Serious Guns and White Terrorism: Two Unasked Questions in Tucson Mass Murder

Monday 10 January 2011

by: Bill Quigley, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Serious Guns and White Terrorism: Two Unasked Questions in Tucson Mass Murder
(Photo: anemptygun)

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

The weapon reportedly used in the mass murders in Tucson was a serious weapon - a Glock 19, semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine. Some weapons like that were illegal to sell in the US from 1994 to 2004 under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It is now legal to sell and own them. The National Rifle Association reports there are tens of millions of assault weapons in 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. White terrorism is not a concept the US takes seriously.

Click here to get Truthout stories like this one sent straight to your inbox, 365 days a year.

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 New York City 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 the 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, white terrorism is not much talked of. Rather the mass murder 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 mass murder 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, Rep. Peter King (R-New York) has already started that one!

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

Uhhh, it's really, really

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 14:27 — Robert Slaven (not verified)

Uhhh, it's really, really stretching things to call a 9mm semi-auto handgun "an assault weapon". Even the fact that it had an extended magazine isn't enough to make it that. There's a very good chance that Laughner would have done just as much damage if he'd had the stock 15-round magazines and a bit more practice changing magazines more quickly.

The "compact" Glock 19 (and its regular-sized brother, the Glock 17) is probably one of the most common handguns in the world, in the most common handgun calibre in the world. It's used by law-enforcement agencies all over the world (including in the US) and by many military forces. It is hardly an assault weapon by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, this was a horrible tragedy. Yes, guns are too easy to get in most of the USA. But if we respond inaccurately to details like this, it just gives the nutbars on the Right more ammunition to deflect the blame that they deserve for this.

The reason it's not "White

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 14:54 — Tommy T (not verified)

The reason it's not "White Terrorism", is the same reason you won't see "Genocide" in our children's history books in reference to the expansion of this nation. It all depends on who is telling the story.
In reply to Robert Slaven's comment: A handgun is used to "hunt" one specific animal, humans. A 19 round capacity would tend to make it a weapon to lead an assault. Not to far a stretch then to refer to it as an Assault Weapon.

all over the world an HK sub

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 15:29 — Anonymous (not verified)

all over the world an HK sub gun in 9mm is a standard close quarters combat police and military weapon with 30 round magazines,clearly the glock 19 with 30 rd mags can do as much or nearly as much destruction as the sub gun maybe more since its concealable and you could get point blank range with a stealthy approach,,,,i wont lament there absence ,I'd never give up my revolvers,,,,cops gotta give em up to

Sorry Tommy T., but I own a

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 15:40 — American hunter (not verified)

Sorry Tommy T., but I own a handgun and I legally hunt deer and grouse with it - I do a lot of target shooting and really enjoy marksmanship as a hobby. It is a fantastic American tradition.

Nobody needs a handgun to murder another. What they do need is a low value for life. It's pathetic people - respect others as you would have yourself respected and nobody need die nor be harmed.

Try love for once.

Have a nice day!

To American Hunter: For the

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 16:53 — Mark Levin (not verified)

To American Hunter:

For the most part I agree with you. Though I wonder if you use an extended magazine semi-auto handgun to hunt deer with. Everyone I know that hunts uses a rifle so as to get the cleanest kill shot they can.

The problem is when mentally unstable people are able to obtain and use such firearms. You refer to them as "pathetic people". Ok. What's your plan for keeping high powered weaponry out of the hands of "pathetic people"? Just wondering...

You people are ridiculous.

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 17:15 — Self Defense and Hunting (not verified)

You people are ridiculous. The reason he was kicked out of school was pathetic at best and illegal at worst. Strange political ideas are not a reason to kick a Citizen out of school. As far as I can tell, his only run in with the law was when the school wasn't happy with what he said on the internet about them and then they used the police to enforce respect to their institution. This probably didn't help his paranoid state given that the School employed a very heavy handed tactic to quell someone who said something they didn't like about the U.S. Constitution and Education.

The only quote I got from the students that this kid said was "How do you feel about the government taking over?" Misguided, as the government has been in charge for quite a while now, but hardly a reason to kick someone out of school with police involvement.

As for running a stop sign, that is not a reason to take someone's right to bear arms from them. "Due process" is the Federal Constitutional standard for stripping an individual of their rights, there was no due process with this individual that should have prevented his owning a firearm. I'm sure there's more than one person in America with a gun who has ran a stop-sign and hasn't harmed anyone. The 2nd Amendment is very clear, as is the right to due process.

This idea that people can be stripped of their rights at the behest of the whims of the APA needs to end. Psychology is as best a statistical science, and at worst, mostly fabricated.

Quote: "In one year, guns

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 17:59 — Anonymous (not verified)

Quote: "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."

How did GUNS murder these people? Were they possessed? Did they just take flight and magically shoot these people?

I suspect it was PEOPLE who murdered others, not guns. If guns never existed, there would still be bombs, poison, knives, spears, rocks, and other easy implements of destruction. It's the CRAZY (or, perhaps programmed) PEOPLE who kill people!

The writer forgot to mention

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 19:25 — Aim (not verified)

The writer forgot to mention two important pieces of information. One, Timothy McVeigh was a white domestic terrorist. Two, this young political assassin and mass murderer was rejected by the US military. The big question is when did he purchase this assault weapon? Before his mental instability? During his increasing mental imbalance? Or after he had exhibited numerous mental problems? This will tell us a lot more about how we carry out gun purchasing and selling. Its unbelievable that a state in this country legally allows carrying this type of gun in a concealed manner. Especially considering that there is almost one gun per person in this country including children and babies! Frightening!

The last place I would get

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 19:43 — AnonymousDV (not verified)

The last place I would get statistics for gun deaths is from the Brady Campaign. I'm sure their numbers include suicides and drug violence which are real problems in this country.

