Skip to main content

In yet another incredible display of tact, timing, courteousness, conscientiousness, respect for the dead, respect for the grieving, taste, impeccable logic and eschewing of any and all viscously partisan agendas - Fox News has decided it's time to ask if the new Ft. Hood Shooting is the Fault of Obama and Gun Control.

http://www.rawstory.com/...

“There you have our soldiers not being able to arm themselves,” host Elisabeth Hasselbeck opined. “Still, if they have a weapon, they are to register it within five days of purchase, and obtaining it. But then that must be stored away in these lockers so that it cannot be carried on their person, therefore leaving them vulnerable.”

Co-host Steve Doocy noted that the military had decided to restrict sidearms on bases during President Bill Clinton’s (D) administration.

Doocy then pointed to the current Democratic president by quoting a conservative blogger: “Gateway Pundit, which is a way right-leaning blog, what they write this morning is, ‘The Obama administration is responsible for this mass shooting. They witnessed this before, they didn’t learn a thing. Gun-free zones are death zones. It is time to stand up to the lunacy.’”

Yes, that's right.  President Obama is apparently to blame - in Fox Fool World - for a military gun safety policy that was put in place by Bill Clinton, and Not Changed by 8 Years of George W. Bush, because - um.. he's.. uh... something... homina...still around to blame?

There used to be a time when there was a grace period before political operatives would try to turn a sad national tragedy - be it Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or the Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents, or Virginia Tech - into yet another political football to kick around.  Somebody once said that blaming a politician for the random violence and the murder of Americans was a "Blood Libel."

Clearly those people will rise up to proclaim that Fox News has gone too far this time won't they?

Won't they?

Let me just take seriously, for a second, the idea that "If only all the soldiers were armed all the time" on U.S. Bases it simply wouldn't be the case that anyone would dare raise a weapon in opposition against them.  Or that, considering such potential massive armed  opposition, any and all aggressors would be put down without any loss of innocent life.

Let us simply ignore the fact that there was armed security at Columbine and at Virginia Tech and that didn't change anything.

Let us simply ignore the reality that spree killing/suicides of this type, which we have seen before at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and many others, may involve levels of emotional and personal disturbance that is far beyond what many of us can fully comprehend, let alone predict, or easily prevent.

If it were true that we would not see spree killings of this type if only everyone were armed on our military bases, at our schools, in our workplaces, in our bars, in our monster truck rallies - then certainly we would never be able to find and example of an attempted mass shooting in such a place?

Yeah...

Well, I'm going to choose NOT to ignore the 71 Green On Blue Shootings that have occurred on our bases in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2012.

If the argument is "gee, if only the Troops were armed they could protect themselves" it seems to me that in pretty much all 71 out of 71 cases the troops in our forward combat zone bases WERE ARMED, but were still surprised and killed when "One of their Own" turned on them.

And one could argue that this comparison isn't fair because that's a War Zone and Ft. Hood Texas isn't, which is a fair point.  One could argue that it's not that surprising that the enemy would attack us in a War Zone, which is also fair.

However, the problem with that reasoning is this.  The Defense Department has determined that 75% of these Green On Blue Attacks were NOT done by Al Qeada, or Taliban Sympathizers, rather the vast majority of them are "Grievance" attacks initiated for personal or cultural issues with our International Forces in the region.

Possible explanations for the 2012 increase in green-on-blue attacks

There are two main narratives purporting to explain why green-on-blue attacks happen and why they are happening more frequently: grievances and infiltration. Grievance-based insider attacks occur because of cultural misunderstandings between foreign and Afghan troops, low morale, and revenge for perceived insults or provocations. Attacks caused by insurgent initiative are pre-planned violence organized by groups like the Quetta Shura Taliban or their Haqqani Network associates who have infiltrated the ANSF or influenced existing members to execute attacks.

The Pentagon believes that the vast majority of green-on-blue attacks are grievance-based rather than a result of infiltration, and on August 23, 2012 Gen. John Allen estimated that 25% of the attacks come from Taliban infiltration. In contrast, on October 4th, Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin described the majority of insider attacks as the result of "terrorist infiltration" rather than cultural differences. Another theory cites the rise in attacks in 2012 as a result of copycat behavior. Meanwhile, the Taliban claims credit for nearly every attack.

So obviously, a dearth of More Guns is more definitely the problem here.

Or not.

One other point before I sign off... when it comes to analysis of whether increased gun ownership is or is not a deterrent to gun violence, perhaps we should consult experts. Like say for example, the American Journal Of Health who produced a report on the subject in 2013.

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Wow, imagine that. More guns available to people seems to mean, generally but not casually, more people shot and killed with guns rather than the opposite?  How on the earth did that happen?

Oh well..., um,.. oops!

Maybe, just, maybe, there's more to what happened yesterday at Ft. Hood, and perhaps more going on in general within our Spree Killing Culture that needs some genuine, Non-Partisan, Non-Political, Health-focused analysis with better thought out and reasonable solutions than reflexively Blaming the President for something he had just about less than nothing to do with in order to score Cheap Political points?

Yeah. maybe.

Your serve Fox Fools.

Vyan

Originally posted to Vyan on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:56 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site