CIVIL DISCOURSE NEEDED TO ADDRESS TERRORIST THREAT

18

By Tom Purcell

Last week was an ugly day for civil discourse.

Innocent employees were enjoying themselves at an annual Christmas party when two shooters, clad in military gear and carrying assault rifles and numerous magazines, began mowing them down — killing 14 and wounding at least 17.

A thoughtful person would be furious — furious with the two well-trained shooters, a husband and wife, who had carefully planned to carry out such an attack.

He was an American citizen. His wife was born in Pakistan.

He was 28-year-old Syed Rizwan Farook. She was 27-year-old Tashfeen Malik. They had a 6-month-old child, who they left with the grandmother before slaughtering innocent people.

He worked with the victims, government employees and was, according to his father, a very religious Muslim. Neighbors said he and other men were working in the wee hours in his garage.

A thoughtful person would want to know what motivated this latest attack. A critical thinker would want to get to the root cause. Until we understand the root cause of our problems we will never solve them.

But thoughtfulness and critical thinking are running short in public discourse these days.

Before some of the victims had their last breath — before the blood began to dry — our growing number of knee-jerk political hacks were using the tragedy to attack their political opponents.

ThinkProgress initially reported that the shooters were white — gleefully criticizing “conservatives” who said the attacks appeared to follow tactics used by Middle Eastern terrorists. The article was removed once it was discredited by actual facts.

Other media outlets quickly injected Planned Parenthood into the dialogue. “It’s a few blocks away,” wrote one MSNBC tweeter — despite the fact that its location was a few miles away and had nothing to do with the shootings.

Disappointed that the shooters didn’t fit their desired narrative, the partisan focus shifted toward our need for more anti-gun laws.

Look, we do need to eliminate loopholes in the way firearms are being purchased in our country, but the rifles the shooters used last week were obtained illegally through a friend and modified to impose maximum damage.

In France, where the gun laws are much stricter than U.S. gun laws, assault rifles are also banned — but that didn’t stop terrorists from getting them.

According to The Guardian, the “western Balkans are awash with guns left over from the wars of the 1990s” and “Europe’s open borders and growing trade in illegal weapons means assault rifles are relatively easy to come by on the black markets.”

If Prohibition can’t stop alcohol consumption and anti-drug laws can’t stop America’s heroin epidemic, do you really think our gun laws will stop determined fanatics from getting them?

The point is if we want to thoughtfully address the cause of mass shootings in America, civil discourse is the only solution.

Mental health is a common denominator in many mass shootings. So let’s address it civilly.
Congressman Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), a psychologist, has put forth thoughtful legislation to overhaul American’s mental health care system and take specific steps to help people with mental illness. Can our political class please move this bill along in a meaningful, nonpartisan manner.

The fact is the threat of attack from religious ideologues is growing. I know this because ISIS, the terrorist organization that inspired last week’s attack — and that carried out the horrific attack in Paris — has promised more attacks in America.

The threat is real — and public discourse that mocks political opponents and blames our woes on red herrings isn’t going to solve this problem.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

18 COMMENTS

  2. How does mental health factor into the 2 very religious Muslims massacring people (who had given them a baby shower) at a Christmas party?

    • DISAFFECTED:
      I thought the same thing. “These people are fascist worthless trash” (sic)…RIGHT. They certainly are.
      …and then these sudden comments indicating the writer is REALLY putting a lot of discussion into blood and terror – NOT in an attempt to try to promote civil discourse to solve a terrorist issue – but really, because he is worried about GUN LAWS. Cause some people are upset that military weapons are being sold in a neighborhood store, and some really bad people (not mentally ill)…walked in, bought’em, and started killing their neighbors – military style, of course.

      And then, the author tries to bulldoze the reader into suddenly thinking gun laws should really be about….MENTAL HEALTH LAWS???…..not easily accessible military assault weapons that terrorists can walk into their neighborhood gun store and buy to inflict wide scale terror in the neighborhood.

