This quote is culled verbatim from one of my favorite blogs, Joe.My.God.:
So, how 'bout it, 2nd Amendment disciples? Why is gun violence the one bad thing we're not allowed to discuss without histrionics from the right?
"If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.
"Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. But that’s unacceptable. As others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t 'too soon.' It’s much too late." - Ezra Klein, writing for the Washington Post.
So, how 'bout it, 2nd Amendment disciples? Why is gun violence the one bad thing we're not allowed to discuss without histrionics from the right?
Nice try, but your analogy is flawed. When roads are collapsing across America and a plague is ripping through our communities it would be the ROADS and PLAGUE that are killing people so that would be what we would focus our attention on in order to stop the killing. Notice how neither of these things are crimes. You are operating on the assumption that gun violence is cut from the same cloth, that it is the gun is killing somebody like the road or plague, and forget that there is someone wielding the gun. The gun does not kill people it is the person who is pulling the trigger. If there was a giant that was stomping on the ground and causing the roads to collapse, we would not be trying to do something about the roads themselves but the giant that is causing it to happen, otherwise no matter how many times we repair the roads it will keep happening again. With gun violence we need to regulate the criminals who are committing the crime not the gun it self. When we take new medications off of the market because some of the side effects are killing people, it is the drug that is killing people and that is what needs to be regulated not the person who is taking it as they should and not committing a crime. What you are saying about gun control would only be the answer if the problem was guns blowing up in peoples' hands and injuring or killing them across America, then yes gun control would be the answer because it would be the gun that is doing the killing.
ReplyDeleteYou make a completely false statement by saying that gun rights activists are not proposing that we do anything to stop further tragedies, you are not listening because it conflicts with what YOU THINK should be done, so you ignore them and delude yourself thinking that we aren't saying anything but we are. We say "guns don't kill people, people kill people." And we propose making it easier to lock up mentally unstable people and bolster security in schools.
You seem to even support my argument with what you said about terrorists bombing ports. This is also a crime that is carried out by individuals not the bombs themselves. You didn't say anything about doing something about bomb control but said that we would need more security. That is exactly what gun rights advocates say about gun violence. Arm teachers and more armed security to protect children from mass shootings. More people who are law abiding, responsible citizens carrying firearms for their own protection will increase their own security.
I look forward to your response just as you wanted a response from a gun rights activist.
It's not my analogy, it's Ezra Klein's, but fair enough. There probably isn't really a perfect analogy. That's because guns have basically one purpose: killing or the potential threat to kill things. There aren't a whole lot things you can use as an analogy to that.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, it's important for me to point out that I've never been an anti-gun liberal. I was raised around guns, have fired guns, loaded shotgun shells and bullets in the basement with my step dad. It's never really been my issue. But it is difficult to retain my Switzerland status when I see the utter, unbridled insanity coming from gun advocates in recent days. And, of course the never-ending series of tragedies by people with guns.
I haven't heard much from gun advocates that directly confronts the problem, no. It's all about Hollywood movies, video games, crazy people (who, by the way, there are more of running around loose due to Republican policy makers), and anything, anything, anything but regulation or restrictions on guns or ammunition. All it takes to get a gun advocate to lose his shit is to toe anywhere near "gun control," even in the most preliminary discussion.
Your answer to the problem: more guns will stop other guns. Would you say, more bombs is the answer to other bombs? That was the insanity that fueled the Cold War. Anyway, the same people who are now saying teachers, principals, JANITORS should be armed, are likely the ones all for busting teachers unions, cutting spending, taking away pensions and benefits. Yet we want them to play policeman too? Gonna pay them extra for that?
It's really an odd solution. Let's make schools armed fortresses. Imagine that Sandy Hook, Columbine and the rest had never happened. And out of the blue, Barack Obama issued an executive order that put armed guards in all public schools, and security gates, checkpoints, whatever. The right would absolutely lose their shit and cry, "Police State!"
Sorry for all of that digression. At issue with Ezra Klein's question was not the perfectness of his analogies. It is with the quandry: why are we not allowed to discuss this issue without the gun advocates' side reacting with rage and paranoia?