When the obviously disturbed John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan in 1981, pundits blamed guns for the tragedy; they didn’t blame an ideology, left or right.
In the New York Times, David Rosenbaum quickly dispatched with the theory that Hinckley harbored political motivations. Citing Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan B. Sirhan, Rosenbaum identified a line of assassins who “were deranged loners, social misfits apparently acting alone.” Hinckley, Rosenbaum added, “fits that mold.”
Later, Rosenbaum enumerated three elements that “authorities agree contribute to assassinations”: lax security, a glorified presidency, and “availability of hand guns.” “Few doubt that it would be a deterrent to assassinations if handguns could be eliminated,” Rosenbaum argued.
In the Washington Post, Bill Prochnau and Art Harris picked up on a similar theme: a culture of violence in America. “The acts of violence were becoming so regular, so ingrained, so much a part of American life that the latest shootings — even with a president involved — left many Americans almost immobilized during the long day of televised irrationality when Reagan was shot,” they wrote. Further in the piece, they quoted former president Gerald Ford who lamented it was “impossible to protect presidents against attacks by ‘loners, kooks, screwballs, whatever you want to call them.’”
Years later, Sarah Brady, wife of press secretary Jim Brady, who was wounded in the assassination attempt, would take up the cause of gun control. But in the immediate aftermath, she conspicuously declined to ascribe ideological motives to her husband’s attacker. “I don’t know much about him, I haven’t read much about him, and I just don’t even want to think about him,” she told the Washington Post.
Indeed, gun control was the only blatantly political battle that flared then. As Steve Hayward notes in The Age of Reagan: “Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) took to the Senate floor to proclaim that America was a ‘sick society,’ and Ted Kennedy called for more gun control; Pat Moynihan noted the irony that Reagan would instantly veto any new gun control law that Congress might pass.”
But Hinckley was never used as a tool against an ideology. In fact, he was often described as a loner, and it was left at that.
When it comes to Jared Loughner, some on today’s Left don’t have the decency to do the same.
When a lunatic opened fire on a Long Island Railroad train because he hated white people, that too wasn't because of left-wing rhetoric about race, but because our gun control laws weren't strict enough. A silly wife of one of the victims even got elected to congress on her vow to fight the spread of inanimate objects that shoot bullets.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember SNL's send up of Hinckley's arrest and the network coverage of it? John David Stutts: The Man Who Shot Buckwheat. Hopefully they don't go there again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe blatant lies concerning Oswald and Sirhan are staggering. Both of them shot their victims strictly because of ideology. They weren't 'nut jobs' they were the extreme end of a radical cause.
And both of them are followers of the pet causes of the American Democratic Party today.
As a matter of fact if someone of this ideological bent shot a Repub there might be a MSM blackout.
By the way, what happened to the quote that Giffords vote against Pelosi for Speaker was the last straw for him? Did they hustle that guy away?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI heard a call for gun control or at least the issue was raised. But pro gun rights have pretty much won the argument that it is people who kill people and not to demonize a tool.
After all people die from cars and even deliberately at times and we don't blame the car.
The regrettable deaths are simply the price of a free society since we can not lock up people before a crime is committed. There are a lot of deranged people. Most multiple shootings are the glorious suicide of a deranged person. The VT shooting is a more heinouse example. At least in this case there was a CCW person who responded and held the shooter down, However he never felt the need to pull his own weapon so there was no confusion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore gun control will only lead to more of these attacks, not less.
Criminals don't care that they are breaking more laws, but that it disarms the law abiding. Making it easier to do an attack because no one can shoot back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTed Kennedy called for more gun control
Well, except for his staff, in which he interceded when one of his people was arrested for illegally bringing a pistol into the Rayburn Office Building.
Not a partisan issue - remember Nancy Reagan had a "tiny little gun" she brought from California to keep in the White House (you know, because a few hundred armed guards aren't enough - but a 70 year old woman with a .25 automatic will make all the difference)? No need to investigate, it's only a felony.
Not a racial issue - remember Carl Rowan, the black columnist? Decided to punish a white kid using his swimming pool by shooting him. "But it's OK - my son the F.B.I. agent gave it to me".
It's a hypocrite issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"More gun control will only lead to more of these attacks, not less."
Well, of course. But then, the left is deeply invested in this idea that conservative rhetoric is dangerous in large measure because of the right's fondness for (legal) gun ownership. Conservatives = gun nuts. The great unspoken truth, however, is that this presumption of violence willfully overlooks where the overwhelming majority of violent gun crime takes place - left-wing environs. If anything it is we who should be routinely suggesting that their constituents who have an exhibited predisposition to violence are inflamed by their overheated rhetoric. It would still be cynical, but it would at least be more logical.
