December 15, 2012
NEWTOWN AND THE MADNESS OF GUNS
Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker:
After the mass gun murders at Virginia Tech, I wrote about the unfathomable image of cell phones ringing in the pockets of the dead kids, and of the parents trying desperately to reach them. And I said (as did many others), This will go on, if no one stops it, in this manner and to this degree in this country alone—alone among all the industrialized, wealthy, and so-called civilized countries in the world. There would be another, for certain.
Then there were—many more, in fact—and when the latest and worst one happened, in Aurora, I (and many others) said, this time in a tone of despair, that nothing had changed. And I (and many others) predicted that it would happen again, soon. And that once again, the same twisted voices would say, Oh, this had nothing to do with gun laws or the misuse of the Second Amendment or anything except some singular madman, of whom America for some reason seems to have a particularly dense sample.
And now it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died.
More here. And here is a petition to the White House to sign if you are so inclined.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 01:58 PM | Permalink






















Comments
I am sorry if I sound cynical or insensitive. Give it a few weeks and it will be back to business as usual in the US of A.
Posted by: Saleem | Dec 15, 2012 3:20:21 PM
Dude, please don't say that. Please!
Obama doesn't have to worry about re election. I hope he has the fucking balls to do something, even though the President is fairly limited in their ability to, well, just limited in what hey can do in general. It's a slow system by design. Ah fuck it, I am just arguing with myself. You are probably right. And that is definitely a horrible thought.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Dec 15, 2012 4:01:47 PM
Only three members of congress have dared to address the issue as of this afternoon. That doesn't make the prospects for gun control sound very hopeful. Even when one of their own was almost killed in this kind of incident they did nothing regarding gun control.
Posted by: Larry | Dec 15, 2012 5:13:14 PM
"Guns don't kill people; people do."
Yeah right!
Congress is on the payroll of the NRA, which in turn is a shill for gun manufacturers. I don't know if this time things will change and people's frustrations and fears will be addressed by the brain-dead legislators. I am hoping that police chiefs, hospital ER personnel and mayors (the ones who pick up bodies and console the survivors) will descend on Capitol Hill and give the bastards a piece of their collective mind.
Posted by: Ruchira | Dec 15, 2012 11:51:52 PM
If guns don't kill people, and it's people that kill people, then maybe we should ban people.
Posted by: Josef Stern | Dec 16, 2012 12:07:35 AM
Right on Ruchira!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 16, 2012 12:23:15 AM
Well said Ruchira. Yet I fear that, somehow (and I REALLY don't understand how), the others will be sickeningly correct and a week or two's news will see this horror rinsed from the headlines and the disgust will lose its edge and life in the USA will plod inexorably forward, onward to the next great body count... Will it be a new record? Who knows.... But what is much more certain is that nothing will be done. That saddens me greatly.
Why are the intelligent in your homeland so effectively side-lined? Where is the groundswell of civic demand? Surely it is not outnumbered by gun-toting morons who put their pathetic macho desires above the lives of innocent children? Is it?
If so, that's one more major reason I fear for the US's future existence....
Posted by: MattInOz | Dec 16, 2012 1:16:34 AM
"one more major reason I fear for the US's future existence"
Take a deep breath.... exhale slowly.....
Lets not mix up this crime with your muddled political and social fantasies.
Posted by: Sundar | Dec 16, 2012 9:49:59 AM
Thank you Sundar.
Posted by: Mark | Dec 16, 2012 10:34:34 AM
Prof. Jim Jacobs (NYU). Can Gun Control Work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAtOTm8oE9Q
Posted by: Sundar | Dec 16, 2012 10:54:21 AM
We have been taking "deep breaths and exhaling slowly" for many years, hoping that some serious debate would occur in the public square. But every time the issue of thoughtful gun control is swept under the rug. Now it is time to hyperventilate until elected officials take notice. There is more to this phenomenon than we are willing to admit.
I wrote this on Facebook and will copy it here. The time for self reflection and action is now.
Posted by: Ruchira | Dec 16, 2012 1:30:10 PM
Sundar, To vote you need to register, to drive you need a license and register your car, to get credit you need credit check, to get a job you need a background check. If you change address you have to re-register to vote or drive. For medicines you need prescription. You need to pass different driving test for different types of vehicles and intended use. These are not toy guns and they kill people, accidentally as well. So why is it offensive to you or anyone if gun owners must pass tests based on their gun types, demonstrate their need to have it, and register every year.
Secondly in the video link you gave the Professor says "it is not possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals". This is just a tautology. If carrying (unauthorized) guns is not a crime then obviously it could be in the hands of anyone including criminals and if it is a crime, then obviously anyone having it would be a criminal. For every professor against gun control I am sure you can find ten in favor of gun control. Don't you think so or were you just shooting from the hip?
Posted by: Raza Husain | Dec 16, 2012 3:21:05 PM
@saleem
Much as I want to to say "you're wrong". In my heart I feel that you're right. We have gone through this in the past.
It is our corrupt system based on campaign financing -- one of the factors which make our elected representatives beholden to lobbies -- and the lack of moral strength to question the interpretation of 2nd Amendment.
@ruchira
We can hope. Hope for sanity to prevail; hope that those who oppose any restrictions on guns will pause to think.
Posted by: waqnis | Dec 16, 2012 10:48:43 PM
Mark: "thank you Sundar"
Yes, let me echo that, thank you Sundar. For showing what true ignorance and denialism are about.
What "political fantasies" do you speak of? How would you know what my "politics" are? If you think granting innocent children and mainstream civilians the right to live free from the fear of being gunned down during their average weekday is playing 'politics' well, I fear all the more for the future of your country, possessed as it is by this rabidly maniacal minority.
I'm sure the Glock beneath your pillow completes you though.
Posted by: MattInOz | Dec 17, 2012 11:08:37 PM
"possessed as it is by this rabidly maniacal minority"
It's not just about some Marxist fantasy of constraining the power of elites, the democratic consensus needs to change through education.
"Historically, Americans favour stronger gun laws than we have on the books. But in the last decade, public support for stronger gun laws has been declining. Today, support for stronger gun laws is about even with those who oppose changes."
Robert Spitzer
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/recent-support-for-stronger-gun-laws-in-us-on-decline/article6462265/
Or, maybe that can happen through changing perceptions via the media.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/turnbull-targets-murdoch-over-guns-20121217-2bii3.html
Oh wait, Murdoch is a major part of the rabidly maniacal minority....
Posted by: Troy | Dec 18, 2012 7:24:30 AM
Post a comment