Shooting at elephants

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Shooting at elephants

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #70041
    wv
    Participant

    I’m surprised this doesn’t happen a lot more often. I’ve been surprised about that for a long time now. Not just Reps. I’m surprised more angry-unhinged citizens aren’t shooting Dems as well.

    I suspect this kind of thing is going to be more common in the future.
    Just a hunch.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexandria-shooting-multiple-victims-reported/

    #70058
    zn
    Moderator

    #70071
    Zooey
    Participant

    I’m surprised this doesn’t happen a lot more often. I’ve been surprised about that for a long time now. Not just Reps. I’m surprised more angry-unhinged citizens aren’t shooting Dems as well.

    I suspect this kind of thing is going to be more common in the future.
    Just a hunch.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexandria-shooting-multiple-victims-reported/

    My thought, too. This is going to become more common.

    #70072
    Zooey
    Participant

    Newt Gingrich is one of the Leading Assholes in the increasing divisiveness we are suffering from in our country right now. The government is dominated by completely shameless hypocrites who say and do the most appalling things, and blame others for it. And I don’t see how we pull back from this civil divide when hot-headed rhetoric is now fully ingrained in media marketplace, making millionaires and celebrities out of people who feed the fires of resentment.

    #70099
    wv
    Participant

    Newt Gingrich is one of the Leading Assholes in the increasing divisiveness we are suffering from in our country right now. The government is dominated by completely shameless hypocrites who say and do the most appalling things, and blame others for it. And I don’t see how we pull back from this civil divide when hot-headed rhetoric is now fully ingrained in media marketplace, making millionaires and celebrities out of people who feed the fires of resentment.

    ==============

    Well in one way yes, i agree about Newt. On the other hand i think about Hillary/Bill/Obama and what they stand for (neoliberalism) and…..ya know. Is Newt really that much worse? We could argue about it but You know my schtick by now 🙂

    Assange called Trump Gonnorhea, and Hillary Cholera. I’m not sure what disease Newt is. But he’s a disease.

    There’s Bernie and 99 diseases in the Senate. I guess I’m just not into pointing out that the Reps are ‘worse’ diseases than the Dem diseases. I just cant do it anymore. Its a plague. I’m more interested in the general broad fact of…the plague.

    w
    v

    #70102
    zn
    Moderator

    Is Newt really that much worse?

    There’s no question that the answer is yes.

    #70104
    zn
    Moderator

    The Link Between Domestic Violence and Mass Shootings

    By Jane Mayer

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-link-between-domestic-violence-and-mass-shootings-james-hodgkinson-steve-scalise?mbid=nl__daily&CNDID=24038857&mbid=nl_TNY%20Template%20-%20With%20Photo%20(180)&CNDID=24038857&spMailingID=11269714&spUserID=MTMzMTgyMzE4NzQzS0&spJobID=1181325948&spReportId=MTE4MTMyNTk0OAS2

    At a press conference, the F.B.I. agent Tim Slater discusses James Hodgkinson, who shot Congressman Steve Scalise and four others. Like many mass shooters, Hodgkinson had a history of domestic abuse.Photograph by Alex Brandon
    Within hours of the shooting of the House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise, and four others, one couldn’t help but feel tired watching the predictable brief moment of political unity. The country has been through enough horrors to know that political adversaries will soon line up and take their battle stations on Twitter and talk shows as no solutions are found and no lessons are learned. They will blame each other’s political ideologies and rhetoric for the bloodshed. It won’t be long until the conspiracy theorists come along and throw doubt on whether the facts are the facts, or something more sinister.
    No one wants to talk policy reform so soon, but there’s one that is glaringly necessary, and really ought not to be divisive. Wednesday’s shooter, James Hodgkinson, reportedly had a history of domestic violence. Yet he was able to legally obtain an assault rifle. These two facts are incompatible with public safety.
    The Daily Beast reported, on Wednesday:
    In 2006, he was arrested for domestic battery and discharge of a firearm after he stormed into a neighbor’s home where his teenage foster daughter was visiting with a friend. In a skirmish, he punched his foster daughter’s then 19-year-old friend Aimee Moreland “in the face with a closed fist,” according to a police report reviewed by The Daily Beast. When Moreland’s boyfriend walked outside of the residence where Moreland and Hodgkinson’s foster daughter were, he allegedly aimed a shotgun at the boyfriend and later fired one round. The Hodgkinsons later lost custody of that foster daughter.
    “[Hodgkinson] fired a couple of warning shots and then hit my boyfriend with the butt of the gun,” Moreland told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. Hodgkinson was also “observed throwing” his daughter “around the bedroom,” the police report said. After the girl broke free, Hodgkinson followed and “started hitting her arms, pulling her hair, and started grabbing her off the bed.”
    In this, Hodgkinson fits a pattern. As Rebecca Traister has written, for New York magazine, “what perpetrators of terrorist attacks turn out to often have in common more than any particular religion or ideology, are histories of domestic violence.” Traister cites Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who drove a truck through a Bastille Day crowd in Nice, last summer, and Omar Mateen, the Pulse night-club shooter. She also cites Robert Lewis Dear, who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, in 2015. According to Traister, “two of his three ex-wives reportedly accused him of domestic abuse, and he had been arrested in 1992 for rape and sexual violence.”
    Last year, Amanda Taub also wrote powerfully on this issue in the Times. “Cedric Ford shot 17 people at his Kansas workplace, killing three, only 90 minutes after being served with a restraining order sought by his ex-girlfriend, who said he had abused her,” Taub wrote. “And Man Haron Monis, who holed up with hostages for 17 hours in a cafe in Sydney, Australia, in 2014, an episode that left two people dead and four wounded, had terrorized his ex-wife. He had threatened to harm her if she left him, and was eventually charged with organizing her murder.”
    Obviously, not everyone accused of domestic violence becomes a mass shooter. But it’s clear that an alarming number of those who have been accused of domestic abuse pose serious and often a lethal threats, not just to their intimate partners but to society at large.
    The statistical correlation between domestic violence and mass shootings has also been documented. As the Times reported:
    When Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, analyzed F.B.I. data on mass shootings from 2009 to 2015, it found that 57 percent of the cases included a spouse, former spouse or other family member among the victims — and that 16 percent of the attackers had previously been charged with domestic violence.
    In the meantime, many domestic-violence suspects, like Hodgkinson, are arrested only to have the charges dropped later, which leaves them armed and dangerous. The National Rifle Association and its allies have successfully argued that a mere arrest on domestic-violence charges—such as Hodgkinson had—is not sufficient reason to deprive a citizen of his right to bear arms.
    After the Sandy Hook massacre, in 2012, an overwhelming majority of Americans favored tighter gun control, including laws that would require background checks for gun purchasers to be extended to sales at private gun shows. Yet a bill proposing that very measure failed to make it through Congress. And as David Cole, then a law professor and now the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote last year, in the New York Review of Books, the clout of the gun lobby is even greater at the local and state level, where, after Sandy Hook, eleven states tightened their gun-control laws but some two dozen made them even looser. The N.R.A., with its yearly budget of three hundred million dollars, has mastered the dark art of substituting money for popular will. By spending strategically and threatening to “primary” any office-holder who deviates from its agenda, it has managed to impose an extremist agenda that seems almost unchallengeable. America now has something like eighty-eight guns per hundred citizens—the highest concentration in the world—yet, inevitably, there will be calls for more tomorrow.

