Part of the reason why I chose Iron & Wine's "The Trapeze Swinger" from a varied number of available songs about grief and loss is not simply its romantic finality meant to ease the pain of those left behind, but its attention to detail.
It's the smiling photos we could easily see ourselves in, the haunting words left behind on the Internet (witness victim Jessica Redfield's final blog post, about surviving a different shooting), and the intimate and specific recollections of grieving loved ones. Never do we, as a society, fully grasp that we all are the sum of our smallest moments as we do when those around us die -- particularly, when they die young. Sad that I can use the word "often" in this case, but often when we see murders like those in Aurora, Colorado yesterday, the smallest moments and the slightest words can elicit the most emotion.
But as we remember, are we too quick to forget? Adam Gopnik wrote this for The New Yorker yesterday:
The reality is simple: every country struggles with madmen and ideologues with guns, and every country—Canada, Norway, Britain—has had a gun massacre once, or twice. Then people act to stop them, and they do—as over the past few years has happened in Australia. Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue. Does anyone even remember any longer last July’s gun massacre, those birthday-party killings in Texas, when an estranged husband murdered his wife and most of her family, leaving six dead?
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of folks have trouble remembering that incident. (Speaking of estranged husbands, do we even remember this?) What should we expect, given our propensity for normalizing what should be moments that theoretically, should spur real change in our laws and our society? That's just one of the questions Melissa and her guests will confront in today's extended conversation about the Aurora shooting, and its political implications.
Other topics we'll examine include the everyday gun violence that doesn't get as much press (particularly that in Chicago), an update on the Clarence Aaron commutation case, an examination of moderation (and the lack thereof) in our politics, and a look at the Republican revival of attacks on reproductive rights (just this week's worth; it is only a two-hour show).
Our guests will include:
- Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), three-term U.S. Congressman.
- Rep. Ron Barber (D-AZ), who was critically wounded in the 2011 Gabrielle Giffords shooting.
- Irin Carmon, staff writer at Salon.
- Michael Castle, former Delaware governor and nine-term U.S. Congressman. Lost to Christine O'Donnell in the 2010 primaries.
- State Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-CO), whose district includes Aurora, Colorado.
- Nancy Giles, writer and social commentator, and contributor to "CBS News Sunday Morning."
- Richard Kim, executive editor of The Nation's web site, TheNation.com.
- Dafna Linzer, senior reporter for ProPublica.
- Harry Smith, NBC News correspondent.
- Dorian Warren, assistant professor of political science and international public affairs at Columbia University, and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.
We hope that you interact with us during the show here in the comments of this post, on Facebook, and on Twitter, using the hashtag #nerdland -- and encourage others to do the same. We look forward to having you join us at 10am ET on msnbc!
Leave a Comment:
Ms Harris-Perry -
In your comment, you cited the horrible crime statistics in Chicago and LA. You are aware that these two cities have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. To me, that is proof that bans don't work. You may say that a national ban would work, but how well has the national ban against narcotic drugs work? More restrictive gun laws would not stop people with evil intent from getting them. I agree this needs a solution, but restrictive gun laws is not the right answer.
I agree. There needs to be more than gun laws to restrict people with criminal intent. What that is needs to be the conversation. We are not winning gun violence with laws alone.
It's not proof that bans don't work...it's proof that policy that's incongruent across cities and states don't work.
Last year when Virginia repealed a 20-year-old law restricting handgun buyers to one pistol a month, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg lashed out at the state's lawmakers because gun crimes being committed in New York City utilizing firearms bought in Virginia.
That's why national gun laws--including the assault weapons ban--have worked and will work, if our lawmakers ever show some fortitude.
Ms. Perry I had read a story about the shooting in Colorado. One of the ones that was shot was a 3 month old baby. I understand that it is sad about the other people but why was there a 3 month old baby in a movie theater that late? I am outraged about what happened but this makes it even worse.
