I reject this notion of mentall illness - although, there are some REAL sick f#cking puppies out there

January 11, 2011

Mental Illness, Guns and Toxic Speech

To the Editor:
I disagree with the narrow way that David Brooks presents the Arizona shootings in “The Politicized Mind” (column, Jan. 11).
The suspect, Jared L. Loughner, seems to be a disturbed individual, but all societies have mentally unstable citizens, and yet the United States has a high rate of these killing sprees; Columbine, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech come to mind. These mass killings do not happen with such frequency in any other developed country. There must be unique contributing factors beyond the mere presence of mentally ill members in American society.
I can think of at least three:
¶The easy, unfettered access to guns.
¶The difficulty of obtaining health care for the mentally ill.
¶The toxic and inflammatory political rhetoric in this country.
It is incredible to me that it is easier to buy a semiautomatic pistol than to operate a car in the United States. There is great irony that Representative Gabrielle Giffords’s support for the law to provide health care for more Americans like Mr. Loughner inspired vitriolic opposition. All societies have their share of Loughners, but only the United States has the unique environment and lack of support systems that cause them to act out at a higher rate and with such devastating consequences.
Chris Librie
Racine, Wis., Jan. 11, 2011
•
To the Editor:
I take exception to David Brooks’s efforts to separate the climate of political hate from the shooting rampage in Tucson. If Jared L. Loughner had staged his rampage at his workplace, or in his neighborhood or in some other place devoid of political implications, Mr. Brooks would be right — another senseless mass killing by a man in need of treatment in a country in need of better gun control.
But Mr. Loughner was not, as Mr. Brooks contends, “locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.” Mr. Loughner, even if mentally disturbed, chose his venue — a political gathering — and chose his victim, a Democratic congresswoman.
Furthermore, he made these choices in an atmosphere fired by hate speech, much of it explicitly directed at Democrats. Mr. Brooks is correct that we don’t know whether the Tea Party or Sarah Palin’s targeting of Gabrielle Giffords using cross hairs played any explicit role in influencing Mr. Loughner’s choice of victim, but his heinous act, however irrational, was inescapably political.
Mary-Lou Weisman
Westport, Conn., Jan. 11, 2011
•
To the Editor:
David Brooks accuses me, among others, of “political opportunism.” No, Mr. Brooks. I said that “words have consequences,” and that to place public figures in cross hairs is to invite violence.
That isn’t political opportunism, nor does it represent, as you claim, “vicious charges.” That is a fact. Few doubt that inflammatory rhetoric has prompted mass violence in the past.
Gary Hart
Kittredge, Colo., Jan. 11, 2011
The writer was a Democratic senator from Colorado from 1975 to 1987.
•
To the Editor:
The explanation on your opinion pages for the Tucson shooting seems to divide along liberal and conservative lines. While liberal columnists like Paul Krugman (“Climate of Hate,” Jan. 10) emphasize the current political environment that they contend encourages outrage and violence, conservatives, like David Brooks, point out that the suspect is mentally ill and answers mainly to the voices in his own head. Both offer interpretations that confirm their and their readers’ worldview.
Is it not possible that they are both correct?
Edward Abrahams
Bala Cynwyd, Pa., Jan. 11, 2011
•
To the Editor:
In “A Turning Point in the Discourse, but in Which Direction?” (Political Times column, Jan. 9), Matt Bai seems to equate the vitriol arising from powerful conservative forces (Sarah Palin, Fox News, the Tea Party movement) with a comment posted on the progressive Daily Kos blog, where a constituent declared Representative Gabrielle Giffords “dead to me” after she voted against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader.
It’s not just that the latter hardly commands public attention to the degree of the former, but Mr. Bai has misconstrued the Kos comment. To be “dead to me” is an expression used by some observant Jews to separate themselves from, for example, a child who has married outside the faith (and Ms. Giffords is Jewish). It has nothing to do with wanting to see a life ended, and is hardly comparable to Sharron Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies.”
Steven Volk
Oberlin, Ohio, Jan. 9, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Re “An Assault on Everyone’s Safety” (editorial, Jan. 11): The attack in Tucson was the latest in a losing battle for gun control. There’s no hope for any discussion in this country. Innocents were shot, security will increase and we’ll never agree about Sarah Palin.
I believe in the right to bear arms, but not for deranged individuals. The National Rifle Association is making it difficult for mayors across the country to crack down on illegal handguns. When any attack occurs, it’s used as a reason for everyone to go out and buy a gun.
I don’t believe that sanity can prevail when it’s easier to pull out a Glock 19 than it is to pull the lever of a voting machine. As a registered Republican who believes in tougher gun laws, I know there’s room for individuals to think outside their party’s dogma. The death of another child changes things a bit, don’t you think?
Howard Jay Meyer
Brooklyn, Jan. 11, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Members of Congress will rant, rave and pontificate about the Tucson massacre, then do absolutely nothing meaningful about gun control, waiting for the next massacre to pick up on the ranting, raving and pontificating.
Sam Salem
Akron, Ohio, Jan. 11, 2011
•
To the Editor:
Re “At Victim’s School, Shock, Sorrow and Nightmares” (news article, Jan. 11):
If any good can come out of the senseless shootings in Tucson, perhaps it can be to put a human face on the breadth of the tragedy.
Maybe the loss of Christina Green, a 9-year-old girl brought to a Safeway to witness democracy in action, can provide the impetus for legislators cowed by the National Rifle Association to finally remove semiautomatic weapons from our store shelves and cupboards.
If such legislation needs a human face, we can call it Christina’s Law.
Mark Rosen
New Paltz, N.Y., Jan. 11, 2011