The Alex Jones Agenda

Mainstream Republicans have basically, either intentionally or by accident, adopted Alex Jones' pro-gun talking points, complete with the stuff about psychiatric medications. I don't know which is worse: intentional or accidental overlap. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

We need to do a couple of things. Number one is to drill down on the mental health issue. Number two is to look at the psychiatric and psychotropic drugs, because that is many times linked to the individuals who carry out these crimes. They are also wanting to make certain that we begin to get in behind these video games. [...] The problem is it could be a hammer, a hatchet, a car.

Blackburn didn't go all Cuckoo's Nest, but she's basically saying the same things as Jones said last week on CNN -- Jones definitely blamed anti-depression meds and he definitely made the hammer argument.

  • muselet

    When I read a story in the morning newspaper about a drive-by stabbing (or hacking or hammering or whatever) resulting in multiple casualties among bystanders, then we can talk about controlling those other potential weapons.

    And since the majority of people with mental health issues are not violent, and since most “psychiatric and psychotropic” drugs don’t cause people to become violent, I think it’s fair to say those herrings are more than a bit on the ruddy side.


    • KanaW

      Agreed – and ‘upped’ for the last line; brilliant!

  • Ned F

    This argument is really tiring. Outside of a few movies, I’ve never heard of anyone using a hammer or hatchet take someone out from thirty feet away, and unless they have a ninja suit with a hammer bandoleer, they only get one shot. Yes, we will continue to have one on one shootings, stabbings and bashings, despite an assault weapon ban and how many tweakers or psychotics we can identify as high risk. But we can take steps to not make it so easy to perform mass killings in a few minutes.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    And here’s another thing I’ve been pondering…..

    We keep hearing that if everyone was armed, no one would ever get shot. No one would walk into a public place with a gun and carry out a mass shooting if he knew everyone there had a gun. Hence an armed population is the solution to mass shootings.

    Not to stereotype or anything, but isn’t the mafia an “armed population”? Aren’t the Bloods and Crips and Latin Kings an “armed population”? Don’t wiseguys and gangbangers shoot each other all the time, even though they know they’re all armed?

    And when’s the last time a wiseguy or a gangbanger deliberately targeted a crowd of people who were not wiseguys or gangbangers? When’s the last time a mass shooting at a school, movie theatre, mall, &c. was perpetrated by a wiseguy or a gangbanger? When’s the last time a wiseguy targeted anyone but rival families and other wiseguys? When’s the last time a gangbanger targeted anyone other than a rival gang member?

    So where, apart from NRA/GOP fans’ personal hero-fantasies, does this idea that an armed population prevents anyone from ever getting shot come from?

    • i_a_c

      Moreover, there would be no collateral damage from everyone carrying these guns? Nobody would lose their shit and pull their gun on someone like an idiot? This isn’t a fucking western movie.

    • JimmyAbra

      I thought the same thing especially when the Chicago murder stats were brought into the debate saying that Chicago’s (Obama’s/Rahm’s by proxy wrongly) gunn policies don’t work…But how does someone owning a gun protecting themselves from random crime equate to the kinds of violence going on in Chicago, which is more drug/gang related? Though some random people are being killed through what is mostly not random violence, this is no way relevant to the “I need to protect my family and domain” argument.

  • zirgar

    If a hatchet or hammer is just as deadly as an assault rifle, why isn’t the GOP putting forth cost cutting measures to replace police and military guns with them?