The left not only argues from cartoonish notions, but their cartoons are built on yet more cartoons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a pretty bad misquote of what David Rosenbaum actually said. The full quote reads: "But Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan B. Sirhan, Arthur H. Bremer, Lynette (Squeaky) Fromme and Sara Jane Moore - those who killed or tried to kill politicians - were deranged loners, social misfits apparently acting alone. From what we know now, John Hinckley Jr., who has been accused of shooting President Reagan, fits that mold." (accessed through proquest) The key part that was left out was Rosenbaum's assertion that "from what we know now" Hinckley was a lone nut. The article itself was written on April 5, a full six days after the shooting. By this time, it would seem reasonable to assume, enough information about Hinckley and his state of mind would be out for Rosenbaum to make this assertion based upon facts rather than any political biases. So the fact that he did not blame political ideology is not significant because of the time elapsed between the event and his article. By that time he would be aware that Hinckley was simply a Jodie Foster obsessed nut. My larger point is that until Loughner is interrogated, no one really has any idea of why he did what he did. As stimulating as it may be to attempt to divine his mental state from posted videos or his political ideology from a list of books, such speculations should not be taken as serious discourse. I think it's very unfortunate that the instantaneous nature of the internet requires quick reactions from people who may or may not regret their initial impressions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSausage King...you should go read the comments to Krugman's column on the NYT website. It's absolutely amazing that these are probably extremely successful people, or at least people who attempt to be intellectual. To put it mildly they are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black...and they seem to be grossly unaware of actually what the conservative political views/ideology is and also unaware that much of what they posit as factual is in fact not. For instance, they operate under the belief that conservatives are run amock with violence when in the last election it was virtually wholly their side of the aisle where the actual violence came from. They also seem unaware that Eric Cantor's life was threatened...and they say that the Arizona killer was a Christian. It's like they don't have the ability to research anything. They are frightening people to say the least - many advocating free speech crackdowns, instituting the Fairness Doctrine to silence opponents (couching it in terms of moderating the debate...but never considering that it was used to keep the debate one sided...much like our present media), gun control, calling conservatives insane, etc.
Basically, all the stuff they accuse conservatives of wanting...is what the advocate. Talk about projection.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSirhan Sirhan had an explicitly political purpose in attacking RFK. As a Christian Arab immigrant, he was incensed at Kennedy's support for Israel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, the mainstream media attempt to correlate a madman's motive with a fringe right wing ideology. Sort of like the Greenpeace shooter, Squeeky Fromm, Lee Harvey, John Wilkes, and plenty of other far right wingers who go on rampages when they get what they want in the last election. Makes sense, doesn't it? But I will say that if anyone does happen to listen to a certain clown named Glenn Beck, and doesn't get the message that he consistently sends through the airwaves to prepare for the End Times, then they can't figure out his simplistic, sophmoric analogies, and shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun for being too stupid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbeFroman:
The list of States with the highest firearm death rates doesn't confirm your speculation that violent gun crime takes place in "left-wing environs":
1. Louisiana
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2. Mississippi
3. Alaska
4. Alabama
5. Nevada
6. Arkansas
7. Tennessee
8. New Mexico
9. Arizona
10. West Virginia
AbeFroman:
Ranking the States by violent crime rate also seems to disprove your thesis:
1. South Carolina
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2. Tennessee
3. Nevada
4. Florida
5. Louisiana
6. Alaska
7. Delaware
8. Maryland
9. New Mexico
10. Michigan
Clever, leaving off DC as the #1 ... because it's not a 'state', right? DC is left-wing and has the most gun violence, so the point stands.
The rest of your data is just outdated:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe larger point is that the Left had not created an atmosphere of violent imagery around Ronald Reagan and other Republicans. It's not clear how the Hinckley assault could possibly have been used for political purposes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The larger point is that the Left had not created an atmosphere of violent imagery around Ronald Reagan and other Republicans"
No, the larger point is that the right did not create an atmosphere of violent imagery around Gabby Giffords, or any other politician for that matter. You are merely pretending they did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith over 300 million registered/unregistered guns in the country, the question is not whether or not we will ever get rid of the guns, the question is who will have them - everyone who wants one, or just the outlaws.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirearm death rates by state? I could have sworn that I used the term violent gun crime. And I'm not altogether sure - or, maybe I am - why you choose to make an argument by state anyway. As though the presence of cities like New Orleans or Memphis refute my point any more than does the fact that proximity to care in high density areas (versus, say, Alaska) impacts upon the death rates of gunshot victims. Show me statistics which are actually meaningful - and more localized than by state - and I'll happily retract what I've written.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbe:
Your "logic" eludes me. Firearms deaths, violent crime -- all seem more prevalent in Red States. And AtheistConservative -- thanks for the link -- other than DC (which I'm glad to add) the list of States is about the same, just shuffled a bit.
Abe -- I'd say the onus is on you. Let's see some statistics that you would consider meaningful showing that violent gun crime gravitates to "left-wing environs".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen the Left wants to blame right-wing ideology for deaths, it is always one, or two, or a handful. Tragic, yes, but chicken feed compared with the deaths that left-wing ideology has caused. What's the tally now? 100 million or so?
But who's counting?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse