Jared Loughner Was Not a “Dangerous Loner”

Ever since the tragedy in Arizona last week, the corporate media has taken a rather predictable course of action.  First, they attempted to lay the blame on both the left and right sides of the grossly restricted American political spectrum, claiming that both sides needed to tone down the rhetoric of anger and violence.  Once this mission was largely accomplished, the narrative of Loughner the “dangerous loner” was inevitably brought to the fore:

Dangerous loners hard to catch before they act

WASHINGTON – The gunman accused of trying to assassinate Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing six others, Jared Lee Loughner, was not on any government watch list that might have warned someone not to sell him a gun or caused police to investigate his unstable behavior.

It turns out there is not a list in the United States for people like Loughner.

This particular example of AP propaganda then goes on to blatantly contradict itself by describing six other incidents in the last two years alone in which an “angry loner” has perpetuated similar acts of wanton violence:

In the past two years, there have been at least six incidents in which disgruntled Americans, acting alone, have taken violent action into their own hands. In many of the cases, signs of government distrust and paranoia wouldn’t have been enough to justify law enforcement intervention.

The agenda here is fairly obvious, but it’s easy to see why the conditioned masses so readily fall for it.  Ignoring the core issues behind this latest atrocity, the corporate media has tried to present these horrific acts as being mere flukes – wholly unexpected occurrences in an otherwise mild-mannered society.  The violent rhetoric of the right-wing politicians and commentators alike is deemed irrelevant, since according to this narrative the left utilizes the same angry tactics.

The fact is that Loughner – along with Joseph Stack, Richard Poplawski, Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh – was an avowed conservative, who undoubtedly ascribed to the hackneyed ramblings of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and their ilk.  The right has always been prone to violence, as evidenced by a long history of assassinations of leftist leaders – think MLK and Malcolm X, for starters.

This frenzied anger is largely fostered by the corporatist media, which performs the crucial role of turning people against the very concept of government.  While the goal may not be to incite such terrible acts of violence, such actions are an inevitable consequence in a nation where guns are not only highly ubiquitous, but also viewed in terms of heroism and glory.  In many right-wing circles, the very possession of a gun is considered a token of utmost patriotism.

The old cliche suggests that people are responsible for killing people, and guns are irrelevant.  To a certain extent, this is true.  After all, Loughner likely would not have been compelled to act in such a manner if he hadn’t been so utterly brainwashed by the corporatist media machine.  But at the same time, if Loughner had not had such ready access to a gun – a Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol in this case – he almost certainly wouldn’t have managed to kill six people and wound a dozen more.

The moral of the story here seems obvious, at least to those who are paying attention:  ignore the corporate media, and restrict gun ownership to those who demonstrate an actual, non-violent need to have one.