Last but not least,,Zakaria/Guns-Az'Palin

[deziloooooo]

Ok , the abive got your attention..feel like a copy editor , big breaking story just as paper is put to bed , ready to roll...little space

This is a round table--four folks, all good credentials shmoozing about guns in America, the violance in Arizona last week, with Sara thrown in for good measure..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ZAKARIA: So in the United States -- in the United Kingdom, there are six guns for every 100 people. We have 90 guns for every 100 people. What is the difference in the murder rate in Britain? The murder rate in the United States is 44 times higher than the murder rate in England and Wales. Surely these two facts are related.


ZAKARIA: There are 90 guns for every 100 Americans. That is the highest ratio in the world by far. The next highest country, by the way, is Yemen, which has 60 guns for every 100 people. The United States owns 30 percent of all known guns in the entire world and more than 50 percent of all new guns made in the world are bought in America, which has of course five percent of the world's people. These are all statistics from a worldwide study called the Small Arms Survey.

So what is it that makes America so different? Is it cultural? Is it constitutional? And what does it have to do with Arizona? We've gathered a terrific panel to talk about these kinds of issues.

Bernard-Henri Levy is perhaps France's best-known public intellectual. He has a new book out called "Public Enemies." Mark Ames is the author of a book that looks at why people in his words go postal. James Taranto is a columnist for the "Wall Street Journal." And Richard Cohen is a long-time columnist for the "Washington Post."

Welcome to all of you. Richard Cohen, the part -- the part -- you wrote a column about the part that I'm just fixed on and find fascinating, which is fine, you know, people are crazy, you can't account for -- for these things, maybe there are some underlying causes, maybe some rhetoric feeds into it, but the one thing you can say is it seems awfully easy for people like this in America to buy semi-automatic guns that fire hundreds of rounds.

RICHARD COHEN, WASHINGTON POST: Right. It's -- it's kind of amazing. I always go back to Ralph Nader, who taught us all a good lesson. Ralph Nader looked at automobile accidents and say people are going to drive drunk, they're going to drive stupidly, they're going to drive negligently, they're going to drive when they're too old, they're going to drive when they're too young. The one thing you can deal with is the car. Design a car that will survive a crash.

You are going to have crazy people in this country. You wouldn't know what to do with them. You can't just arrest them. You can't put them in jail. You can't put them in insane asylums. The one thing you can control is the gun and access to the gun. And we don't do it.

We have a 22-year-old kid who's literally got bubbles coming out of his ears. He's so, so crazy. He's getting crazier and crazier. He goes in and buys a lethal weapon and a weapon that can kill numerous numbers -- numbers of people in a -- in a matter of seconds, and it's perfectly legal.

ZAKARIA: So James, I look -- I look at these numbers, and I think to myself, this seems so obvious. So in the United -- in the United Kingdom there are six guns for every 100 people. We have 90 guns for every 100 people. What is the difference in the murder rate in Britain? The murder rate in the United States is 44 times higher than the murder rate in England and Wales.

Surely these two facts are related, the fact that it is so much easier to buy a gun in America means that there is so much more crime -- after all, culturally we sort of come from the same stock, Britain and the United States.

JAMES TARANTO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: I don't know. I think we would need -- we would need to look a lot more closely to rush to those sorts of conclusions. Remember, people also use guns in self- defense. In places where people are armed people are perhaps less likely to -- to pull out a gun because of the possibility that people will -- will defend themselves.

And, you know, 90 guns for every 100 people. Well, the vast, vast majority of those guns are never used in a crime. And so why are we picking on law-abiding citizens who want to use guns?

ZAKARIA: Bernard-Henri Levy, what does this debate look to you like from Paris?

BERNARD-HENRI LEVY, FRENCH PHILOSOPHER/INTELLECTUAL: Not from Paris. From here. First of all, it's a tragedy, what happened in Arizona is a tragedy. In front of such a tragedy you have two -- two ways to see it -- clinical way or political way -- clinics or politics.

