Up host Chris Hayes and his guests talk with Dave Cullen, author of "Columbine," about the tragic shooting in Colorado.
The aftermath of the Colorado shooting
Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:47 PM EDT
Discuss this post
Leave a Comment:You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Chris Hayes' new book
Over the past decade, Americans watched in bafflement and rage as one institution after another – from Wall Street to Congress, the Catholic Church to corporate America, even Major League Baseball – imploded under the weight of corruption and incompetence. In the wake of the Fail Decade, Americans have historically low levels of trust in their institutions; the social contract between ordinary citizens and elites lies in tatters.
How did we get here? With "Twilight of the Elites," Christopher Hayes offers a radically novel answer. Since the 1960s, as the meritocracy elevated a more diverse group of men and women into power, they learned to embrace the accelerating inequality that had placed them near the very top. Their ascension heightened social distance and spawned a new American elite--one more prone to failure and corruption than any that came before it.
- Facebook: On Facebook
- Twitter: @upwithchris
- Twitter: @chrislhayes
That particular argument doesn't really work here, doc. The shooter wore ballistic armor, including helmet, leggings, neck and groin protection. His only vulnerable area was the face, and considering the darkness, the confusion, the smoke, the odds of hitting him in the face with a handgun is very, very slim. All more weapons would have contributed would have been more bullets flying around and very likely more dead people.
Sociopaths, especially this guy, are cowards. He armored up even though he knew there would be little resistance. If he thought he was walking into a room full of armed people he never would have done it.
I suspect he did think he was walking into a room where there might be armed people. Otherwise there would have been no reason for him to armor up as he did, or to use the gas or smoke cannisters.
There is little doubt, however, that this is a deeply insane person. It's going to be very interesting to see what's in the guy's apartment, after they get the bombs disarmed.
He armored up because he thought it looked good. It was a cowardly act that wouldn't have happened if retaliation was a certainty.
And the gas canisters, which were used to affect vision, make eyes burn, etc.? Cowardly, I'll agree, but I can't go along with the chance of retaliation hindering this guy or preventing him from carrying out what he did. In some cases that could be the case, but this guy planned too well for protection from any armed attacks coming from his victims.
1. Gun control advocates argue for progress. So, even if you can't completely eliminate the risk of guns getting into the hands of deranged human beings, reinstating the ban on automatic weapons would mitigate the outcome. Fewer deaths are worth fighting for.
2. The mental health system in this country is in a crisis. I agree with Dave Callen in that if the treatment of depression and frankly all other mental illnesses became a priority, rather than the stigmatized and under insured mess that it is, these extreme, horrifying events might be reduced by extension. These terrible tragedies often take place a the cross roads where a failing mental health system and the lack of gun control of any kind meet.
Chris -- once this has settled down, it would be fantastic if you could do a thorough segment on the state of the mental health system in this country. One person you could approach is Glenn Close, who does a lot of work through her organization bringchange2mind. (bringchange2mind.org) Some pyschiatrists, mental health case workers, and someone who can address the insurance situation. Lots of psychiatrists, who generally prescribe the medication but don't do the talk therapy any more (for years), simply don't take insurance. First, do no harm, but only if you can pay $350 an hour.
There is also an interesting conversation to be had about when and for how long people can be hospitalized without their own consent (see Va Tech killer and the background there). I am completely of two minds -- because there are terrifying historical downsides to being able to lock people of for extended periods on the basis of purported mental illness. On the other hand -- it sometimes seems that genuinely ill people can't get the care they need until in one way or the other it is too late.
And sometimes -- you just can't see it coming. That's true.
But we have to try.
Here's the headline this weekend in the Chicago Tribune. "3 dead and 18 wounded in attacks across the city". Just another typical weekend in the city.
Unfortunately gun control will not limit the damage that a person like this can cause. It would not have stopped the Oklahoma City bombers, they used a U-Haul and fertilizer. This guy was equally devious. There are many ways he could have dreamt up to cause such destruction.
We need to debate the gratuitous violence that has become ubiquitous in our society. Kids today are raised immersed in a virtual killing field with only positive feedback for death. Couple that with a new class of mind control drugs that "The abuse of methlyphenidate can lead to tolerance and severe psychological dependence. Psychotic episodes, violent and bizarre behavior have been reported.” and bingo, Columbine, Colorado, etc.
The answer may be in limiting adolescent exposure to extreme violence, like pornography, and the wholesale application of these psychotropic drugs.
If it's the standard wisdom that "gun control won't do any good, so why bother," perhaps we need to apply that same philosophy to all the rest of our laws that attempt to create a stable society. You know, things like traffic laws, laws against robbing banks, rape, mugging, stealing, etc. After all, those things also happen even if there are laws against them, don't they?
Where does it say that 'gun control' has to be absolute and completely derive you of owning a firearm? What's wrong with some common sense rules? Why do we need assault rifles and magazines that hold 100 rounds?
And, BTW, what's with the NRA scoring votes on the Disclose Act? What's going on with that, since it has to do with financial contributions, not gun control or 2nd Amendment rights in any way?
