Loose cannons in the media are wrong to place blame for Tucson attack on anyone but the killer
by Chad D. Baus
Within minutes of learning of the tragic mass murder in Tuscon, Arizona last Saturday, the establishment media began shooting from the hip on who they thought was to blame. They knew nothing about the killer, but it was clear they were cocked and ready with a template that fit their jaded view of anyone who owns a gun.
Reporters were loaded for bear. Without even a shred of proof the delusional killer had seen Sarah Palin's election-related political comments, or had ever listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, they began shooting off at the mouth, saying that "incendiary" language from Palin, Limbaugh and members of the TEA Party was to blame for what had happened. They had decided to shoot first, and asked questions later.
The media drew a bead on Palin's use of crosshairs on an election map, which provided a "target list" denoting districts her political action commmittee sought to win back for Republicans in the November election. The media also took aim at Palin having once told her supporters, in response to critics who were pressuring her to back down, "Don't retreat - instead, RELOAD!"
The journalists kept firing away at Palin's use of these political metaphors. It was clear that these journalists, which Limbaugh has termed the "drive-by media," thought that destroying their enemies with this tragedy was going to be easier than shooting fish in a barrel. And so they continued, with guns blazing away. But they were shooting blind.
In fact, when he too asserted that political speech from the right was to blame for these events, Pima Co. (AZ) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was asked point blank by a FOX News' Megyn Kelly if he had any proof to back the allegations up. The sheriff, a Democrat, admitted he did not, then continued to give his opponents both barrels anyways.
Over the next few days, as more was learned about the mentally ill perpetrator, it became clear the media and Dupnik had gone off half-cocked, and that they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. There was no smoking gun that suggested a political motive. In fact, if anything, there was at least some evidence the madman was a leftist, which differs greatly from the original portrayal of him as having been TEA Party-inspired.
The press had their enemies in their sights, and had determined that laying the blame at their feet was worth a shot. But in the end, they misfired, and are now in the process of trying to redirect the focus on targeting America's gun laws.
The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, among other gun control extremist groups, were also on a hair trigger. Within hours of the attack, the Brady bunch had a message on their website calling for "sensible gun laws." This isn't the first time anti-gun groups in America have sought to turn tragedy into political capital. In the past, they've overshot, and it seems clear from comments made by legislators who have already proposed new gun control laws that they are a bit more gun shy this time, and by asking for more "moderate" changes are hoping to avoid shooting themselves in the foot yet again.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), however, seems unimpressed, and has already shot down the idea that additional gun control laws could have prevented this attack. Boehner, a 2010 Buckeye Firearms Association endorsee, has always been a straight shooter on the issue of gun rights.
After the successes achieved last November, knee-jerk gun control bills like the ones proposed by Reps. McCarthy (D-NY) and King (R-NY) are going to completely miss the mark in today's Congress. They're shooting blanks, and I think they know it.
To the gun banners who are reading this article: I know you may not like to hear this, but please, don't shoot the messenger.
----
In case you haven't figured it out by now, this article was intentionally written with as many gun-related sayings, phrases, metaphors and figures of speech as possible. I did it on purpose, to make a point. No one held a gun to my head.
The English language is replete with these sayings. They are used in every-day speech, not just in "incendiary" political speech. The use of phrases like these are so common that, in an article examining Palin's culpability in the Tucson attack, one British newspaper headline described it like this:
Other commentators have done a tremendous job of documenting incidents of politicians on both sides of the aisle using such language, including a 2008 comment from Barack Obama that "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
The simple truth is that the use of these phrases in every-day conversations, or in political commentary, isn't violent speech, it isn't hate speech, and it sure as hell isn't the reason why Jared Lee Loughner shot up a Safeway last Saturday.
Americans have a strong and proud history that includes the right to keep and bear arms. Some of the first shots in the Revolutionary War were fired after British soldiers began carrying out orders to confiscate colonists' arms. Firearms are used each and every day in this country for sport, for hunting, and for self-defense. It is completely natural that old phrases, such as "flash in the pan" and "lock, stock and barrel" (referring to a flint-lock rifle), and new phrases, such as "shoot me an email," would make their way into our everyday speech.
I am deeply saddened by the actions of this disturbed young man, and offer my prayers for the victims and their family members. But I am even more upset by the recent attacks on the Constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and bearing arms. I pray the majority of Americans will continue to see through these efforts, and will join efforts to defeat those who seek to rob us of our most cherished rights.
Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.
NOTE: If you'd like to read this article with all of the gun-related phrases highlighted, click here.
- 1998 reads