I'm not the father of the murder. So I don't deal with clinic. I don't want to know if he's crazy or not. We have to deal with that politically. Not clinically, politically. Politically means what? Two things. Number one, as you said, the easiness to purchase some heavy weapons in this country. I visited, when I wrote my book about America, some weapons fair in America. In Texas, for example, I saw average guys going to buy heavy machine guns as you go to the grocery to buy aspirin -- this is insane. And you tell me the majority does not -- is not use to commit crimes. Thanks God -- thanks God the majority does not have to commit crimes. One is enough to create the bloodbath of last week, number one.

And number two, I'm sorry to say that, but you have today in this very wise country, which is America, America was the fatherland of pragmatism, of civilized dialogue between Republican and Democrats, it was a model, and it is still a model, American democracy is a model of wisdom. Accept that.

Since a few months you have a sort of burning of the debate, a climate of hatred which is not without a link with what happened. Of course, you cannot put a cause and an -- and an effect. But you cannot disconnect the two completely. That's what we say a while back in our book. When you burn the words, you have burning in the -- in the grounds.

ZAKARIA: So Mark, you've written a long piece in "Vanity Fair" about this. Why -- what's going on? Why does this happen in America so often?

MARK AMES, AUTHOR, "GOING POSTAL": Well, when I wrote my book, "Going Postal," I was -- I was interested in this particular crime because these mass shootings in workplace, first they started actually in post offices, which is why they call it going postal, then they moved on to sort of the private work -- workforce, and then to schools. They've turned out, first of all, you can't really profile these killers because they could be really anybody.

So I decided instead to profile the world that kind of made them. And that is when it became clear to me that the changes that took place in this country under Reagan, you know, under Reaganomics, when inequalities started to appear and, you know, wealth inequalities got much worse, unions were broken, the work -- the workplace became a lot -- a lot worse, I mean, sort of corporate culture became a lot more difficult and stressful for the average worker in a way that -- that Americans hadn't really seen pretty much since the end of World War II.

ZAKARIA: But you cannot possibly say that because America became a tougher, rougher place that's why --

AMES: I think you can, actually.

ZAKARIA: -- the people started going out with machine guns and shooting -- AMES: I think you can because today we have the worst wealth inequality of any time in our history except for 1928. And inequalities like that create all kinds of illnesses, you know?

ZAKARIA: I'm going to guess, James Taranto, you're going to disagree with that.

TARANTO: Well, here's the obvious flaw in the argument you're making. We talked about going postal, right? OK. Postal workers have government benefits. They are members of a union. They're not the victims of income inequality.

Furthermore, this fellow in Tucson was a student. He was 22 years old -- is 22 years old, I guess we should say, because -- because he did survive the attack. And there's nothing -- no facts have come out that suggest any kind of economic angle to it.

So it seems to me that you're just -- you know, you're not saying anything that you wouldn't have said if you had been on this show two weeks ago and I don't see what it has to do with the -- with the situation at hand.

ZAKARIA: When we come back, we're going to talk about whether the political climate produces political violence. This is the question of the hour. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Candy Crowley, and here are today's top stories.

A man who was shot but survived last week's Arizona rampage is being held in a mental health services unit after making a death threat at a Tucson town hall meeting. Sixty-three-year-old James Fuller told Tea Party member Trent Humphreys, quote, "You are dead" as Humphreys was making comments at the gathering. Humphreys said he has not decided whether to file charges against Fuller but is leaning toward that action.

ZAKARIA: And we are back with our panel. The question we are trying to sort through is whether or not political violence can be attributed in some way to political rhetoric -- Richard Cohen.

COHEN: I think it can. My expert on this is my wife, a clinical psychologist, who tells me of course it has an effect. We all swim in a certain sea, and we hear certain things and everything. But I don't think it did in this case. I mean, after all, the primary target was a moderate. I mean, about as obscure as possible. I never even heard of her until she was shot. Certainly belonged neither to the right wing nor the left wing of her own party. Was not -- I don't -- we'll never have an idea of why he -- why he shot her and was after her. He seemed to be apolitical. He just seemed to be losing it totally going crazy -

TARANTO: Wait a minute. We have reports as to what happened. He went to see her in 2007, according to his friends. He asked her a question about government control of grammar or some unhinged thing that made no sense. He wasn't satisfied with her answer. And he nursed a grudge against her for the next few years.

COHEN: But that's not political.

