As usual Bob, you got it right! Why can't people be held responsible for this? Aren't there any kind of laws? Something like incitement to riot? I know that wouldn't work, but they always seem to make up some kind of legal argument when it comes to black people or poor people or liberal people......................

This guy's brain was a crowded theater full of fears, biases, and misinformation. Glenn Beck has been screaming "Fire!" at the top of his lungs.

How many shooting sprees did so-called "liberal elites" go on in the first 100 days of the Bush presidency?

I do no necessarily agree with everything you say, Bob, but you nailed thus one. For sure.

I get the feeling that our ever-expanding communications capabilities are creating sub-religions. New religions? Whatever.

I must admit that I have no idea how to make the communicators more responsible.

Matt McD is exactly right. In my opinion this is no better than someone causing a riot in a crowded theatre by screaming "FIRE". The unfortunate part of this story is that our right to free speech does not draw a line so vague as to determine who is crossing over it. It will ultimately take a larger national tragedy to occur before a precedent can be set in which such a determination can be made.

Until then God help us all...we are in the throws of insanity right now...

I was struck by what you said about the fact that we're dealing with an ideology that says that guns are the only way to level the playing field.

It strikes me that if you want to keep the people weak, the way to do it is to make sure they don't learn any way to solve their problems other than violence. Britain was able to hold onto India through a couple of centuries of intense rebel violence, because violence is a very weak way to throw off an oppressor. As soon as Gandhi came along, Britain was gone in a couple of decades.

The fact is that the government is always better at violence than the people are. And, they labor mightily to present violence as illegitimate when it comes from the people, but legitimate when it comes from the government. (Hence all the theorizing about the "legitimate monopoly on force," and the assurances that "thou shalt not kill" makes exceptions for soldiers, policemen, and other government employees.) Thus, anyone who tries to redress their grievances automatically delegitimates their cause.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but let's face it: conservatism always tries to keep the people weak. Either they keep the minimum wage low, or they oppose funding for education, or they say workers can't unionize... the list goes on and on. And, surprise surprise, when it comes to guns vs. nonviolence they decide to push the least effective option.

I'm also reminded of that inane conservative bumper sticker that says "Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Never Solved Anything."

- Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me, but I don't remember the cataclysmic war in which we wiped out the USSR and China, nor do I remember Vaclav Havel's tank divisions rolling across Czechoslovakia.

- Slavery still exists throughout the world. In places where it doesn't exist, it was quite frequently ended without war. So take your pick: a bloody struggle of brother vs. brother, or nonviolence.

- Nazism and Fascism were not ended by war, except in Germany and Italy. (Spain, for example, is a different matter.) Remember, too, that, the roots of Nazism lay in the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles. So, exactly how effective was war in containing German militarism?

- It's tragically ironic that this bumper sticker is seeing such a surge of popularity just when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going so swimmingly well. Yeah guys, keep me updated on how well war is working out for you.

Add it all up, and you end up with a bumper sticker that says "Aside from ending Slavery, Fascism, Communism, British rule in India, Jim Crow- and achieving suffrage for American women- nonviolence has never accomplished anything."

BTW, why don't carriage returns work for comments? I tried both safari and firefox, but can't seem to get them to work.

Sorry. No.
It was crazy pressured fucks at Columbine....it was some snapped, desperate underlying wrong yesterday.

Don't make this stretch, Cesca. It not only diminishes you (from a pure argument perspective), it costs you weight down the road when folks ask, "Has he been generally reasonable?"
Laying tragedy at the feet of morons simply because they cheered for it is tempting, but in the end not even slightly valid.
Let me say that again - despite the awesome congruence of it all (if you WANT to cut it that way) - not even slightly valid.
In fact, it's enough of a stretch to come off as rude and just a little mad.
There are better and more effective ways to drown the fuckwits without making them wear random tragedy.

IMO, it's a continuation of what happened during the campaign - the incendiary words used at the GOP (esp. Palin's) rallies.

What a screwed up world we live in when a crazy dude in Pittsburgh is more afraid of the president than the North Koreans.

See, I DO hold, to a certain extent, in any case, art which fetishizes gun-violence if not responsible or culpable of egging more of it on, at least a part of the dynamic, you know?

But here's the rub: So? It's a free society. Freedom is always dangerous. I think that is an unfortunate cost of free speech and free art, but an unavoidable one.

Look, millions upon millions of people saw THE MATRIX, and only a handful of kids were fucked enough on a variety of other fetishes to want to dress up in black and strap on guns and walk down some killing hallways. Did the Matrix "make" them do it? Of course not. They were fucked and looking for symbols to guide their urges. But still, one must, as an artist, understand that when playing with images and words and releasing them into the air for people to consume, they can and will have bad reactions from bad people. It can get abstracted, depending on the art or symbols someone puts out, but wild expressions ARE dangerous. That doesn't mean they should be banned or outlawed. But you can't pretend they're not.

