Watching the video about the Kennedy Assassination reminded me about the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley Jr. (motivated by a erotomanic love for Jodie Foster of all people, deciding the best course of action would be to replicate the scene in Taxi Driver) fired six shots at Reagan before getting forced into submission by agents and nearby citizens.
Reagan was thrown into the limousine, suffering a bullet wound to the armpit. However, Reagan felt fine and wanted to go back to the White House before coughing up blood. The limousine took Reagan to the hospital, where he buckled and suffered a stroke. Agents carried him to the ER and doctors helped stabilize him. When Nancy Reagan came to his bedside, Reagan remarked: "Honey, I forgot to duck."
The impact of this attempt gave way to the Brady Act, named after the agent who was shot by one of the six bullets. See, Hinckley only used a .22, but the fact was that he purchased it for cheap and used "devastator" rounds, designed to explode. Brady's bullet hit him in the head and exploded, causing him to be permanently paralyzed, as well as some minor brain damage. The Brady Act sought to limit the accessibility of arms so that such a tragedy wouldn't happen.
In contrast to the Kennedy assassination, there weren't any major conspiracies about this event. However, this is mostly due to the fact that Hinckley is still alive. In detainment, he confessed that he did it to become closer to Jodie Foster and does not regret his actions.
Very interesting post Shen. I find it quite amazing that this disaster actually had so many positive impacts. Not only did background checks for firearm customers become instituted under the aforementioned Brady Act, but Ronald Reagan also received tremendous sympathy and support when he walked out of the hospital 12 days after the shooting (American Pageant, pg 996). It is interesting to think about what would have happened if that bullet had struck a couple inches higher and killed Reagan. Would the 1980's have seen an economic recovery without his supply side economics?
ReplyDeleteBoth the Kennedy and Reagan incidents bring up very interesting dialogue concerning gun rights in the United States. The alleged shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, purchased the weapon under an assumed name and picked it up at a local post office. Hinckley Jr., using a cheap firearm, fired specialized bullets made for one purpose. These events, coupled with the current gun rights debate, create a startling storyline for the already polarized second amendment fight. Is it now time to reconsider the practicality of the right to bear arms? Does the attempt on Reagan and the death of Kennedy have any relevance in today's context?
ReplyDeleteFascinating post Oliver. As far as the Brady Act goes, I don't think that limiting access to arms would stop these things from happening because anyone crazy enough to enact a stunt like this seems willing enough to go to any extent to obtain firearms. The man's odd obsession with Jodie Foster shows how crazy the assailant was.
ReplyDeleteYou know what is really interesting that I find fascinating is the idea of assassinating someone. Murder is the killing of anyone but assassination is the killing of a prominent figure. So how are they different. Both involve the loss of life and mourning but an assassination is inherently more important. Most people cite the example that murders are more important when they are figures of political or historical importance. For reason that range from the amount of protection they have to there overall signifcance and achievements. In essence an assassination attempt on a prominent figure is heavily regarded as an action of major importance. Basically, if you think about it Reagan's assassination it is easy to understand and analyze why the killer did it. But a regular murder is not analyzed whatsoever. Are there many reasons why or is there fame the only reason why some murders are more analyzed then others?
ReplyDeleteOliver, this post is very interesting, especially due to the context of the recent events of public shootings in the past couple of years. The one that to me is most relevant to the Reagan assasination attempt causing the Brady Act was the shooting in a movie theater in Colorado in 2012. A gunman walked into the theater with a machine gun, killing 12 and wounding 70 during the attack. This incident sparked talk of creating stricter gun laws that would prevent people from having access to machine guns. Although this event did not get anything like the Brady Act passed, it did raise the question: Should the public have access to such powerful and dangerous weapons?
ReplyDeleteI think Hinckley's actions raise questions about the effect of the media on violence in America. Although everyone loves a good action movie, are we helping foster a violent culture with these films? Just interesting that motivation came from wanting to replicate a movie scene.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting. I didn't know that there was an assassination attempt for Reagan. This one also seems to be by a crazy person. I wonder why so many assassinations seem to be for weird reasons like this? You'd think that some of them would be for more political reasons.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find intriguing is that many of the people who used to support Reagan now are adamant arms-rights people. I wonder if their attitudes were the same at the time? Was it the Republicans or the Democrats who more favored limits on gun purchases?
Maya,
ReplyDeleteThose who supported Reagan were naturally Republicans. Republicans are generally more conservative than Democrats. Therefore, they tend to support the ancient (relative to US history) right to bear arms.
Even if gun limits were placed, .22 rounds would be the last to be banned. .22 rounds are among the weakest bullets and are usually used for target shooting and small game.
Furthermore, one simply needs to go to Oakland or Richmond or Compton and the ineffectiveness of gun regulation will be clearly evident. Just like drugs, weapons can be trafficked. It is better in terms of security for someone to buy a gun legally and get a background check than to acquire one outside the sight of the government.
agree that anyone who is crazy enough to assassinate or murder someone will find a way to do it, no matter what. Cities with heavy gun regulations in the United States, such as Chicago, still have high gun homicide rates. The criminals get their guns, like Brandon said, from illegal trafficking. Some countries, such as China, don't have laws like the Second Amendment, so they have heavy anti-gun laws that are actually effective against gun homicides. However, other countries, such as Switzerland, have high gun ownership rates yet have very little violent crime.
ReplyDelete