TARANTO: That's my point. But to call this political violence is either a misjudgment or just an outright lie. I mean, "The New York Times" has been waging a witch hunt against conservative media figures, blaming them for this, based on this lie that this was an act of political violence. It simply was not. No one had heard of Sarah Palin when this guy developed his grudge against Gabrielle Giffords.

ZAKARIA: Is the political rhetoric coming out of right-wing talk shows, charged political rhetoric -

AMES: I think -

ZAKARIA: -- likely to influence people?

AMES: Well, I think obviously yes. And I think obviously having more guns makes it more likely that there are going to be more killings. Every statistic shows that. That doesn't mean that we can ban guns or should because of our constitution, but to deny that there's a link I think is -- is just -- it's out there.

TARANTO: But there's a link only in the obvious sense that if there were no guns there would be no gun violence.

LEVY: You have also precise reports. We know that among his best list of books you have "Mein Kampf." He had "Mein Kampf" --

TARANTO: And the "Communist Manifesto" and "The Wizard of Oz and all sorts of books.

LEVY: I know. I know. "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto" is a program which is not a program of moderation, of wisdom, and of democratic dialogue. And when Sarah Palin expressed these very strange words, saying that she's a victim of a blood libel, again it is very strange. A blood libel, everybody knows what is a blood libel. A blood libel was about the Jews being supposed to be guilty of using blood of Christians to make the Passover bread.

So there is all this atmosphere also around this tragedy. I have no -- I have no replies, but I have questions. And these questions must be raised.

ZAKARIA: Richard Cohen, do you have answers?

COHEN: I have nothing but answers. I don't think for a second that Sarah Palin knew the meaning of blood libel. I just don't. There's nothing in her background which suggests it. And if she did, I don't think she used it all that inappropriately. I mean, if it refers to a false accusation for which a community is blamed then she was right.

LEVY: Hold on. You think Sarah Palin is stupid enough not to know what a blood libel is?

COHEN: How much time do we have left to talk about how stupid Sarah Palin is?

LEVY: No, no, no. Frankly, I don't believe --



TARANTO: Look, the blood libel is a -- is a lie about the killing of children. Remember, there was a child who was killed in this attack. And the "New York Times" leading the way but others particularly in the media and a few politicians, but mostly this has been the media, went out and blamed conservatives, particularly conservative media figures, which is what Sarah Palin is, for the death, among others, of this child. So blood libel, yes, she's not using it in the literal sense. It is often used in metaphorical senses. I could give you a list of examples from the "New York Times," the "Washington Post," various liberal commentators, who've thrown around the term blood libel --

LEVY: I'm waiting for the list. Give me the list of the example of the metaphorical use of blood libel if it is -

TARANTO: Representative Deutsch -- Representative Peter Deutsch in 2000, a Democrat of Florida, said --

LEVY: If you use blood libel in this way, maybe you are right --

TARANTO: Nobody has said it was obscene until now.

LEVY: I say today it is obscene in whoever mouth it is.

ZAKARIA: And we are going to try to keep this at a -- at a civil level, which means of course we're going to leave and everyone can quarrel off camera.

Thank you all very much. We will be right back
_______________________________________________

[deziloooooo]

As a add on I have a thought. I am for Americans to have arms...got a few of my own some where around the place.
I don't hunt, possible twice a year I might go to a local range to fire..they are .45's , the rounds are expensive.

In thinking about some of the questions put up this week about the selling of the weapon to the shooter in Az I got to thinking who are the sellers of weapons.

In my area it seems that most are independent gun shops, not national chains, independent retailers , in business to make a living , support their families and I will guess weapon enthusiast. some have sales people, the larger ones, not sure if they are on commission, salaried or a combination of both.

Then there are the dealers who do their selling at "gun "shows. I take it they have no over head beyond paying the promotor of the show that entitles them to a booth, some tables, a few chairs where they can lay out their wares for the public. Naturally the cost of their products too.

Not sure why a potential buyer would go to purchase their rather then a established dealer in town, since as with all products, there are bad items sold and if there is a fault I would rather go back to a person who is established , been in one spot for a while for help rather some one I have to chase after and even if trust worthy , have to use the shipping companies to send merchandese back and forth with if a problem and I don't even know the law about inter state mailing of weapons but there must be something these show people offer that the stand alone stores don't.

