What can we do to make our public officials safer?

AZ has a very liberal gun policy and people used to solving altercations with violence. If people are presented violence as an option, some may choose it. Members of the media and public figures that disagree with public officials should emphasize action against that official by peaceful means such as “getting out the vote”, voting, being politically active.etc. Violence should never be a theme of their rhetoric. Members of the media and other public figures should look to their actions to stop this.

Create a more tolerant, honest society. That begins with education, about calling out the extremists when they lie and demanding honesty and responsible behavior from our political, corporate and civic leaders. And, just as importantly, our media.

Our media by and large has deteriorated to either pro-agenda shills or lapdogs who read press releases handed to them by politicians, corporate press officials and biased think tanks. That’s how extremists from all sides get their 15 minutes and more, in this day of 24-hour news cycles to fill. If more journalists were themselves better informed, actually confronted the extremists when they are caught in a lie and seriously investigated, that would go a long way toward an informed public.

Bullies will only bully when they are not confronted. Time for journalists to step up their game.

I am from AZ, and familiar with the gun laws there. A few years ago, right before I moved here, they passed a law making it legal to possess guns in a bar or tavern. The pro-gun rights movement claimed that it was a security measure, as criminals would already have access to guns, so allowing law abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves, would deter criminals from starting something, and would allow for people to “take out” criminals in the act, and prevent further deaths.

So where were all the guns Saturday morning? I know where one gun was, at the end of the arm of a deranged and unstable young man, who was able to obtain a gun quite easily. Where were the others?

If we want to eradicate a disease, we reduce the amount of that organism available to infect, through medicine & quarantine. If we want to eradicate a plague of animal or insect, we limit the availability of food and breeding. To eradicate gun violence, we have to do reduce the number guns, reduce the access of guns to people, and reduce the production of guns. It’s that simple.

If we want to be safe, we have to look past an antiquated constitutional amendment, and decide that the safety of our elected officials, our families, and ourselves, is more important. Protecting democracy from tyranny is paramount in our country. If you want to claim that those who sacrifice freedoms for security deserve neither, please do so in a letter to one of the victims of Saturday’s violence in Tucson. If you want to claim constitutional rights, please address those rights with the parents of that nine-year-old girl, and the parents of the shooter.

The answer is less guns. Period.

This unfortunately might be a dear price we pay for being a free and open society. But we should take the vitriol comments by Sarah Palin and Jesse Kelly a little more seriously and hold people accountable for suggesting violence.

The question is too narrow. Everyone’s safety would be increased if those public servants who are now so worried about their own safety could set a better example of civil discourse. If our elected officials cannot negotiate their differences without polarizing vitriol, what example is set for the nation–which, of course, includes individuals who may be even more unbalanced than the politicians who resort to name-calling, personal attacks and idiotic invective?

It seems Americans are rarely moved to right our course except in response to a tragedy. Perhaps the shooting will motivate our so-called leaders to re-establish the grand old tradition of reasoned, respectful discourse, recognizing that viewpoints other than our own are equally valid, and that all deserve to be heard if any consensus–rather than endless combat–is to be achieved.

All public figures – civic leaders, religious leaders, parents, teachers, writers, bloggers, broadcasters on radio and TV, sports and entertainment celebrities – should take their social prominence seriously, and remind their listeners/followers that, here in America, human life is precious, all human beings (even those we disagree with) deserve basic respect, and “the government” is not some evil conspiracy out to get us: WE the people of the United States ARE our government. WE have the right, and responsibility, to use free and legal elections to choose our public officials – unlike in so many countries around the world. There is no excuse for those who preach hatred and violence in the name of “patriotism.” That’s not patriotism; that’s nothing more than self-serving, self-aggrandizing greed. Freedom of speech allows anyone to say any hateful, vicious thing they like – but the rest of us don’t have to listen to such garbage, and certainly shouldn’t reward those who preach fear and hatred with our attention or support.

How interesting that in Arizona, with it’s extremely libertarian gun laws, the shooter was tackled, not shot! Where were the gun-toting citizens who were, according to the NRA’s rhetoric, supposed to be available to “take out” such miscreants? Why was the shooter not deterred by the supposedly well-armed populace? When will we learn that more guns means more violence, not less?

Tighten gun control laws!