I will agree we need better public education. We've glamorized and romaticized guns until they've become a symbol of virility, of independence, of "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" No longer does gun ownership require personal responsibility. Now they just substitute for penis size, and a 'fix' for those who feel helpless, and totally out of having any control over a society that no longer gives a damn.
And this part alone might have more impact than even laws that attempt to regulate firearms in a small way.
After watching your show - my latest Facebook post: I saw a great point made about this Colorado shooting on a show. (Up, with Chris Hayes) The first question asked when there is an incident like this is was it "terrorism". When it's deemed it's not, it's like "whew, everything is cool then". Really?? That's not "terrorism" sitting in a theater getting sprayed with bullets? What is it, Show and Tell? So terrorizing people with an automatic weapon is OK, as long as it's not "politically motivated". It's not the act that's terrorism, it's the thought that counts? So depending on the agenda, not the actual murders, either the full force of the Federal Gov will convene to take action, or, we'll do absolutely nothing. Killing a bunch of innocent people can either be totally acceptable, or something that requires immediate action. 2 exact same events can have two completely different reactions. Why? Food for thought.
Can someone tell me why the presumptively wealthiest, freest nation in the world is also the most violent? Oh, and the fattest.
Is "coward" a clinical diagnosis? Sociopaths aren't cowards; they're sociopaths. Sociopaths are mentally ill. Much of the latest groundbreaking fMRI research points to such mental illness as congenital/developmental. The healthcare and legal systems will eventually have to adapt to the neuroscience. An enlightened discussion has to acknowledge that neither the nature nor the nurture components of these pathologies result in simple acts of cowardice that require and get remedied by punishment. What a lazy, stupid evaluation. And I can't imagine a more lazy and stupid discussion revolving around whether or not we should allow firearms in theaters and classrooms, or whether Breivik would've been stopped in Texas after a more acceptable, everyday U.S.-style massacre. Judging from test scores and the relative health of Norwegians v. Americans, Breivik could easily have found a way to use a Texan's own firearm to run him down and gun him down in even greater numbers.
David Eagleman is a well-known neuroscientist who writes popularly about his studies of these brain defects and makes a case for adapting the legal system to mete out something other than arbitrary, uninformed, 19th century punishment. He likes to cite the fact that the UT-Austin tower shooter (Whitman?) wrote a note recommending he be given an autopsy after his death. He felt something was wrong with his brain. Turns out he had a tumor pressing against his amygdala.
some comments, mostly regarding that permanently dyspeptic dude from the Moonie paper:
1. I am shocked that you let him get away with the repeated assertion that "there is simply no evidence that fewer guns means less gun violence" or whatever he was saying. That cannot be true can it?
2. I wish someone had asked him straight-up - "do you favor assault rifles, do you favor buying 30 round clips?" do you have one? would you rather have everybody in the theater with guns or nobody with guns? etc etc
3. Chris, nice guy that he is, gave that flamer props for self-describing himself as a privileged, advantaged-by-birth white guy. The next OBVIOUS point is to not give him props at all, because with his sad, stingy Randian worldview, that fact is an issue for everybody else, not him - he was born with it, you weren't, so f-- you, what's your problem. That self-awareness does not lead him to any moral insights about society.
4. completely different topic.
Your web site now officially sucks from a usability point of view! It's not just you, it's the trend to cram ones pages with so much sexy Ajax and Jscript and background-loading videos that the f---ing site simply does not perform for the basic task of browsing for the info you want.
I have written similar rants to HuffPost and others, and most recently to Yahoo Sports, who just redid their Sports pages and completely messed them up IMO. I am not a fan of this trend. I promise you that if you cleared that crap out and simplified the pages to the point that the scrollbar would work when you clicked it you would get more traffic.
thanks!
Wikipedia search "Number of guns per capita by country" reveals the United States has THE HIGHEST rate of gun ownership in the World: 88.8 guns per 100 people.
Also from Wikipedia: searching "countries by gun deaths" the United States falls in with some very violent countries and towards the top... check it out.
How come no one is making the argument that the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment contradicts and further blurs the fact there are limits on first amendment protection of speech in of all places a crowded theater? I guess it's some sort of bizarre macabre and convoluted twist of fate that an unintended consequence of this Aurora incident is the cataclysmic dangers inherent in the realization of such speech in a crowded theater could possibly BLEED over into the second amendment.
Tim Carney asserts, "There's not a correlation between gun laws and murder or between gun ownership and murder. That's been borne out in many studies." Chris tries to hedge around this statement but essentially swallows it.
But Monday Ezra Klein, subbing on the Maddow Show, repeats data he also posted to his Washington Post blog that contradicts Carney. He cites a Harvard study that concluded as follows:
"1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
"Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
"2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
"We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
"Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88."
There is a similar comparison among U.S. states.
Klein also shows that state gun restrictions correlate inversely with gun deaths. As usual, though, it seems the right has its own set of facts.
Chris does well to include divergent points of view among his guests. But factual assertions should not be permitted to go unchallenged when the data belies them.