Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
That isn't an insult. That is actually, part and parcel, what gun advocates say, every time. "Oh, we shouldn't politicize this" or "we shouldn't talk about it now". They say this because they know that their greatest ally is inertia. If they can prevent a movement from gaining steam, they can maintain a status quo that favours them.
So even if accidental, you are still arguing the pro-gun, easy access argument that the NRA itself has made its mantra.
It is also a horribly incorrect argument. Tragedies routinely become rallying calls for change. Lac Megantic forced government and the railways to look at safety. Mine disasters force safety changes. The 2013 flood forced this province to create, alter and improve disaster planning.
The reason these become rallying points is because our society only really functions if we learn from our past mistakes to mitigate or prevent repeats. So what the hell makes gun control and the easy reliance on gun violence in the US a sacred cow that shall not be discussed?
|
That's a more thoughtful response, but not one I necessarily agree with. That type of thinking has also led to invading Iraq, the Patriot Act, Kindergarten teachers being armed, and many other bad decisions.
My personal opinion is just that unless you can get the number of guns here from 300 million to about 100 million, then there probably isn't a lot of point, because the really the only way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to significantly reduce the number of guns.
Implementing laws that make it harder for some people to get guns, or to attempt to say make it harder for mentally ill people to buy guns may make people feel better that they think they made a difference and did something, but in reality, it likely doesn't make anyone all that much safer. Not saying I am against anything like that, just think it is a waste of time, money and political capital.