I agree with the general view that curbing the vitriol and polarized, hateful rhetoric in our public dscourse would go a long way toward making our public officials safer. Specifically, I believe that if we could allow the nuance of reasoned argument to re-enter the picture, rather than presenting everything as completely black and white, we could, as a society, have the capacity for more reasoned responses to those with whom we disagree.

I believe that constituents are being endangered by the elected officials who create these public gatherings for no good reason.

Gun control, of course, but also coming up with a better way to identify mentally unstable people before they act out. Why was Giffords shooter out and about in society? He should have somehow been flagged long ago as a person in need of some kind of intervention and/or treatment.

One way to tone down some of the rhetoric and especially the shear volume of it is for the FCC to bring back the old equal time regulations that existed before Reagan. That would be a good start.

I don’t believe we can do anything structurally to make public officials safer. Certainly better gun control would help, but the most critical thing that needs to change is the vitriolic rhetoric that has become pervasive in our culture. From Rush Limbaugh to Sarah Palin to Michelle Bachman there is inflammatory rhetoric that the 24-7 news cycle loves to play, and that rhetoric is interpreted by those already on the edge as giving them permission to commit acts of violence. We seem to have lost any sense of respect and self-censorship in our language and actions towards each other.

Return freedoms and liberties to the people, revolution is in the air and it will not stop. When did you all stop being Americans and start being Europeans? Do you gun control advocates not understand that this is a right as much as your right to free speech? It is amazing how much we have become a bunch of pansies as a country.

If you look back at the tragedies that have had results similar to what happened yesterday in Tucson, there appears to be a common denominator of untreated mental illness. What is lacking in our country is adequate care and education of mental illness. We need to put more resources into treatment and research so that individuals who could benefit from treatment can receive it. Also if people recognized the behaviors of a person who needs help, there would be appropriate avenues to take to get the help people could benefit from.

I have heard Erik Paulsen refer more than once to the new health care law as being “a government takeover of health care.” Statistically, this is simply not true. In other words, when he says this he is telling a lie and he knows, or should know, it is a lie. I also heard, I believe as recently as the end of last week in an intereview, I believe with Cathy Wurzer, Michele Bachmann decry the recent huge premium increases in health insurance and blame that on the new health care law. That is also simply not true. All you have to do is listen to NPR’s own health policy specialist, Julie Rovner, to know this is not true, yet the interviewer did not hold Michele Bachmann at all responsible for this lie. And, again, Michele Bachmann knows or should know that this is a lie.

As long as politicians such as Erik Paulsen and Michele Bachmann are allowed to lie about the issues with impunity, and as long as politicians such as Michele Bachmann continue to use heated, divisive, over-the-top partisan rhetoric, the potential for tragedy such as just occurred in Arizona exists. Politicians must always be mindful that there is probably at least one unbalanced person listening to everything they say.

Peter, you left out one thing: they also have to stop manufacturing outrage at things that aren’t inherently outrageous. Unfortunately, folks like Bachmann, Palin, and the talking hotheads on right-wing media rake in lots of money when they push those buttons. Ranting about death panels or calling our president a marxist inflames anger that would not otherwise exist to such a degree. Yes, the left wing does some of that, too, but it’s the right wing that has made in into a high art and a key election and fund-raising tactic.

I agree with the person who wrote “tighten gun control laws.” To me, the situation in our country is ridculous, that it is so easy for an individual to get a weaon, and then carry it into a crowd. I hope the story is pursued and well covered as to how this individual, who seems to have some very serious mental health problems, got his weapon.

I think that some of the comments go too far…Getting rid of all guns is complete overkill (pardon the pun). There is a definite use and want and need for guns classified as hunting oriented firearms. I think that things need to be specified. Handguns and “assault-style” guns are at the center of the real issue. There is no real need for them. Just saying that getting rid of all guns lumps in the masses of law abiding sportsmen in the US. In my opinion there should be definite tight regulations on who can own a handgun. But there will always be a way for people who really want them, to get them. Which is very unfortunate.

To the question at hand, perhaps a “pope-mobile” style setup for public officials should be considered. However it prevents the personal contact that is so vital to the system of representation. To every “solution” there is always a negative.

Wow. How about each of us start changing the tone of our discourse. We can’t make our public servants completely safe but maybe it would help if we took the rhetoric down a notch.

I think it all starts with using First Amendment rights responsibly. Too many people hide behind the First Amendment, thinking they have the “right ” to lie, slander, distort the truth, and subvert the government.

Is anybody really surprised that these latest shootings happened??

