Guns and Terrorism: Two Unasked Question in Tucson Mass Murder

Guns and Terrorism: Two Unasked Question in Tucson Mass Murder

By Bill Quigley. Bill is Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. Contact Bill at quigley77@gmail.com

Question: How does a mentally unstable man who was kicked out of school and had run-ins with the law buy an assault weapon?

The weapon reportedly used in the mass murders in Tucson was an assault weapon - a Glock 19, semi-automatic pistol, with an extended magazine. That weapon was illegal to sell in the US from 1994 to 2004 under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It is now legal to sell and own. The National Rifle Association reports there are tens of millions of assault weapons is private hands in the US.

The federal background check for people purchasing such weapons only prohibits selling such weapons to people who have been legally determined to be mentally defective or found insane or convicted of crimes. This man had not been found legally mentally defective or convicted so he was legally entitled to purchase an assault weapon. In Arizona he was legally entitled to carry the weapon in a concealed manner.

The US has well over 250 million guns in private hands according to the National Rifle Association. That is more, according to the BBC, than any country in the world. In one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States according to the Brady Campaign.

Does the US really need tens of millions of assault weapons and hundreds of millions of other guns? We already put more of our people in prison than any country in the world and we spend more on our military than all the rest of the world together. How fearful must we be?

Question: Why is there so little talk of terrorism?

Apparently when a mentally unstable white male is accused, terrorism is not the first thing that comes to mind.

When Clay Duke, a white male, threatened Florida school board members with a gun and shot at them before shooting himself, in December 2010, he was mentally imbalanced.

When Michael Enright, a white male, was arrested for slashing the throat of a Muslim NYC cab driver in August of 2010, his friends said he had a drinking problem

When Byron Williams, a white male, was arrested after opening fire on police officers and admitted he was on his way to kill people at offices of a liberal foundation and a civil liberties organization, in July 2010, he was an unemployed right wing felon with a drinking problem.

When Joe Stack, a white male, flew his private plane into a federal building in Austin, Texas, in February 2010, he was angry with the IRS.

When a white male is accused of mass murder, terrorism is not much talked of rather it becomes a terrible tragedy but not one where race or ethnicity or religion need be examined.

Now, if the accused had been Muslim, does anyone doubt whether this would have been considered an act of terrorism? US Muslims could have expected increased surveillance and harassment at home and the places where they work and worship. They could have expected a Congressional inquiry into the radicalization of their people. Oh, Representative Peter King (R-NY) has already started that one!

Comments

[Jimbino]

This post entertains a strange definition of terrorism.

An assassin of a head of state, like the one who killed Archduke Francis Ferdinand, was no terrorist. He merely killed the next head guy of the hereditary monarchy that was oppressing him.

Likewise, Brutus was no terrorist.

Likewise, none of our presidential assassins was a terrorist, including Lee Harvey Oswald.

What are terrorists? Maybe those like Paul Revere, Sam Adams and John Brown, whom we honor in folk song? Maybe Robespierre and Danton? Maybe the Indians who attacked the White invaders?

Joe Stack was also no terrorist, since he directly targeted the cause of his grief--and ours--the IRS. Sure, he should have flown his plane right into the office of the guy ultimately responsible for the Sec 172 Abortion of the IRS. Since that would be have been hard, he chose the next best target, it seems. I call him Sampson.

Folks have the natural, inalienable right to defend themselves against oppressors and retaliate against them so as to leave a message and example for posterity. (Read the Declaration of Independence, all of whose signers would be prosecuted by Obama as terrorists.)

Where did you learn your history?

[Steve Shiffrin]

Excellent posts. Bill, I hope you do not mind. I filled in the title line for this post and the one preceding it, so I could cite it on Facebook and make it easy for people to get to.