Especially in art-- few people intend for people hearing their metaphors to go out and make them concrete realities. Some do.

The Beatles did not kill Sharon Tate and Pasqualino and Rosemary LaBianca? Of course not. Are they responsible at all? Of course not. But you listen to the White Album sometime and tell me it isn't off-putting, as a whole. There's some ugly magic at work in that recording. But the difference is, you and I (and a million million other people) hear it and it makes us explore that part of ourselves on a symbolic level. Or it makes us feel oogey. Or maybe we ignore it and skip over "Piggies" and "Happiness is a Warm Gun" and "Revolution 9" and just play "While My Guitar" and take the disc out.

It can get more abstracted than that. J.D. Salinger did not kill John Lennon.

It can get LESS abstracted than that, too-- William Luther Pierce did not blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. But his intent was a lot less abstract than the Beatles or Salinger. He claimed that he did not support or approve of the action of McVeigh.

My point is not to stop artistic expressions or hold them *culpable*, but only to not be so naive as to think they are not part of a large dynamic and a piece of the tapestry of circumstance that guides how people end up expressing their urges or acting out in their manias.

I think that people should know their audiences, at some point, though-- out of personal, not necessarily governmentally enforced-- responsibility.

I don't think it is as direct or intentional or even controllable as one person making a decision to create a "dangerous" tide; I tend to think the dynamic is larger than that. I think there's something in the zeitgeist, a collective tide and that those people are the outcroppings of it that we see.

A few years ago, the York, Pa. newspaper, using public records, revealed that some of Pennsylvania's most vocal critics of the Second Amendment --including state senators, state representatives, and the head of a gun control advocacy group -- either owned handguns or had concealed carry permits. For honest gun control advocates, it was disillusioning.
Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Phila., who was discovered to have a carry permit for a .44 Magnum, instantly moved to have such records closed to the public.
I would say that if there are those on this thread who believe the Second Amendment does not entitle Americans to carry guns, please say if you do, or don't own a gun.
I do. I will protect my family from intruders and other bad guys. You only have to experience the helplessness of one break-in to convince you that it is not only wise, but necessary.

Was reading some other blog posts about this issue, and I think that the thing that has hit home the most for me has been this comment:

The 2nd amendment gives us the freedom to arm ourselves, responsibly.

The 1st amendment should be observed in the same manner.

I have to agree with Avi on this, somewhat. (That's why I wanted to retract my posts on this topic yesterday.) I want to blame Beck and Bachmann, et al., but can't quite do it the way I blamed the church shooter who wanted to exterminate liberals. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette has a profile of the guy, and he is a racist conspiracy theorist right winger. It does not say, however, that he listened to Beck or Rush. Until something like that comes out, I have to reserve judgment. I'm still waiting for more information to be released.

I do not own a gun, but I fully support your right to do so. I also fully expect you to support my right to believe that your ownership of said gun is about the broken psychology of feeling helpless and wanting desperately to imagine yourself in control than it is about realistically protecting yourself from "bad guys." Intruders. Violators.

Yes, those demons and devils do sometimes manifest in the flesh as something other than fears, but I submit that the gun is there more to banish the ghosts of thought from your head than to stop any real people. That's the value you've purchased.

What you've also purchased, statistically speaking, is an exponential increase of risk of death and injury to those who you feel you are protecting, and yourself.

Again, understand my point. I don't want to take your gun away; I don't think we can ever get that toothpaste back in the tube. It is one of the messier parts of freedom. But I DO and will continue to question the psychological underpinnings of those who devote a lot of their waking hours to appease the demons in their head who haunt them with fantasies of strangers and intruders besieging them at every turn, THE STRANGERS-style.

I don't think it is as direct or intentional or even controllable as one person making a decision to create a "dangerous" tide;

No? There's this shit happening on a regular basis. If there are any grown-ups left in the GOP they need to give some of the wingnuts a good talking-to.

ceu; do you see, though, that Bachmann is the prime example of a symptom and not a cause?

She's an empty cipher and an empty head that just echoes back what is being tossed around in the crazy circles.

She got to where she did not by wanting to forge the world in some dread image she had in her head, but rather by telling enough people in her batshit-crazy area what they wanted to hear, what they were *already* hearing, but with a halfway MILFy package.

She's like the more retarded version of Sarah Palin.

I just see all this as sort of an inevitable lance-boil eruption of a cyst that has being cultivated since, like, 1980. Yes, in specific, THIS PERSON, THAT PERSON, but when you pull the camera back, this dynamic has been getting set up for quite some time.