I watched your show today and I agree with you about this country needs to make tougher laws. I feel a good place to start is these concealed gun laws and to require gun owners to obtain a license. Pretty much like a person has to get for a car. You know it easier to obtain a gun in this country than a DOT commercial drivers license. Just think about it.
Chris, if I thought that requiring a license to own a gun would keep them out of the hands of people who should not have them, I would agree enthusiastically. But the reality is that there are guns in the hands of people who are not legally entitled now to have them, but they do, even though there are laws that should stop that. And not just in the US, but around the world. An outright ban would not have any impact on the availability of guns to those who want them for illicit purposes.
with regard to the issue of safety if all individuals were allowed to have a concealled weapon....the conversation all revolves around "rules of engagement". i opine that an armed police officer sitting in the theater would have not immediately pulled and fired.....he's TRAINED to process the situation and weight various options and outcomes. most individuals with a concealed weapon would have probably fired without processing of outcomes....what in medicine we call risk versus benefit. only trained experts need to be making those decisions. while we each believe we would do the right thing expert studies of behavior in tragedy show often the initial action of untrained indiviuals only complicates desired outcomes. we need intelligent discussion on firearms, not rote bans but balanced discussions that fall within the true desires of the constitutional founders.
Disappointing that in a discussion about moderation there is presented a partisan equivalence in Washington... NOT TRUE. Simpsons Bowles is not a moderate proposal. It is a proposal that continues the erosion of the common good and our social contract over the last 30 years. Any compromise over the last 4 years has been on the Democratic side of our partisan divide. A democrat today is a moderate Republican of yesteryear.
With so many innocent people being killed, and many more innocent people dealing with the impact of gun violence, guns represent an insolvable problem in our country. How many people must die before we decide guns aren't worth it? I would suggest the answer would be the entirety of our nation's population. We should be looking at our nation's mental health system - it is broken and woefully underfunded. Furthermore the stigma of mental disorders (aka mental illness) keeps those who need help from seeking it. End the stigma surrounding mental disorders and fund mental health, while making reasonable and real reforms to gun laws and perhaps we will see change...perhaps.
Please allow me to play Devil’s advocate on these mass shooting cases. I’m NOT sticking up for the maniacs who shoot innocent bystanders. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of arms dealing that goes on in the name of the American PEOPLE!
Ever heard the old saying “…live by the gun, die by the gun” . The USA has armed and financed some of the most vicious degenerate dictators who in turn make their people or neighbors suffer. What American foreign policy has done to Iraq and Iran alone is an affront to GOD and everything it is to be a human being.
The funny thing is the US government will give guns to almost every savage fanatic on the planet to fight drugs or terrorism but make it hard for their own citizens to own a gun for protection. Only a silver spoon type who lives and works in an Ivory tower world would say the average American does not need to protect themselves.
The silver spoons and well-connected have private security guards who carry guns for them. I’ll bet every building or courthouse where one would find silver spoons has metal detectors and armed security checkpoints.
Now down here in the trenches where 49 MILLION Americans struggle below the poverty level… police response time SUCKS! If the criminals decide to (as happened to me) steal your work truck and tools in the night or mass attack as you walk in front of you own apartment complex then ONE HAS GOT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES!
I could have used a gun but I had a Bic pen which was used to stick in the neck of one of the attackers who were busy beating the **** outta me and probably would have killed me if not for that action before I was knocked unconscious.
Now I detest the way the NRA and Conservative wackos use their gun power or the way all these right wing nutcases are shooting or bombing their own people…. What I’M SAYING is responsible gun ownership is possible with a little common sense and rational rules put in place to keep the crazies from getting their hands on assault rifles and high capacity ammunition clips. I am somebody who understand reality spoact.blogspot.com
© 2012 by SPQR
I'm a liberal who enjoys watching your show. I'm also a member of the NRA. Like many people I'm a contradiction. But let me offer some constructive criticism. If you want to change gun laws, and I agree they need to be changed, you need to have a sane progun person on the panel. I believe there are many NRA members, like me, who believe in new gun restrictions, but the NRA has been taken over by the extremists. The way to lesson the power of the extremists is to start a progun group (truly progun and not lip service only) that believes in sane gun laws and this group could divide the NRA and take more moderate members from the NRA so that what is left of the NRA is weakened and irrational. The problem is that many moderates like myself think the assualt weapons ban was a joke because it made no logical sense and was more a game than a reality. So when you talk about a new assualt weapons ban you drive moderates like me and others back into the arms of the NRA extremists. So if you truly want to make progress on new sane gun laws work with some moderate pro gun people to start a discussion that doesn't drive moderates away. I know this may mean compromise (a dirty word currently) but it might make some real progress.
