Tucson shooting not an issue of gun rights
Owned and published by UMHB, The Bells is a biweekly publication. This content was previously published in print on the Opinions page. Opinions expressed in this section do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff or the university.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Cliche? Yes. But in the recent mass shooting in Tucson, this statement proves true once again.
At a meet and greet Jan. 8 outside a local supermarket, suspected shooter, 22-year-old Jared Loughner, allegedly opened fire, shooting Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head.
He didn’t stop there. He killed six people including U.S. District Judge John Roll and one of Giffords’ aides, Gabriel Zimmerman. Thirteen others were wounded.
Giffords survived but what made the shooting more tragic was the death of 9-year-old Christina Green, a girl ironically born on Sept. 11, 2001.
As with all catastrophes, once the initial shock wore off, people started pointing fingers.
Where should the blame be placed? Should it be with gun laws? Or maybe political rhetoric? The mental health system?
A week after the shooting, the Crossroads of the West held a gun show. Some might question as to why this would still take place and the group even considered canceling the event, but the event was about gun rights — not gunning down people.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin decided to step in the arena when her use of gun metaphors and even a map that used cross-hairs to target 20 Democratic districts, including Giffords’, was brought into question after the shooting. Palin responded to the attacks in a Facebook video using the term “blood libel.”
One would think her publicist would have wanted her to keep a low profile on the issue considering the situation.
Her statement, however, was apparently a rebuttal to the attempts to link her and other Conservatives to the incident in Arizona. She countered back on Fox’s Sean Hannity show, however, stating that blood libel refers to being “falsely accused of having blood on their hands.”
Her word choice caught her in the hot seat with some Jewish groups, too. They strongly protested the term, which historically was used to accuse Jews of using blood of Christians in religious rituals.
Undoubtedly, Palin was not advocating the shooting or condoning it in any way, but her unusual way of wording things caught her in an awkward moment once again. Maybe she should just stick to reality shows.
As of now it’s uncertain whether any political motives were at fault here.
This leaves the mental health system to be questioned. People are crying out as to how a military reject could purchase a gun, which takes us right back to square one — gun control issues.
The American people could argue until they are blue in the face about why a man would gun down a senator, a judge, 13 others and a 9-year-old child. The truth is Loughner killed and injured innocent people — not the Second Amendment.