Possible price, selection, variety , more comparisons between ..something. I have done shows , to numerouse to count in my day. Not gun shows but trade shows in different companies I have worked at .

Most were in introducing new items , seasonal sales to big box stores, corporate presentations, that were then shipped later not carried home with the purchaser but I have family in that kind of sales and I do know , to make a sale duruing the show that is paid for and taken home with the customer, or paid for but delivered later as they passed through a area if a large item, was very important.
There is the time involved, the cost of the show to the seller, the over night lodging, food, gas, andy set up costs that have to be recooped , so the sale is important.

What I am getting at, the ones who sell these weapons, they want to make a sale. If there are forms to fill out , procedures to follow, Identification to be gotten , they will do so, but unless some one comes in foaming at the mouth , making crazy threats against some one or are acting completly off the wall, and even then a sale might be made, if the crazyness is just a strong feeling against a group or political whatever in general terms , that a good chance the seller may agree with, that man or woman wants to make a sale and to ask them to be the first line of defense in the purchase of these weapons just is not going to happen.

Yet in a round about way, some posters seem to be asking for that.

On a personal note, I am open to be explained why. What is so bad about a waiting period , what ever it takes with in reason, to me UP to a month is reasonable in a harder investigation, but a waiting period to check out a person by authorities before a weapon is allowed in the possesion of a buyer.

I can understand the seller. People change their mund once they leave a place in many cases and if sold by credit card or check, stop payment , the same on the card.

Possible if a hand gun, a personal reference should be contacted/needed . A clergy man, teacher, policeman, department to see if there has ben problems with the person. No arrest records but if known to be one who is always skirting, acting weird where no arrests are made but authorities know the person is a bit strange and questionable.

Hell if I was interested in a hand gun purchase , no real personal references available, a trip to the local police station, introduce my self to them, tell them my plans , let them talk to me a bit , even while talking, quietly look up my record , explain the law on hand guns to me, even promise to register if a purchase, have no problem with that if they want that.

Any little reasinable thing to help keep these out of the wrong hands , and no I don't think we should make it illegal, but more difficult to purchase, why not?

The second amendment? I didn't say you can't have them just better/harder rules to get them. We have on auto's , why not hand guns at least or any weapon that is that unusual.

Ok tear me apart my second amendment friends..do it tomorrow, zzzz time now.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Because criminals are so great at following our laws, they would obey gun control laws?

[handyman2]

The article I believe is misleading. If you look it up I believe you will find that about 90% of all murders in the US are not commited by a gun of any kind according to the BATF.
The true picture should be what is the comparable murder rate of other countries and the US commited by a gun. As the old saying goes figures don't lie but liers figure.

[deziloooooo]

It was a round table discussion and a lot of topics covered..it covered more then just guns...limited space so a better header? Possible but couldn't think what.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...imo, a gun show can be preferred much like people prefer to test drive a car...
...and as a side note of my own.... I'm exasperated by so-called "intellectuals" who do so much research in so few areas and so little research in broad areas... there were too many comments that were too short sighted for me to be impressed by this particular round-table...

[deziloooooo]

I agree , it was more a personal feelings of by intelligent people, their feelings of , but points raised were not wrong,..possible the answers to are just not there. if our death rate is 44 % higher the the UK..if true , that's a fact. If there are 6 guns per people vs 90 in the US, another fact. Is there a corollary?? That we are close to the Sudan in # of guns per person, not a place i like to be compared too.
To notice some one at a show purchasing a MG id true, possible he saw a automatic rather then a MG, me thinks, .30, .50..M-60's, doubt those are available..what think, never went to a gun show . If true..sorry, to me..Nuts. LOL

Don't misunderstand..I am not a anti gun one, even though middle to the left.

I am not in love with em..to me in a part of my life, tools of the trade, but love for? No. I do not salivate over, Remember a friend showing me a magnum revolver he had purchased , the "Dirty Harry " type, ...hefted it, tried the trigger pressure..thought ..of his purchase and thought WHY?

[burnsattornincan]

The article I believe is misleading. If you look it up I believe you will find that about 90% of all murders in the US are not commited by a gun of any kind according to the BATF.