True, Josh. But I still believe that the nightly call to arms issued by the wingnuts exacerbates the situation.
I don't want to limit their freedom of speech, but as I said, it's time for whatever adults are left in the GOP to step in and shut down this shit.

"It's a kind of religion -- with the obvious players serving as ministers and purveyors of the ideological dogma."

Bob, call it what it is: a CULT.

It strikes me that these shooters are always lonely, unemployed talk-radio fans. They listen to this meme of Obama as antichrist taking away their guns for so long that they can't help but believe it. Now that Glenn Beck is bringing the fringe into the mainstream, you can expect a lot more of this.

Avi, how many shootings does it take before it's no longer "random" and starts to become a disturbing pattern?

But I still believe that the nightly call to arms issued by the wingnuts exacerbates the situation. I don't want to limit their freedom of speech, but as I said, it's time for whatever adults are left in the GOP to step in and shut down this shit.

I actually agree with all of this, except I think that you overestimate both the presence and relative power of those "grown ups."

I fear they're a bunch of increasingly few sorcerer's apprentices who have just as little clue as to how to stop the out-of-control brooms from marching as you or I do.

The good news is that this kind of ideology is unsustainable and self-marginalizing. The bad news is that people get hurt during the bloody throes, I think.

Cesca...fair warning (and you may take my word for it that I comfortably reside well off your left side ...and just far enough behind that your peripheral vision will not save you)...

This thread...this blog...this haven of reason...is turning into some sort of freakish mirror of Hillarys44.com.

Please...and I will only ask politely the first time...do not rank this hot simmering pot into the counter-cauldron to Michelle Malkin.

avi, I think you're exaggerating.

Apparently Matt Osborne and I see this the same way. These events ceased being random events about 2 or 3 events ago. It appears to be a disturbing pattern to me.

I'm a firm believer in the first amendment, but wrong wing talk radio has been shouting 'Fire' in crowded theaters for months. Did we ever hear about the motivations for the shootings in Alabama? Why didn't we? How many shootings have there been since then? Will we be told what they discover about those motivations? If not, why not? When is the DOJ going to advise Glenn Beck to cool his jets?

So many questions.

To use the expression joshed @12:11 used," there's some ugly magic at work," for sure. But, Beck and the rest of these talking-hate-heads are not "artists" by any stretch of the imagination.

Show me one of these nutjobs that aren't completely impressed, and hang on every word these people say. WHY? They are ignorant, and believe that if the hate-heads on the teevee, and/or the radio say it, it is the TRUTH.

Spare me any rationalizations, it is right before your eyes, if you listen to this garbage. One could assemble a montage for YouTube proving the matter once and for all, and some would still refuse to see it. Time to watch "The Fisherking" again, people.

If you want to find out what really happened at Columbine I suggest you read what the eyewitnesses had to say:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/columbineeight.php

I agree with Bob. My husband and I live 2 hours outside of Pittsburgh. On first hearing about this tragedy, BOTH of us in unison said THANKS A LOT RUSH! There is a consequence for what Beck, Rush, that idiot woman in the congress are allowed to get away with in the name of free speech. I live it daily in a silly little chat room of middle aged women.."I'm so afraid for my country...."They are going to try to take our guns"... and they are dead serious, will not listen to reason, and show up every day to report on the latest doom and gloom and hate for the president coming from the radical right cable/blogs and radio.

Hey, Starviego, I read your little link there. Long story, short for those who fortunately didn't:

Gun control advocates staged Columbine to court public opinion in their favor against conceal carry laws. You just read that.

My rebuttal: Go fuck yourself, Starviego. Preferably with a loaded assault rifle with a faulty safety. I hear it's the best!

What is going on now is an insurgency with suicide terrorist attacks homegrown style. Beck, Bachman, Limbaugh and many others are the radical mullahs egging these people on. What happens when these guys start to go at it in groups?
We are in much greater danger of being attacked by our own citizens than we are by Islamic crazies.

Redmond, thanks for saving us the time.

If we are going to assign blame to the Right or to the Left on who is crazier with guns, it soberig to recall that Oswald was a self-proclaimed Leftist, a Marxist, and a supporter of Castro. To deny that one of our "wingnuts" killed a beloved president makes us look like fools to the people who decide elections in this country, that is, the centrists in places like Pennsylvania or, as pollsters call them, "independents."
To most Americans, the Second Amendment is about personal defense, not about "recreational" hunting and target practice.
The right to bear arms is not understood through the prism of a universtiy PoliSci course taught by some fashionable peacenick boomer who lives in the oh-so-safe lily-white suburbs.
Most Americans believe gun ownership is the last defense against bad guys in the neighborhood or, if they are brainy, against a tyrannical government.
When Bill Clinton entered office in January 1993, agents of four departments under federal executive authority were armed. By the time he left, all were armed -- including FDA meat safety inspectors!
Do you think the flannel-clad yokels in Spitoonville, Pa. who subscribe to the NRA's magazine missed that troubling development? They discussed it endlessly at their meetings throughout the 1990s.
In fact, it is fellow progressives who are, regrettably, unaware of this.
I own guns, and while I like and admire this president, he will not stand between me and my right and responsiblity to defend my family from creeps who would do me harm.