I do enjoy your show and the light it tries to bring to many important issues.
I can't listen to the song - it's too sad
How about this? The second amendment was written so an armed populace could defend itself against a tyrannical government and also to fight if a foreign country invaded. We'll give every house a rifle with six rounds and remove every hand gun, semi-automatic, and automatic weapon and multi-round clip. There would be exceptions - active police force, active service members, legitimate hunters, those who have reason to believe a threat to their person - these people could be given exceptions. Okay, this would never fly in reality but I thought I'd toss it out there.
Your comment is not at all strange. Second Amendment types totally overlook the 'militia,' clause. It meant that citizens of the (then) new nation had the right to form a protective militia. Congress accomplished this by forming the National Guard. So the argument that every person has the right to arm himself with unending weapons is specious and has resulted in great harm. You are right when you say "active police force, active service members, legitimate hunters," are those who can and should bear arms.
It seems overwhelming, given the multitude of weapons available, to reduce the number of weapons overall, but we have to start somewhere. An accurate supreme court Second Amendment interpretation would be a start. Mayors' restriction on gun possession in troubled cities is next. (Exemptions can always be granted by petition and registration.)
The greatest myth is that by arming ourselves individually, we protect ourselves against an occupying army (misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.) Far more often, private arms possession results in tragedy, weapons in the hands of criminals and escalating use by madmen.
Where I live, its not about protecting against an occupying army, but the thugs that knock down your door. When something horrific happens, like Aurora, all the anti-gunners jump on their soap boxes. None seem to understand that most of us live in areas that you wait 25-30 minutes for a police officer, not 90 seconds, or like in many cities where you can see a cop anywhere you look. Not all of us have that luxury. Also, it doesn't matter if I have 1 or 10 firearms...I can only use one at a time. Being a hunter, I have several that have different applications. You don't seem to understand that, either..... I am NOT a member of the NRA, but when the BS starts after something like this, it drives people into their flock.
So, Medic. How is it you think I don't "understand it either?" Did I say a hunter couldn't have more than one weapon? Have you really had to shoot thugs that knock at your door? Have you considered a community endeavor to have better police protection? I think you have rushed to your own interpretations. That's part of the problem...shoot first and think later. Sensibility and reducing weapons in the wrong hands is NOT BS.
Jamil, I don't think we "normalize." We have, in America, a unique ability to deny the darker side of humanity. We, individual and as a society, don't want to admit to ourselves or out loud that if a well-to-do PhD student can go "off the rails" and commit such an atrocious act, then we are all capable of it.
We cling to this vision of "inherent goodness" or something that enables us to write off people like Holmes as "crazy loners" and assuage ourselves that he is an aberration, but he isn't, he's human just like the rest of us.
I will close with Shakespears Richard III, "No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore I am no beast."
Dear Nerdland,
Its great that you focused a portion of Sunday morning's show on Africa, but why rehash a story line that has been covered to death, i.e. poverty in Africa, American aid to Africa and AIDS in Africa? There are so many more things going on in Africa right now. For example, did you know that in the past few years when the United States and Europe have been mired in financial crises and recessions, Africa never experienced a recession, but experience profound growth? Also, some European countries, notably Portugal have recently sought aid from African countries like Angola and unemployed youth in Portugal have gone to Angola to seek employment. There is a whole other narrative taking place in Africa and focusing only on poverty is doing Africa a disservice.