled after Bush allowed that ban to expire.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/25/joe-biden/joe-biden-said-mass-shootings-tripled-when-assault/
It made me furious that the media dismissed by saying it had not being proven very effective or that it was too weak to be effective. Most didn’t mention the possibility of strengthening the law.
The assault-weapon ban in the Clinton era *actually had an effect.* But it seems taboo to say that now.
The videos of George Floyd changed how Americans see police brutality. Without them, it's possible that Derek Chauvin and the other cops would have never been charged.
But I also think that by indiscriminately showing pictures and videos of such horrors, we run the risk of desensitizing people even as we hope to wake them up.
Lately I've been thinking that perhaps if people saw what a child looks like after they've been shot by an assault rifle, none of these pro-gun GOP scum would still be holding political office.
Agree entirely about the George Floyd video. Everything about the case would have been different without that.
I have never been able to get the picture of the firefighter carrying a dead baby girl out of the wreckage of the Oklahoma City federal building.
I had forgotten about that, until now ...
Like others on this thread, I also hope that photos of these atrocities will be shared. I believe, however, that won't happen until a grieving parent shares a photo of his or her murdered child.
Agree on both points.
With almost 90% of this country in favor of some kind of gun reform and zero % of Senate republicans in favor of even holding a vote it is time to bring out the most horrific images possible. They need to be posted and televised. They need to be disturbing. They need to be seen. All 90% need to be horrified and all 90% need to recognize that being horrified is just not enough.
I understand. And I wonder what will make a difference. I don't know what will ever be a tipping point.
Oh so powerful commentary, Jim, I feel shattered just reading the series of horrific events. Yes, I think the carnage should be shown -- to show the truth to the Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnells out there of what they permit to become a part of the American reality.
Thank you, Tom. Sigh.
Thanks for this post. I've been thinking long and hard about this exact issue and how a response ought to be framed. I do agree that showing the carnage is appropriate. The other is the public shaming of all those politicians who state 'our prayers are with the families.' My response to this fake piety, "when will you stop enabling the killing of innocent children?"
The 2nd Amendment was written in a very different time and place. To state that it allows individuals to possess weapons of mass destruction is both laughable and terribly sad. I'm old enough to remember when San Diego policeman carried six shot revolvers that had to be manually reloaded when all six shots were discharged. Military ordinance is for the military and not for public citizens. Other countries that have strong cultures of gun ownership have recognized this.
It is time to bring the horror to the American public. Perhaps they will wake up. Meanwhile, keep up the shaming.
Thank you. In principle I agree. And I am trying to think through all the "in practice" implications of what we actually do next.
Perhaps the most aggressive (and progressive) thing that can be done is to repeal the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" that was enacted back in 2005. I know the Sandy Hook parents were able to prevail in court but that took a lot of years. If the liability shield was repealed, law suits against manufactures of dangerous products would be far easier to mount. Is there any other manufactured product that enjoys liability protection when it is used in a dangerous way?
While this would be great to see, chances of it happening are close to zero. Of course it could be part of a public shaming project.
The 2nd Amendment was aimed at early America and gave citizens the right to form militias to defend against tyranny. It was never meant to give citizens the right to maintain private arsenals of every firearm imaginable. We were never meant to be a society armed to the teeth, but to be peaceful people with law enforcement agencies keeping us safe.
Yes. Also, about the AR-15: (1) As I've written a zillion times, its creator, Eugene Stoner, *never* intended it for civilian use; (2) Under the assault-weapons ban in the Clinton era, there really was a difference.
There was a similar argument in Connecticut after the Sandy Hook Massacre. The Governor at the time, Dannel Malloy, emphatically refused to allow any pictures to be taken in the classroom. I agreed at the time––in retrospect, would that have shut up Alex Jones and other deniers? Maybe but worse, those pictures could also fuel those people who are impressed by this aberrant behavior. Don't show the slaughter of kids. Aim those cameras at the daily shootings that kill teenagers and other people in low income areas.
Thanks. Yes, I have thought about the CT comparison comparison. I don't know the answer but will try to work through it here.
But we need to respect the parents’ wishes, too. I would think some of them would want us to see.
Why in low income areas? What makes that permissible?
Thank you.