      And by the way. Let’s be clear. These people that bought military weapons in their neighborhood gun store. They WERE NOT mentally ill. They were just fascist, worthless trash people….WHO their neighborhood sold military weapons to so they could kill their neighbors – military style.

      No INDIANA ENOCH. It is NOT a great article, setting aside the conversation about buying military weapons on the corner in your neighborhood.

      The author is pretending to write an article about the need for civil discourse….when his agenda was not civil discourse AT ALL. Bad article.

      • It’s a great article. 🙂 If there was ture civil discourse then ideas like “military style” would not be used. My understanding is that they were not fully automatic. Most so called assault weapons. My 22 “tick” rifle (got more ticks than squirrels) has a tactical version. It’s the same gun with a different stock. It’s mostly the same across the board with other guns. The assault rifle or military style is just scary gun rhetoric.

        I don’t get this mental-health argument. As I have said below, you can not purchase a firearm even if you have suffered depression.

        As radical as it is, Trump is right in that we need to stop Muslim immigration UNTIL OUR SYSTEM IS FIXED. (caps for emphasis not shouting) That second part of what he said does not get reported. The San Bernardino shootings drive this point home. A radicalized Muslim, not thousands but one, slipped through the system. To fix this problem our president is going to have to start admitting that ISIS is not contained, that in recent years nearly 100% of mass shooter have been Muslim radicals. And that comments like “get of our high horse” empowers them.

        I made this point on a FB forum. While Trumps ide is radical, and I do not support it 100%, what other ideas or actions are available? One is we do nothing and hope we are not harmed. Another is we keep doing what we are doing which is not working. A third is all out war where either they or we are destroyed. Perhaps there are other options, but compared to those three options Trump’s idea is not so radical.

  3. If this guy thinks “Rational” thought, can circumvent/prevent “Irrational” thought,
    it obvious he belongs in the latter group of thinkers and should get back to his “Pipe” and dream on, while the rest of us arm ourselves against the “Animals/Predators” in the Real World while he thinks of a “Solution”.
    Maybe he should go for a Swim in the “Real World Ocean” and “Reason” with a Shark–that possibly might change his perspective of what defines “Rational” and “Irrational” behavior, —if he survives.
    San Bernardino, Paris, 9-11, In the 21st Century, the World is in the midst of a Ideological/Cultural War and Mr. Purcell needs to wake up to that Fact.

  4. One big problem I see with all of the “concern” about mental health issues is that it is very possible to have an event on one’s life that brings about a serious case of “situational depression”. When that happens, very seldom does a person question whether or not it is safe for them to have access to a gun. Another problem is that without some psychological testing it is impossible to evaluate someone’s mental status. When one couples the difficulty in knowing what mental state a customer is in with all of the ways around background checks and the number of guns floating around, you have the situation we find ourselves in. I think all guns seized by law enforcement that are found to be’illegal” for whatever reason, should be required by law to be destroyed. Now, most such weapons are required to be put back in circulation. By eventually reducing the number of guns, we could keep some deaths from happening. Gun manufacturers could price-gouge their customers even more, so they should not object to laws of that sort.

    I expect that SCOTUS will take some cases concerning second amendment rights fairly soon, as well. The decision not to take the case about some cities’ and states’ ban on automatic weapons has effectively allowed those bans to stand, but it is nearly impossible to keep any kind of weapon out of the wrong hands as long can be legally obtained a short drive away, as is now the case. Scalia has already hinted that there may be serious restrictions placed on concealed carry by SCOTUS. If and when that decision is made, there will likely be an uptick in open carry, but a lot of people will reconsider carrying a gun openly.

    As for the speculation here as to the mental health of the San Bernardino shooters, it is just that, speculation by amateurs. The two primary hallmarks of serious mental illness are hyper-sexuality and hyper-religiosity. It is entirely possible that two sick people found each other and stoked their illness by association. It is crystal clear that the Planned Parenthood shooter is mentally ill, and that hyper-religiosity is a factor in that illness.

    • I thought the planned parenthood shooter acted out because of Ann Coulter?

      Mental health is a concern, but if you purchase a firearm you must state that you do not suffer from depression. But that works into suicides not mass shooters. We can’t start performing psychological test for a constitutional right.

      The idea that I have shared before which you misrepresented on face book is that we don’t require a test or a permit for a constitutional right. When one is of age one has an icon on his ID which says he/she is of age, character, and mental stability until one demonstrates otherwise. If you don’t have the icon, you can not own, hold, be in a house or car, or any vicinity of firearms. You could not go to the Walmart sporting department to buy worms more less guns or ammo. Of course as you said I am for everyone to have firearms.

      The number of guns is not the problem. The percentage of firearms used to cause harm is extremely low and as ownership has risen incidents have fallen. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

      “It is crystal clear that the Planned Parenthood shooter is mentally ill, and that hyper-religiosity is a factor in that illness.” So now we are going to test for “hyper-religiosity?” Who decides what hyper-religiosity is. Bandana said I was as fanatical as Farook.

      We need a different method not increasing what is already not working.

      • I surely never attributed what the PP shooter did to Ann Coulter, and have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect this is part of your habit of choosing to try to refute the very weakest liberal argument you can find and claiming a “victory”.

        Hyper-religiosity does not need quotation marks, as it is an accepted medical term. To make an actual diagnosis, one would need to be a mental health professional, but it is really a pretty clear-cut behavior that can be recognized by most educated people. If a religious preoccupation interferes with one’s ability to function on a daily basis or interferes with the ability to form normal relationships it probably is hyper-religiosity.

        As for your hurt feelings about what Bandana said, grow up! He is entitled to his opinion. Did your mother not teach you the rhyme about “Sticks and stones…?”

      • Did I say you attributed to Ann Coulter? But are you going to tell me some didn’t.

        Quatation marks indicates one is quoting another. It can be part of a medical diagnosis, but should not part of a litmus test for the second amendment. The young man that recently fabricated in Evansville was banned from possessng so much as wire or electronic components, but that happened as a result of his mental fitness not as a test to see if he could visit a radio shack.

        I can handle spirited debates as well anyone. The problem is not my mother but that you and your friends’ mothers never taught you to respect others, boundries, or not to lie. I appologize to your mothers, they most likely did teach you better behavior than you and your friends practice.

        Knowingly misrepresenting my views on gun control to win a stupid FB exchange, and comparing my faith to Farook’s fanaticism is not “sticks and stones.” I am disappointed.

    • Automatic weapons are called machine guns. They require a special license to possess. Semi automatic weapons, one pull of the trigger one bullet, are not banned. Assault weapons, semi automatic with cosmetic changes, are banned in some places. SCOTUS refused to hear appeals of the ban, but they will have to hear one sometime.

      Concealed permits are regulated by states. All states must allow conceal carry. Most issue permits, some do not issue permits but allow CC. Who recognized whom’s permits varies among states. I hope that correcting this issue is what Scalia is taking about. SCOTUS does not have Constitutional to restrict CC. I do not understand how intelligent people do not understand that. At best they can rule like they did with homosexual marriage and say all states must recognize another state’s permit.

      If they uphold so called assault weapon banns, then it is meaningless window dressing.

  5. ‘Mental health is a concern, but if you purchase a firearm you must state that you do not suffer from depression. But that works into suicides not mass shooters. We can’t start performing psychological test for a constitutional right. ‘ ~~~ Indianaenoch

    Oh my God. How very sad. Well, if you say you’re not nuts, that oughta settle it. Is that what you did? I’d think that would be an issue you wouldn’t want to stir up. Those constitutional rights are modified all the time. The 2nd amendment is currently on the paring block.

    ‘Bandana said I was as fanatical as Farook.’ ~~ Indianaenoch

    That is not true. Show me where I said that. Now that you mention it though, it does have some validity. You’ve gone down that dark road you sometimes travel, lying with both hands. Do your fingertips ever rebel when you get on one of these uncontrollable jags? There are indeed many similarities between the radicalization of Farook and Faryouk. I know you can’t see them.

Comments are closed.