There are many things we could learn from the horrific shooting in Tucson one year ago today. For E.J. Montini, it seems all that resonated with him was “Never let a tragedy go to waste”
He should learn that sometimes simple is better, as Congressman Jeff Flake showed us with this statement:
On the one-year anniversary of the Tucson shooting, we mourn those who were lost, continue to pray for those who were wounded, and take solace in the fact that out of tragedy, our spirit as a community, a state, and a nation has been made stronger.
Montini might have learned not to condemn as complicit individuals who had no connection to the event what-so-ever. He chooses instead to refocus the blame on political ads, which is exactly the muddy thinking that lead to Sarah Palin being demonized as making Gabriel Giffords a target. Instead, despite the preponderance of evidence that has come forward to show Jared Loughner was neither politically motivated nor aware of Palin’s “target map”, Montini chooses to stick with the meme that fits his political agenda. An agenda that finds any words of disagreement from the Right to be “inflamatory”, and the most vile and threatening words & images from the Left to simply represent “impassioned speech”
He might have learned that in the name of civil rights, we have failed the mentally disturbed and those who may eventually fall victim to them. Instead he dismisses Loughner’s illness and points instead to the “ugly discourse over immigration”, something that had no bearing on the shooter or his life.
He might have learned that public officials, particularly those who try to have an open communion with their constituency, would be well served by some sort of personal protection*.
He might have learned that when law enforcement is tasked with being the only line of defense, a Sheriff who fails to act despite repeated warnings & inquiries needs to be removed from his post. Particularly when the sherrif then proceeds to also blame rhetoric and newly minted laws, despite knowing that his office had willfully dropped the ball on stopping Loughner BEFORE he took 6 lives and altered so many more.
He might have learned that, when a person has shown an undue & uncomfortable fascination with another human (whether ‘famous’ or not), we do them no favors by brushing it off. Better Gifford’s staff had reacted to his letters & videos rather than believe him to be harmless.
Gabriel Giffords was shot for the same reason Rebecca Schaeffer was shot, some screwed up kid from Tucson got fixated on her.
In Giffords’ case, though the fixation was not romantic, the trigger was the same. He reacted violently when she did not respond as he hoped to his perceived relationship with her. He felt she disrespected him and made her pay.
* There was a mention after this shooting that Pamela Gorman, at that time a Phoenix area politician who made national news with a volunteer produced YouTube video showing her firing a plethora of firearms, would not likely have been the victim of such an act. Though there is no doubt a working knowledge of firearms goes a long way to protecting life in the event of threat, sometimes there is no time to act.
From the accounts I heard at the time, Lougher approached Giffords with the gun under his coat. When he was in very close proximity, he pulled it out and fired, first at her head, then at the rest of the crowd. When he ran out of bullets and attempted to reload, he was tackled and subdued. Had that exact scenario played out at a Gorman event, neither she not her constituents would have had time to act prior to that first shot.
What would surely have been different is what happened next, as her crowd would more likely be armed – and more likely practiced with their weapons. No one is suggesting a bunch of folks would have, or should have, started firing at Loughner immediately. That sort of reaction might have made an already chaotic situation even worse. However, responsible gun owners who carry for self-defense practice scenarios that require an intelligent assessment of the environment – for instance, in the midst of a crowd.
What likely would have been different is the ability of an armed man to get through the crowd and close to the candidate. A group of 2nd Amendment enthusiasts would also be more likely to be aware of their surroundings, more likely to be alert for threats, more likely to notice a gun, and more likely to be willing to act to stop someone before the day turns deadly.
{Still need to find some links for the facts in this post, if you have ‘em handy, drop them in the comments}
UPDATE: Warner Todd Huston takes NPR to task for the same offense: Falsely Blaming Giffords’ Shooting on Uncivil Political Rhetoric
Well, not so much against marriage in general – but strongly against government’s involvement in it. Proponents of same-sex marriage claim that all they want is the same endorsement from the state that opposite sex couples get. Perhaps they should consider how negative that impact can be.
By allowing the “State” to determine the rules of marriage, you also grant them control of divorce. By allowing the “State” to determine the rules of divorce, you are guaranteeing that profit, power & control will take precedence over common sense and expediency…and decency.
So called Family Courts have become instead anti-Family courts. A divorce proceeding can be brought by anyone (in a majority of cases, the wife) for any reason (or no reason at all). Divorces are always granted, there is no chance of contesting the action anymore. “No Fault” has increased the incidence of divorce exponentially. The unwitting victim, who may have been blindsided by the action, is then at the mercy of a court system with very few checks OR balances.
Many a man has had his children ripped away from him, had his income garnished, thrown out of his home, even been thrown in jail. Is there any other court system in the U.S. where a person can have everything taken from them without ever even having a wrong alleged?
Should a woman desire to inflict even greater pain and hardship on her former mate, she need only claim abuse; of her children, of herself, of the most heinous kind. Should the father have the resources to fight such allegations, he may eventually clear his name – but there is NO penalty to the woman for making such claims. The big winner is a court system that has collected outrageous fees requiring an innocent man to prove his innocence against unsupported charges brought by a woman with literally nothing to lose by smearing her husband. Too often anger and greed lead these women to ignore the pain they inflict on their children and a man they once at least claimed to love, and the anti-family court system rewards them for it.
We are at a point where the reasons for matrimony and procreation being sponsored by the state have evaporated. Women no longer need to be protected by the corrupt and bloated bureaucracy, men are no longer the sole bread-winners, both parents should be given equal consideration in custody arrangements.
I have written extensively in the past about the scourge of paternity fraud, a problem exacerbated by the circus that we refer to as “Family Court”. No support agreement should ever be entered into without a paternity test – or an informed decision by the father to waive such proof. The court should not be bankrupting men to pay for children that aren’t theirs, born to women they may not have even met.
I have written about the need for any couple considering marriage to execute a pre-nuptial agreement. Other than enforcing that or a standard nuptial contract, the government should NOT be involved when a couple decides to enter Holy matrimony.
We don’t need a Constitutional amendment to “protect” traditional marriage, we need only to remove the government and their profit motive from the equation altogether. If churches want to marry a couple of consenting adults, let them – but don’t expect or require consent from the state. If a couple of consenting adults want to enter into a civil contract of commitment, let them – but don’t expect or require consent from the state.
In short, the state should no longer participate in the forming or dissolution of any marital union in any of its forms. I’m sure the divorce lawyers can find some other specialty that will require their special skill-set.
Phoenix, AZ