As for interpretations of the second amendment, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

At the time this was written “militia” referred to armed population and “well regulated” meant well trained or competent. If we substitute these words it makes more sense: A well trained and armed population being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

On the other hand, if you think “militia” refers to an official government run organization or to a police force, then the 2nd clause would have made more sense if it had the opposite meaning: the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall be Restricted.

The 2nd amendment was written as a protection against the government itself (yes, even this government) and truth of this statement has clearly been demonstrated historically by all dictatorships that first remove arms from the population before restricting other rights. The framers were well aware that the American revolution could not have occurred were it not for the armed militia that existed in this country.

Question: How does a

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 01:26 — David Brookbank (not verified)

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

Before answering Bill Quigley's question I would mention a couple points and then add to his question.

Our society is increasingly armed and increasingly ready to use those arms -- in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and anywhere else in the world -- against people equally as innocent and in many case, equally as distinguished and valuable as the people shot in Arizona.

In my home town of Spokane, Washington, the police shoot citizens with increasing frequency. In a 2002 interview with our NPR affiliate KPBX, the then-chief of police said, officer involved shootings were as infrequent as lightening strikes. Eight years and multiple officer involved shooting later, the new line from law enforcement is that officer involved shootings tend to come in clusters. To which I respond: Apparently so and in barrages, following 20 plus rounds fired at a man with a gun, several of which rounds struck neighboring houses and went through windows of a Spokane Tribe classroom (only vacant due to a furlough day). Spokane Police purchased and carry 100 AR-15 assault rifles as of about 2006. My point is simply that in a 100 and one ways we are an increasingly violent society, at home, abroad, and in all ways.

Now to answer Quigley's question --

Question: How does a mentally unstable man who was kicked out of school and had run-ins with the law (or essentially any and every other person in this country who wants to) buy such a serious weapon?

Answer: Walk in, lay down your money, and leave with your weapon.

to Anonymous DV: The US has

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:05 — Anonymous (not verified)

to Anonymous DV: The US has the most heavily armed government in the world. In order to protect yourself against a tyrannical government, you will need something a little more serious than a Glock; in fact, I can't see that anything less than a credible nuclear deterrent could do the job. Will you therefore defend the right of every individual to keep and bear nuclear arms? If not, why not?

One of the heroes of the

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 13:52 — Anonymous (not verified)

One of the heroes of the Tucson shooting who helped to subdue the shooter said he has a license to carry and had a gun on him that day; that if he had thought more quickly he'd have pulled the gun and used it on the person holding the gun; who happened NOT to be the shooter! Thank God he didn't use his gun! He'd have shot the wrong person!

OMG is this what we have come to?

"Will you therefore defend

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 14:16 — Anonymous (not verified)

"Will you therefore defend the right of every individual to keep and bear nuclear arms? If not, why not?" My thought exactly and I wonder if the Supreme Court will uphold everyone's right to a nuclear weapon?That is what we'd need to protect ourselves and to become a "well armed population." In order to have any effect as a militia, these days we'd need weaponry way beyond a gun! If you think that owning guns is what will make you a decent militia; think again! How about tanks and submarines? Should we all have rights to own them?

And what will continued shooting of congress people do?

"Thank God he didn't use his

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 14:24 — Anonymous (not verified)

"Thank God he didn't use his gun! He'd have shot the wrong person!" This is the problem with a well armed citizenry. They may be well-armed, but are they also well-trained? Do they shoot indiscriminantely and shoot the wrong person; causing more death and mayhem instead of really helping? Do we really want this kind of vigilantism? I DO NOT! Use your guns for hunting and leave the police work to the police, please!

"US Muslims could have

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 14:45 — Anonymous (not verified)

"US Muslims could have expected increased surveillance and harassment at home and the places where they work and worship. "

So, because the examples you cite were white men, what do you want? Increased surveillance and harassment at home and the places where white men work and worship?

I believe your argument is weak. It doesn't matter if we call it "terrorism" - all murder is terrifying - let's just call it murder.

Not being American I just

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 18:45 — AH_Melb (not verified)

Not being American I just can't understand this "right to bare arms" thing. So you want the ability to just point at someone and they are dead! Is this a macho thing or are you really that insecure?
America really is turning into the Evil Empire.

I agree, AH_Melb. America-

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 23:27 — Disgusted (not verified)

I agree, AH_Melb. America- Land of the free, home of the brave? What a joke. What's so "brave" about being so fearful of your government that you insist on owning a gun? The answer is that is not the real reason that pro-2nd amendment folks get so hopping mad that they're ready to kill someone whenever sensible and reasonable people call for more REASONABLE gun control laws. The real reason is, as you said, "a macho thing," or an ego thing, or a pride thing, probably even a control thing, and dare I say even a compensation thing. Yes, they really are that insecure. It's pathetic really.

Semiautomatic weapons have

Thu, 01/13/2011 - 01:42 — Anony Mouse (not verified)

Semiautomatic weapons have no place in a civil society because their very purpose is for killing people rapidly and effortlessly, plus they can be converted to automatic firing. There is no hunting or defense rationale.

* "then only criminals will have them": the more prevalent semiautomatic weapons, the more risk of massacres and "suicide by cop".

* "only people kill people": This is a rationalization. The quantity of murders worldwide by gun versus knives or other (non-military) means clearly supports the assertion that some weapons make killing too easy. That's why "machine guns" are illegal in the US.

* "short vs. long clips": The real problem is semiautomatic; banning long clips is a small step.

Does Alito stand in the way? Forget the commerce clause. Just invoke the terrorism trump card. The terror attack in Mumbai did not use jet planes; it was just a coordinated surprise attack by people willing to die for a cause.