An excellent observation. So here we have some Muslim talk show host throwing out the idea of disarming American citizens using misleading and otherwise completely false statistics. Get real Zakaria. Take it back to India.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< That we are close to the Sudan in # of guns per person, not a place i like to be compared too. >>>

...any particular reason why not?

[deziloooooo]

"I believe you will find that about 90% of all murders in the US are not commited by a gun of any kind according to the BATF."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad you brought that up again, meant to question that. Not saying your wrong, I am surprised, how about a link, not as a diss,,,but as a surprise to me and would like to read it.

[dmsm]

We already have laws concerning guns, we do not need more as I do not see the bad guys paying any attention to laws.

[burnsattornincan]

I have no idea what Zakaria is talking about when he says the murder rate is 44 times higher in the US than in the UK. He could only mean per capita since that is the only way to compare the rates where population size is different. Here is a link that says the rate in the US is .042 and in the UK it is .014. Does this sound like 44 times higher? Makes you wonder what kind of agenda this Muslim has.

www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< Surely these two facts are related. >>>

...they MIGHT be related...and don't call me Shirley...

[deziloooooo]

"Makes you wonder what kind of agenda this Muslim has."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always wonder why you seem to have to put a diss on some one , also not true, never was a moslem, christian, go google, but so unnecessary, and a citizen here and a brlliant resume of accomplishments, a liberal on some things who has no problem calling out the left , thus why he is so respected, not by you of course , but for those who matter, but don't ubnderstand the disses..takes away from your posts IMHO..but hey, live and let live I guess.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"and don't call me Shirley..." I went back to see who did, actually just checked my posts, had me worried..who addressed you that way?
I'll make sure I don't anyway.

[burnsattornincan]

Mr. deziloooooo, the way I look at it is that he should know the climate of today concerning Muslims (he was born into that "religion" by the way) and he should be extra careful not to spread misinformation when discussing such a subject as the 2nd amendment which was given to you by men far greater than you will ever see again in your country. So his reckless statements resonate a little more in my opinion.

Dalton McGuinty Burns III

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...lol, dez...
...burns referenced Zakaria's claim about 44 times the murder rate... and the OP shows that Zakaria did talk about guns and murders, and then, "Surely these two facts are related."
...I simply chimed in that the facts "might" be related, and to not call me (his "listener") Shirley...
...I'll freely acknowledge that I should not quit my day job to do stand-up...
...and, fwiw, Zakaria was raised in an Islamic household... IDK his current theology of choice, but maybe burns has read something about it not being just his heritage/background?


...oh, and burns weighed in while I was posting...

[ed1066]

Wow. So much misinformation in the OP I don't know where to start. It's always amusing to see a bunch of liberals trying to discuss guns when it's highly likely none of them have ever touched one or possibly even seen one except in a movie...by the way, a person could mass murder using a car, a sword, a nail gun, a baseball bat, a bag of chemical fertilizer or a chainsaw, and it's FAR easier to buy any of those things than it is to buy a gun.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 17, 2011 16:43:34 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Wow. So much misinformation in the OP I don't know where to start. It's always amusing to see a bunch of liberals trying to discuss guns when it's highly likely none of them have ever touched one or possibly even seen one except in a movie...by the way, a person could mass murder using a car, a sword, a nail gun, a baseball bat, a bag of chemical fertilizer or a chainsaw, and it's FAR easier to buy any of those things than it is to buy a gun.

Where do you get

"amusing to see a bunch of liberals trying to discuss guns when it's highly likely none of them have ever touched one or possibly even seen one except in a movie"

possible a link to give your statement some credability?

[jkapp]

Yes we need to crack down on gun ownership...

BTW, Timothy McVeigh didn't use any guns...eveything he killed with could be bought at a hardware store. So how do we also crack down on things like that from being able to bought easily by crazy people???

A crazy person could go into town right now and buy an axe, shovel, fertilizer, bleach and ammonia, steak knives, baseball bat, hedge clippers, stump-out, kerosene, gasoline, bottles of alcohol and rags, and any number of other lethal instruments and commit all kinds of murder. So how do we stop them from doing so?