We need to have some playground sensibilities here — you don’t flap your mouth on the playground because you’ll get punched in the nose or have your teeth knocked out. There is a natural restraint in most face-to-face encounters, that is absent among the many, mostly right-wing, political commentators that dominate talk radio and Fox “News”.

Ultimately, this situation will only change when:

The addresses of folks like Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, etc. are circulated on the internet, and their constant whereabouts disseminated via Twitter.

Let those subversives spend their days worrying about taking a bullet to the head, instead of the good people who strive daily to make our democracy strong.

The obvious first step is to get rid of any law allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons. Is there any wonder that this shooting occurred in Arizona, which has the most liberal gun laws in the land?

There are many things in this instance that need addressing. This young man is obviously mentally unstable if not actually mentally ill. The military saw it, his college saw it, I am sure his family saw it. Public discourse can be done in a civil tone. Let’s curb the impulse to use inflamimtory retoric in trying to get our points across. Politicians can be sure what they are saying is true and not something inflated to make them look better and the opponent look bad. I think Here in Minnesota we have several politicians that could claim the Liar Liar pants on fire award in countering political points. I am just going to pray for all the politicians who try very hard for our country and their constiuents. I will pray hard for all those killed and injured in this horrific tragedy.

With all of our technilogical advances is there not some instrument (which could be in use when our officialls are meeting in public) which would issue an alert? For instance when there is a change in the level and/or location of the amount of metal with which firearms are produced?

Granted, this would not provide a wide specttrum of protection from harm by other means, but would at least afford a measure of security against weapons likely to be available to the average person.

Gordon near TwoHarbors wrote: “The addresses of folks like Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, etc. are circulated on the internet, and their constant whereabouts disseminated via Twitter.

Let those subversives spend their days worrying about taking a bullet to the head, instead of the good people who strive daily to make our democracy strong.”

..and yet so many people who have here today say it is the right wing/Tea Party/conservatives/Sarah Palin who say these things filled with vitriol. This is not a recent development: You have an NPR reporter (who is still working for NPR today) who wished, just a few years ago, that a politician’s grandchildren would come down with AIDS so he would learn a lesson for voting the way he did. How is that any different than what is seen and heard today (read the post from “Gordon” below which was a response to how “terrible the rhetoric” is)?

The vitriol comes from both sides of the political spectrum the right and the left. To use this incident as a reason to silence the people you disagree with is reprehensible.

The congresswoman herself supported individuals gun rights and praised the recent Supreme Court decision on gun rights. To use this incident as a reason to enact stringent restrictions on gun ownership is reprehensible.

Why don’t we first identify the reason this individual committed this act, be it political, racial, mental, etc. and then identify how this individual was able to find the means to commit this act before we make knee jerk reactions. Once we find these elements then we can try to find a way to prevent someone with similar reasons from having the means to repeat this act.

Look in the mirror before you blame the other guy for the tone in the conversation – it takes two to tango.

Ban Conceal / Carry Gun Laws; register all hand guns.

Tone down political rhetoric. Ask party leaders to be more statesman like and use less hateful rhetoric.

Allow wider political views and exhibit greater tolerance-i.e. Gov Al Quie was intolerantly throw out of the Republican Party.

Our mental health care system needs to find a way to find those that are out of touch with reality and at risk for harming others, get them treatment and keep them from harming themselves and others. I know people have rights to decline care, but when they are at risk for harming others and educators and coworkers realize they are at risk for injuring others we need to figure out how to get them help. And we all need to treat eachother with respect regardless of our political and religious beliefs.

Why would you limit it to making elected officials safer; what about the rest of us?

First – Ban automatic weapons, they are in no way necessary for “self protection” or hunting.

Second- better access and more affordable mental health treatment

Third – rather than encouraging the talking heads who spew vicious hatred take a stand to ostracize them as well as the corporate entities who countenance such maliciousness, If the ratings drop, the tone might change (at least publicly.)

We should do nothing. `Safer’ generally means more isolated. Our public officials need to be more engaged, not more isolated. Our efforts to make the United States `safer’ since 9/11 have only made our country more isolated. Let’s not make our problems worse by further isolating public officials from their constituents. Jefferson said something to the effect that those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. Isolation breeds fear and that is the last thing we need as a country and as human beings. If anything, we need to return to the days when a citizen could easily walk into public buildings to see public officials, when the White House could be visited without the countless hassles and when one could fly without being treated like a criminal.