The debate

Circular logic in politics, 1891.

The official response was a swift and startling display of bipartisanship. Perhaps because the shooting personally affected them, the president and the party leaders quickly followed the well worn path of “thoughts and prayers” and “we may have our differences.” And the game went on.

A more influential reaction came from congressional representatives themselves. Some were present on the field, and all are part of the organization on which the shooter focused his anger and which he tried to change through violence. Many of the immediate reactions focused on guns in America.

• Alabama Republican Mo Brooks, who was at the field during the shooting, said that it did not change his view of the Second Amendment.

  “[As] with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people. And what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly. But we’re not going to get rid of freedom of speech because some people say some really ugly things  that hurt other people’s feelings.”

• New York Republican Chris Collins promised that his gun is “going to be in my pocket from this day forward.”
• Republican Paul Mitchell and Democrat Val Demings were together for a previously scheduled joint interview and contested the two traditional stances on gun violence.
  • Both established their qualifications to speak on the subject
    • Collins’ son is a police officer.
    • Demings was a police chief and represents the Orlando district where the Pulse nightclub shooting occurred.
  • Mitchell held that despite the District’s strong gun control laws, “the reality is the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
  • Demings responded that she is dedicated “to keep[ing] guns out of the hands of bad people who shouldn’t have them.”
  • In the end, they both agree that there are some people who should not have guns, and (Mitchell) “Even the debate won’t solve what happened today. It won’t solve what happened in Orlando. The reality is is we have to have that debate.”

These are the victims of the crime, and these are their immediate reactions to being the targets of violence. Rather than question the rationale behind the statements (who’s rationality could be held to account in the aftermath of violence?), let’s try to apply objectivity. Without applying weight to the arguments, yet, here are some points of agreement and positions of contention from those most closely affected.

• There is a gun debate that needs to be had.
  • The right holds that the solution is more guns and fewer restrictions, a redistribution of the gun supply.
  • The left holds that the solution is fewer guns and more restrictions, a reduction of the total size of the gun supply.
  • Both hold that there are some people who should not have guns.
  • Both use “good guy/bad guy” framing.
  • Neither believes that progress can be made in the current political climate.

The story quickly started to shift as we began to learn more about the gunman: white, male, history of violence, history of strong anti-repubican views & Bernie supporter, asked if the players on the field were Republicans. Bernie responded swiftly, condemning the attack, but the reality of political incitement to violence has been constant theme of late, in particular regarding Trump’s rallies, his “second amendment people” statement, and the Guardian reporter attack. Smelling blood, the keepers of the right’s rage machine got hard to work and shifted the debate.

• Representative Rodney Davis, who was at the field, opened the door: “This could be the first political rhetorical terrorist attack, and that has to stop. … We can have our differences, but let’s not let it lead to such hate.”
• Then NRA weighed in…
  
  • The “violent rhetoric being pushed by the left-wing elitists amounts to political terrorism … [it] motivates unstable people to do … unspeakable things.”
  • In contrast to the NRA’s position after Democratic representative Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011, when they held that comment in the wake of tragedy “would be inappropriate.”
• And the pundits…
  • Gingrich on Fox News: “It’s part of a pattern” 
  • Rush Limbaugh: “An increasing intensity of hostility on the left.” The shooter is part of “the deranged based of the Democratic Party.”
  • The National Review’s David French : “a textbook example of lone-wolf progressive terrorism.”
  • On Shakespeare’s cautionary tale, Julius Caesar…

So while the victims of the crime started a discussion about guns, those who benefit from maintaining power structures rather than benefiting the public shifted the conversation.

Of our three facts, one was addressed and dismissed, while two were entirely lost in the mix:

• There were two mass shootings with fatalities on June 14.
• The shooting in Virginia was an act of terrorism.

National leaders have been largely silent on both counts. The FBI has been predictably cautious about calling this a terrorist act. 

Two additional killings this week, one in London and one here at home, show that the silence is an American quality. The UK, in stark contrast to the official US response, did not equivocate in reaction to this week’s attack on a Mosque, which left one victim dead. The government has already filed terrorism charges against the defendant, and the Prime Minister has called out Islamophobia as a form of extremism. Yet the same day, in Virginia, a young woman was killed walking home from her Mosque. There has been little notice, no recognition from the powers that be, and no statements of condemnation to label this act what it is.

Conclusion

Logical.

In the face of a terrible act of violence, we have ignored our instincts. Rhetoric has twisted the question, turning us away from the difficult discussion that must be had to improve our welfare. We know that the rights enshrined in the Constitution are not absolute; you cannot cry, “Fire!” in a crowded theater and then appeal to the first amendment. Yet we have been turned away from a similar discussion over the second amendment with absolutist statements about Good Guys with Guns vs. Bad Guys with Guns.

The logic of this stance is not self-evident. For example, the Cold War produced a similar situation with nuclear weapons; we called them MAD. No one (except maybe the President) would seriously argue in 2017 that Mutually Assured Destruction is an acceptable solution. Nevertheless, we apply a narrative subjectivity to the second amendment debate, imbuing Good Guys with Guns with the ability to make better, faster decisions with greater accuracy than their adversaries in a way we never would if our twenty-first century minutemen were packing Minuteman IIIs.

So this week, as with the health issues of tobacco and the reality of climate change, instead of focusing on the heart of the matter at hand, recognizing the subtitles and difficulties inherent in living together peacefully, we have let the discussion be led by those specifically employed to not understand the issue. 

George Brunner is an actor, New Yorker, and incisive lay-philosopher. In response to outrage directed at Shakespeare in the Park’s Trump-themed Julius Caesar, and the subsequent withdrawal of sponsorship, he captured the moment perfectly:  “If the banks and the airlines think that the administration will punish them, they will withdraw their support. Otherwise they will be generous patrons of the arts. We live in a bullshit world.” 

While it would seem that all we can do is to throw up our hands and add lying politicians to the list right after death and taxes, we need to remember that words have power. The rhetoric of violence does promote and permit violence. We do need to take statements and the context in which they are made seriously. We do need to know the difference between the depiction of violence as refutation of violence and the incitement of the mob. We do need to know the difference between criticism and attack.