    #70213
    Zooey
    Participant

    Is Newt really that much worse?

    There’s no question that the answer is yes.

    From E.J Dionne today: (It’s not much, but it’s related).

    The destruction of political norms started decades ago. Here’s how it happened.

    By E.J. Dionne Jr. Opinion writer June 18 at 7:08 PM

    Let it be said that for one lovely moment, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi responded exactly as those in authority should to a shocking assault on human lives and our political system. After last Wednesday’s shooting on a baseball field, both spoke in a spirit of thoughtful solidarity and genuinely mutual concern. Kudos to them.

    Unfortunately, so much else that has been said over the past few days is — I will use a family-oriented term — balderdash. We are not, alas, about to enter some new age of civility because of this terrible episode. And our divisions are not just a matter of our failing to speak nicely of and to each other, even though politeness is an underrated virtue these days.

    The harsh feelings in our politics arise from a long process — the steady destruction of the norms of partisan competition that began more than a quarter-century ago. Well before President Trump took political invective to a new level, Newt Gingrich was pushing his side to extreme forms of aggressiveness. Journalist John M. Barry cited an emblematic 1978 speech Gingrich gave to a group of College Republicans in which he warned them off “Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire, but are lousy in politics.”

    “You’re fighting a war,” the future House speaker said. “It is a war for power. . . . Don’t try to educate them. That is not your job. . . . What’s the primary purpose of a political leader? . . . To build a majority.”

    Gingrich won his majority in 1994, but the cost was high. This is not to say that Democrats were pacifists. But I’d argue that the critical shift happened on the Republican side. The turning point came when President George H.W. Bush was punished by members of his own party, including Gingrich, for agreeing with Democrats on the need for a tax increase in 1990. It was a watershed for the GOP. Republicans would never again repeat what they saw as the elder Bush’s “mistake.”

    Political scientists Steven Webster and Alan Abramowitz, pioneers in identifying “negative partisanship” (i.e., preferences driven primarily by intense dislike of the other side), have shown that our deepening differences are driven by disagreements on policy. It goes beyond mere name-calling.

    Look at the issue of gun violence. When even mild measures such as background checks are cast as draconian impositions on the right to bear arms, we simply cannot have a rational back-and-forth on practical steps to make events such as last Wednesday’s a little less likely.

    Or take health care. Say what you will about Obamacare, but it really did try to draw on conservative and Republican ideas (health insurance exchanges, subsidies for private insurance, tax credits and the like). As Ezra Klein wrote recently on Vox, the lesson of the repeal effort (now being carried out in secrecy in the Senate) is that “including private insurers and conservative ideas in a health reform plan doesn’t offer a scintilla of political protection, much less Republican support.” Civility is a lot harder to maintain when you try to give the other side its due and get nothing in return. And it only aggravates already existing policy differences when one side regularly moves the goal posts.

    Yes, I am offering a view of our problem from a progressive perspective. For what it’s worth, I have over the years written with great respect for the conservative tradition and conservative thinkers from Robert Nisbet to Yuval Levin. Conservatism has never been for me some demonic ideology, and I am happy to take issue with those who say otherwise.

    But I would ask my friends on the right to consider that ever since Bush 41 agreed to that tax increase, conservatives and Republicans in large numbers have shied away from any deal-making with liberals. They have chosen instead to paint us as advocates of dangerous forms of statism. This has nothing to do with what we actually believe in or propose. Every gun measure is decried as confiscation. Every tax increase is described as oppressive. This simply shuts down dialogue before it can even start.

    John F. Kennedy once spoke of how “a beachhead of cooperation” might “push back the jungle of suspicion.” So let us begin with that Ryan-Pelosi moment. We can at least agree that political violence is unacceptable and that each side should avoid blaming the other for the deranged people in their ranks who act otherwise. Things have gotten so intractable that even this would be progress.

    Read more from E.J. Dionne’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.