I own guns, and while I like and admire this president, he will not stand between me and my right and responsiblity to defend my family from creeps who would do me harm.

Then you're a grown man afraid of the Boogeyman. And, also, a fucking idiot because for the last time OBAMA IS NOT COMING AFTER YOUR PRECIOUS GUNS!

Don't worry, your Masculine Compensation Device will remain safely tucked your pillow for the nightly stroking or accidental family shooting. Whichever.

[Adding... yes, I have a family. And I keep them safe by A. not bringing unnecessary risk into our home and B. realizing guns can't turn back time and stop my house from being robbed while we were on vacation or gone for the evening. When most home invasion occurs. Oh my God, facts!]

Redmond,chances are the bad guys will choose your house over mine. As for facts, you ignore most of mine, and choose personal attack. Another fact, according the to gay rights group Pink Pistols: If Matthew Shepard had a gun, he would be alive today.

How will the "bad guys" choose my house over yours? Do you have a huge sign out front that reads "Hey, GUN INSIDE!"? Or are you assuming that I have a sign outside mine that reads "Hey, NO gun inside!"? Because I took that thing down after the neighbors said it'd made too much shade over their pool.

And if Abe Lincoln carried a gun John Wilkes Booth wouldn't have shot him. Or even better, if Jesus carried a gun then those Roman soldiers would've been like "Whoa. Snap. Our bad."

surfer, you can have a gun, it's your right and I don't judge you for it, however, unfortunately most gun owners are not trained in urban warfare. Maybe you are, I don't know.

But what exactly is the protocol if you hear someone in your house in the middle of the night? Do you shoot first and ask questions later, even though for all you know it's no one who means to do you harm, possibly even one of your kids down in the kitchen getting a glass of water?

Or do you call out "I have a gun" which gives away your location in the dark, possibly setting up a gunfight involving multiple shots in multiple directions which could possibly get your wife or children caught in the crossfire, no matter where they may be hiding?

Guns do not automatically make you safe, it just means you can shoot the burglar. However, he might end up shooting you or either of you could shoot one of your family members by accident.
I think a gun gives a false sense of security. My brother pulled a gun on some kids TPing our parents house. just some bored kids out at night. If the gun had accidentally gone off, that kid is dead, my brother wouldn't have been safe from prosecution and he spends a considerable portion of his life in prison. That's not a case of guns don't kill people, people kill people, because only guns have the power to indiscriminately kill. If he'd pulled a knife, he couldn't accidentally powerfully thrust it into someone's chest.

Personally I'm pretty sure the ADT home security signs all over my house would probably keep out even the dumbest criminal and this way no one gets hurt.

Yeah, everything Jeff said.

For the record, I'm not anti-gun. I believe in gun ownership for hunting, sport and to a much, much lesser extent home protection. But chances are slim you're ever going to need that gun while chances are high something will go terribly wrong with that gun.

That said, there's no sport or reason in owning an assault rifle. You don't need an AK to hunt Bambi and Red Dawn was just a movie. Just putting that out there. Also, should the federal government ever decide to make your conspiracy theories/wet dreams come true and put you in a FEMA camp with Glenn Beck (WHICH THEY WON'T!), they have tanks, grenades and armed aircrafts. Game Over. Welcome to Logic.

Logic Be Damned!!!!

Iraqis believed that if they wrapped aluminum foil around their RPGs that it would penetrate out Tank's force field. Anybody want to guess how that worked out for them?

Update on the Pittsburgh shooting...apparently kid had dog, dog peed on floor, mother told kid to clean it up, kid refused, mother called 911 and said she wanted hiM OUT OF HER HOUSE. 911 operator asked if there were guns in the house. Mother says no (LIAR), cops arrive at door thinking it is just a domestic abuse case, mother opens door, lets cops in and kid armed with automatic weapon and rifle, with a bullet proof vest on, opens fire. Kid later in hospital says he wishes he had killed more cops.

I wish cops had killed kid and I hope mother gets brought up on charges for lying about the guns. There is no way she didn't know. The kid bought and sold guns over the internet for money.

FUCK GUNS!!!!